Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1967

Vol. 227 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill, 1967: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Kitt

When I reported progress on Wednesday last, I had complimented Deputy Seán Dunne on bringing this Bill before the House and on highlighting a problem in which many people are interested, that is, the problem of providing work for those who are disabled whether their infirmity be physical or mental. I said that my interest in this matter is because I am associated with some organisations which deal with these types of persons—the National Organisation for Rehabilitation and the Toghermore Re-ablement and Training Centre in Tuam, County Galway.

The Bill seems to be based broadly on the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts, 1944 and 1958 which were enacted by the British Government. From inquiries I have made, I am of the opinion that this measure has not fully achieved the objects it set out to achieve. We have here the National Organisation for Rehabilitation which was set up some years ago by the Minister for Health as an advisory body on all aspects of rehabilitation. It was set up to co-ordinate the work of voluntary and all other bodies that deal with this work and to bring in schemes for assessment, treatment, training and replacement in useful employment of disabled people. For some years, it has operated a placement service for disabled persons and, also, it has set up a youth advisory service to train disabled young people and to place them in useful employment. There was another institution, the Rehabilitation Institution, which also operated a placement service but recently these two services have been combined as a national rehabilitation service and it is operated by the National Organisation for Rehabilitation.

As a matter of fact, at this point of time there is a seminar going on in Malahide to bring in this unified placement service. If I am not wrong, Malahide is in Deputy Dunne's constituency. These two services are to be combined and operated on behalf of the Minister by the National Organisation for Rehabilitation. This is the organisation which, to my mind, is best fitted to do the work that Deputy Dunne has in mind in this Bill.

I am not too keen to follow slavishly British Acts of Parliament. However, if an Act has worked well in Britain I suppose it would be well for our Parliament to benefit by the experience of the British with it and that we should, if necessary, introduce a similar Act into our legislation.

In the course of the past week or so, I read in the newspapers that Cardinal Heenan is very worried about an Abortion Bill which is being brought before the British House of Commons for the murder of the yet unborn. Cardinal Heenan is further worried that if the Bill becomes law, the next thing may be a Bill to legalise euthanasia, the murder of the aged, the old, the infirm, the mentally and the physically handicapped. If such an Act were brought into operation, there would be no need for a Bill such as this Bill which Deputy Dunne has brought before the House, designed to get work for these classes of people.

I do not favour the aspect of compulsion in this Bill. I was on that point last Wednesday evening when I had to report progress. I believe that the quota system, or compulsion, is not the solution. We have our placement officers in the National Organisation for Rehabilitation and my information is that they have not very much difficulty in getting access to employers. The introduction of a quota system might do more harm than good from the point of view of antagonising the able-bodied and also possibly antagonising the employers.

A figure of three per cent has been mentioned in relation to the quota system—it is in the British Act, too — and that would easily be overcome in most industries at the present moment. I am sure there are many good employers who would have heart cases, chest cases and people coming within a few years of their pension whom, after long and faithful service, they could keep on in employment until they retire on pension. I imagine that they could be included in this register of disabled persons and so defeat the objects of Deputy Dunne's Bill.

I do favour, however, Deputy Dunne's point about reserving a proportion of vacancies in certain occupations such as the Civil Service, public bodies, local authorities and semiState organisations. To my mind, that part could be put into effect. I think Deputy Gibbons made the point that, if the medical test for these positions were modified or done away with, many people would be able to take up useful employment in these bodies. There are various types of people with chest and heart ailments who could do useful work at a desk, and so on, which would not be physically hard on them. We consider ourselves a fairly august body here but if we had to have a medical entrance test for the Dáil and the Seanad it is possible that more than three per cent of us would be found wanting. Therefore, I think the point made by Deputy Dunne and Deputy Gibbons about keeping a proportion of places in these bodies I have mentioned for the disabled should be looked into.

