• Tá Tú Anseo:
• Baile /
• Óráidí

Óráidí

"How Far Towards Equality" (29.11.2005)

Address by Emily O'Reilly at the launch of the NDA Report

Thank you for your introduction and for your invitation to launch this extremely timely and valuable document from the NDA - "How Far Towards Equality". Within a few weeks the Disability Act of 2005 will come into force, imposing as it does significant obligations on Government Departments and on Public Bodies to work proactively towards the improvement of the quality of life in all its myriad aspects as experienced by people with disabilities. I am, as you are, acutely aware of the difficult, challenging road that has led us to this point and I have no doubt that there will be further difficulties and challenges ahead as actual, tangible meaning is given to what are, as of now, just written words on paper.

My own Office will have a role to play, accepting complaints in relation to access issues, whether physical access to buildings or access to general services provided by public bodies. As Ombudsman I am an independent and non-partisan office holder who supervises public administration, which includes the central public service, the public health service, the Local Authorities and An Post. I deal with specific complaints from the public about administrative injustice and maladministration. I have the power to investigate, report upon and make recommendations about individual cases and administrative procedures. I seek solutions to problems by a process of investigation and conciliation. My authority and influence derive from the fact that I am appointed by the President and report to the Oireachtas. In dealing with complaints I seek to gather all information relevant to a complaint, including if necessary, the appropriate files from the body concerned. I ensure that I hear both sides to a dispute. If, in the course of a preliminary examination, I consider the complaint to be justified, I may request the body to review the disputed decision. If warranted, I may initiate an investigation and make an appropriate recommendation for redress. I am conscious at all times of the need to be impartial, objective and to observe the principles of natural justice.

I am conscious that the first few decisions that I make will be scrutinised closely in relation to the standards that public bodies must adopt as they strive to meet their statutory obligations in relation to these matters. In this regard I anticipate problems in the interpretation of the phrases "where practicable", "appropriate" and "would not be justified having regard to the cost of doing so". These are likely to be contested by complainants and by public bodies and will prove problematic for inquiry officers and, indeed, my Office. I also anticipate problems if public bodies choose to adopt a minimalist approach to their obligations and attempt to dismiss aggrieved complainants on the grounds that, in adopting such an approach, they are in compliance with the Code, and, in turn, the relevant provisions of the Act. This would only lead to frustration among aggrieved complainants undermining their credibility in the legislation. I want to assure you that my Office is already working hard to meet that new challenge for us.

When I was invited, some weeks back, to launch this document today, I began, as often happens when one is formulating one's thoughts about an issue, to see events around me through the prism of that issue, in this case, disability. A few days ago, on a bus in town, for example, I noticed a young man in a wheelchair preparing to get off. His disabilities appeared to be quite profound and I was wondering whether or not it would be appropriate to ask him if he needed some assistance. But in a matter of seconds he had manoeuvred his chair to the front door of the bus, the driver had let down the ramp and off he went down Dawson Street. At this point, the woman sitting beside me, who had also watched the young man exit the bus with such apparent ease, commented, "You know, ten years ago he would have been just sitting at home."

Now I don't know whether that would have been the case or not in relation to that young man, and I am also aware, from this document, that there are huge gaps in the provision of accessible public transport but that vignette encapsulated the spirit of what is sought to be done in this country with and for people with disabilities, that is to enable them to live life on as close to par as possible with those people without disabilities; to be able to do something as banal as shopping on a main street or as meaningful and profound as engaging in satisfying, productive, paid employment.

At about the same time, I watched an episode of the RTE documentary series on Our Lady's children's hospital in Crumlin. It featured one story about a little boy, paralysed now from the neck down as a result of meningitis. The little boy is on a ventilator full time but the doctors are now allowing him to live at home provided adequate nursing care is provided. The little boy's parents were initially delighted at the news but several weeks later the child was still in hospital because no nursing care could be found. The mother said, "You know, when you have no problems in your life and things are going fine you think the country is working fine and the Government is doing great, but then something happens and you begin to see the problems and the gaps."

