Sir, - In defending her appointment as chair of the National Disability Authority, Ms Angela Kerins has called on radio for people in the disability movement to concentrate on ability rather than disability. Apart from the obvious implication that no-one with a disability would be competent to do the job, this statement appears to be little more than a soundbite. It is somewhat reminiscent of what parents of children with a disability are always told: "Never mind their lack of potential, sure aren't they lovable anyway?"
People with a disability are sick and tired of being told to stand aside while their betters get on with the job. And that is what this appointment means to a lot of people with disabilities, their parents and advocates - people like me and my daughter, who has a disability, but loads of still untapped potential.
Ms Kerins also talked about the fragmentation in the disability sector. The greatest fragmentation has always been among the service providers. There has been very little co-operation or co-ordination between them; they have always competed for resources at each other's expense; they are not publicly accountable; and they have seldom expressed any interest in allowing people with disabilities or their parents to have any role in policy-making, or even in meaningful consultation. Above all, they decide what services people with disabilities need.
Ms Kerins occupies a senior executive position with a service-providing agency. The NDA has been set up to impose better standards on all such agencies. Among its functions - hopefully - will be the investigation of conditions in agencies and the redressing of individual grievances. There is an obvious and serious potential conflict of interest in putting an executive of the largest and most influential service provider in charge of such a role.
Ms Kerins defended this by referring to the chairpersons of Bord Bia and Cert, both of whom are involved in the industries that those boards serve. But that's the point - Bord Bia and Cert were established to provide services to industry, not to investigate them. Would it be considered acceptable if, say, the chair of the Environmental Protection Agency were the proprietor of a large industry likely to be investigated by the agency?
The whole thrust of the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities was to change the balance of power, to recognise the full and equal citizenship of people with disabilities, and to make people the masters of their own futures.
It was built around the unrecognised potential of people with disabilities - a potential that can only be unleashed by tearing down the barriers that society places in their way. The National Disability Authority is to be the engine that removes the barriers and allows people with disabilities to replace authoritarian and paternalistic (maternalistic?) structures with independence. It will replace charity with rights, and the perception of disability as a medical issue with a more accurate perception - that disability is a social issue.
In short, the NDA is a chance to redress the balance, to give people with disabilities the right to take more control of their own lives, choices, and services. That's why people with disabilities looked forward so much to an NDA which would be seen to be independently chaired, by a person whose disability would be proof of ability. We want disability in control of the engine-room. And that's why we are so angry again. - Yours, etc., Frieda Finlay,
Silchester Park,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.