This section provides for the making available by local authorities of facilities for training disabledpersons for employment suitable to their condition of health and the making of arrangements with employers for placing them in suitable employment. I was referring to the difficulty of the trade unions in relation to this particular matter. I had some slight experience during my period of office and can understand the trade unions' difficulties. I am sure the trade union members and officials will be able to help us more in this regard. I understand their difficulty would be the one to which I referred, that is, the high unemployment rate for able-bodied men who are skilled in certain work, but are unable to find employment. The trade unions are in a dilemma in considering the opening up of these same opportunities of employment to a disabled person.
For the duration of the time in which we have high unemployment figures, the implementation of this section will be a serious problem. There is no doubt at all that the trade unions will play a very important part in making this legislation effective. Naturally unless they are agreeable to facilitate the Minister or the local authorities in allowing different persons to be trained in these crafts and skills, the section cannot be effective.
In Great Britain in recent years this idea has been implemented under the Disabled Persons Act and the Factories Act. Industries were under obligation to take in a certain percentage of disabled persons. Of course, that was operating under conditions of full employment or practically full employment, about 2 per cent. of the insured persons in Great Britain being unemployed compared with our very much higher rate of 12 per cent. to 13 per cent., which made it possible for them to insist on the industries taking in a certain number of disabled persons.
As I said earlier, one of our greatest difficulties is the fact that the State itself, the central authority, has not given a very encouraging lead in the past to local authorities. There is no doubt that in many of the local authority health institutions, which institutions, I certainly hope, are going to increase and multiply as time goes on, it is terribly important that we getit established at this stage that the health authorities can absorb into their employment disabled persons for whom they can find suitable employment. A tremendous number of these disabled persons, particularly in the infectious diseases group, can be absorbed into the fever hospitals and the T.B. institutions as clerical or secretarial staff, in administrative or outdoor work, such as gardening, as telephonists, messengers, attendants, and many other forms of employment in the health institution organisation. These institutions can find employment for many of the people whom they discharge from time to time to the competitive labour market, who because of the fact that they cannot compete in the open labour market, who rapidly fall back into the original disability or illness; all the money that has been spent by the community in making them well is lost and the whole business has to be gone through again.
It is vital that the lead in this matter should be given by the State itself, that State institutions of all kinds should be made to understand clearly that they have authority to absorb suitable discharges into their service and rehabilitate them in that way. Again, of course, it is a matter in which the trade unions will have to be consulted because we will come up against the question, say, in relation to domestic staff, whether the trade unions will allow persons to be absorbed from the institution rather than from the employment exchange; similarly, in regard to gardening, secretarial work, administration, and so on. That is why it is absolutely imperative that an understanding be arrived at with the trade unions at the earliest possible opportunity.
The question of the payment of allowances while training will also arise; in the case of a person who is able to do, say, a two-hour day instead of an eight-hour day, whether the six hours which the disabled person cannot work should be made up in the form of an allowance under the Infectious Diseases Act or under this particular section; whether the person will be paid for the eight-hour day or merely paid for what they can do, the twohours out of a total of an eight-hour day.
The Minister will obviously see the danger of paying for the two hours in so far as in a six-day week the person will get money for only 12 hours which would afford him a very low standard of living. It is of primary importance to decide whether the full rate for the week's work will be paid even though the disabled person may not be able to achieve the same output as an able-bodied person. Again, the trade unions may object to that principle.
This whole question of employment of disabled persons is an exceedingly difficult one and I am glad the Minister is setting up some sort of consultative council because he will most certainly need it. The general direction in which the efforts of the local authorities go, whether it is towards the establishment of city workshops, city settlements or the different methods adopted in other countries, is a matter which could be worked out by such a council in order to advise the Minister, something which would be particularly well suited to our own way of life. It is a question about which most people have a fairly open mind and one which is not easy of solution.
I agree with the Minister on the question of the voluntary organisation which is there at the moment. Whatever voluntary organisations are there should be encouraged to take an interest in this Act in order to help the Minister and the local authorities to the maximum. It is one of the ways in which the voluntary groups can do quite a lot of good work. At the same time the health authorities themselves will have to take a considerable amount of responsibility for organisation.
I hope, with Deputy MacBride, that the Minister will have the power—I feel sure he has the power—to allow various local authorities to co-operate with one another. On the whole, it will be very difficult for a single county to organise the rehabilitation services on its own. It would be much simpler if they could group into different regional areas and provide a central rehabilitation service. I agree with the suggestion implicit in Deputy Corish'samendment that "brother or sister" might be deleted. Unfortunately, the amendment was not moved, but it seems a bit hard that the brother and sister could be considered for the purposes of Section 5.