It was a profound observation. People without disabilities or without any connection to someone with a disability rarely if ever see life as lived by those for whom the gaps that that mother talked about impact negatively on their lives every day of the year. There is a failure of the imagination and it is that failure that has cued the lengthy delays in providing those services that would enable people with disabilities to extract as much out of life as those without disabilities. I see this document as a means of not alone kick starting the imagination of the general public and of the administration but of also underscoring the point that equality in this area means an engagement with the DNA of our public life and of our public spaces, going beyond just physical access and moving towards the accessing by those with disabilities of every part of those services and spaces often accessed virtually exclusively by those without disabilities.

The document is to be commended for other reasons as well. It was no easy matter to secure the statistics that the NDA has secured given that there is as yet no, one, catch all database which measures the integration of people with disabilities or even counts the number of people in this country with disabilities. There were ten main information sources used and dozens of minor ones and the authors, understandably look forward to next year's planned National Disability Survey in addition to the 2006 Census.

Nonetheless the statistics produced are stark. Very roughly speaking more than 300,000 people in this country have a disability and when one begins to examine the participation of those people in everything from education to employment, the inequality hits home. At the age of 15, for example, 21% of students with physical, as opposed to intellectual disabilities, have left school compared to 6% of people without disabilities.

In the age group 25-34, 21% of people with disabilities have primary-level education only, compared to 4% of non-disabled people. 11% have a degree compared to 27% of others. The report comments, "Education is a key influence on life chances - on job prospects, on earnings, on the risk of poverty. People with disabilities have fewer education qualifications than non-disabled people in their age group. This leads to a double disadvantage, where economic prospects are reduced both by disability status and by lower levels of education.

"The finding that people with disabilities have lower levels of education than others reflects two separate processes. Over the generations, young people with disabilities have not progressed as far in education as non disabled people. Secondly, people with lower levels of education are more vulnerable to chronic illness or disability, in line with findings that poor people experience worse health outcomes."

On the employment front, 26% of people with disabilities of working age have a job compared with 70% of others.

40% of men with disabilities aged 35-44 are in work, compared to 89% of other men of that age. Again the report comments, "While employment rates rise with education, there remains a disability penalty - the employment rates of both men and women remain below those of others with similar qualifications in their peer age group. For example, the employment rate of graduates aged 25-34 is 24 percentage points lower than that of non-disabled graduates of the same age. So although graduates with disabilities have the highest employment rates of all disabled people, these rates are still significantly lower than their non-disabled counterparts."

Other statistics show that people with disabilities are twice as likely to be at risk of poverty, more likely to experience poor health, less likely to live in a private household, more likely to live with their parents into adulthood, less likely to marry and more likely to be separated or divorced. In other words, on virtually every quality of life indicator, people with disabilities came out far worse than others. Many of us might assume, for example, that even if public transport lets them down, that people with disabilities, if they can afford it, can still get to where they need to go by taxi. Yet as recently as 2003, just 10% of the taxi fleet was wheelchair accessible despite more than 8,000 extra taxis coming on stream following deregulation.

Consider other observations from the report. On poverty, it states, "People with disabilities are about twice as likely as non-disabled people to go without basics, such as doing without adequate home heating, proper meals or adequate winter clothes for lack of money, or to be getting into debt on day to day living expenses. The fact that there are additional costs of living facing many people with disabilities may increase the likelihood of people having to go without other basic living items. It is those who are most restricted in their daily lives, who are most likely to go without basics for lack of money."

On family and personal life the report states, a relatively high proportion of people with disabilities are single, separated or widowed. One in five people with disabilities lives alone, compared to 6% of others and for both groups the proportion living alone rises steadily with age. People with disabilities are less likely to marry than others, and are more likely to separate or divorce. By late middle age, people with disabilities are twice as likely never to have married, and fifty per cent more likely to have separated or divorced."

Some of those issues will, of course, be more difficult to remedy than others but many are capable of being resolved with will, commitment and adequate resources. While many of us have no doubt given thought in our lives to the physical reality of disability it is rare that the social, emotional, educational and professional fallout of disability has come in for wider consideration and I commend the authors of this report for focusing on our minds on these areas.

This document, therefore provides a benchmark as the Disability Act of 2005 comes into force. Its success or failure will be measured in the years ahead by consideration of this and of next year's report. This report highlights the inequality very starkly and is a very valuable measuring tool because of that. I am pleased and privileged to launch it and I look forward, along with my staff, to playing our role under the new Act in resolving complaints from those with disabilities, in a fair and objective manner.

Back to contents