I do not like the idea mooted in the Bill of segregating the disabled because that would mean that their employment would become a matter of either charity or compulsion. The objects of the National Organisation for Rehabilitation are to secure employment for the disabled because of their abilities rather than their disabilities. That should be our motto. Deputy Dunne also referred to this principle. He said that some disabled persons have a high degree of intelligence and ambition and that disabled persons should not be segregated and offered jobs only of the lowest denomination or given employment opportunities of that kind. He suggested that men who were disabled but who rose to great heights would not have attained these heights if they had been segregated or classified as disabled. Our motto should be that these people should be employed on account of their capabilities, which is, as I have said, the object of the National Organisation for Rehabilitation.

In addition to placement and training, great strides have been made recently by this organisation with the help of other bodies. A new factory has been set up recently at Shannon for long term psychiatric cases. These patients will be trained initially in hospitals and when they are capable of work will be given suitable employment in the factory.

In Toghermore, the other one of these establishments with which I am connected, there is a training centre for young boys. They do woodwork and leatherwork. I would invite anybody interested to visit that centre which is maintained almost exclusively by voluntary subscriptions. Recently the centre was reorganised. We have spent a great deal of money on it and we need help. I was glad to hear the Minister for Health saying a few minutes ago that he would come to the aid of these voluntary organisations. From inquiries I have made I find that in the last 12 months, from the Rehabilitation Centre in Galway, 20 persons were placed in useful employment and at Toghermore eight persons. During the year when reorganisation and decorating was taking place the number had to be reduced but we are ready to take the full complement again. These boys are doing wonderful work. I have experience in my own house of the upholstery they can do and the furniture they can make under the guidance of the woodwork instructor there. It is a credit to them and is as good as can be produced in any factory or furniture shop in Ireland.

For that reason, I am of the opinion that the compulsory element in the Bill will not work but that we should work in co-operation with the voluntary organisations and give them every help and assistance, financial and otherwise. The National Organisation for Rehabilitation heretofore has worked with the Department of Health by which it was set up and in close co-operation also with the Department of Industry and Commerce and, of course, the Department of Education. From now on I expect it will work in close co-operation with the Department of Labour. I imagine that the discussions between the organisations and the Department of Labour will be most helpful in planning future development. The Industrial Training Act has been passed recently and I am sure there could be incorporated in that Act the provisions that Deputy Dunne is seeking in this Bill.

I should like to make a special appeal to the youth of the country. I remember in my student days doing a composition in Latin entitled "Mens sana in corpore sano”— a healthy mind in a healthy body — which is a great blessing, indeed. For young people who are healthy in mind and body there is a wonderful field in work of rehabilitation. I would ask them to get interested in this work as an outlet for their energies. Day after day we hear of a young person in the bloom of health and life meeting with an accident and becoming disabled.

I want to compliment the National Organisation for Rehabilitation and the other voluntary bodies concerned for the wonderful work they do in such cases. They train these people. It is a long process to rehabilitate them to be useful citizens again. I want to pay a tribute to the doctors, psychiatrists, nurses, field workers, assessment officers, placement officers, down along the line for the work they are doing. I want to refer to the help they are getting from volunteers throughout the country. As the Minister for Health said recently, these voluntary organisations are growing every day and should receive every encouragement in the noble work they are doing. I trust that the youth of our country will become actively engaged in this type of social work.

Again, I wish to compliment Deputy Dunne. We all have the same idea, to get work for these people and to make them useful citizens. I do not know what the Minister's opinion of the Bill is. I do not know whether Deputy Dunne will succeed in having it done his way or whether it will be done in the way I am advocating. I do not mind as long as the object is attained. That is what we are all interested in and I hope that will be the outcome of the Bill.

My opinion is that the function of providing work for the mentally and physically disabled should be left with the body set up specially for that purpose and that all possible assistance, financial and otherwise, should be given to that body to enable it to fulfil its function.

Mr. Corish

Many tributes have been paid to Deputy Dunne for the initiative he displayed in introducing this measure, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill. All of us can add to those tributes. I should like to make it clear, however, that the Bill has the full support of the Labour Party — not that there was ever any doubt in the mind of anybody in the House who had listened not alone to Deputy Dunne but to other speakers from the Labour Party. Again, let it be stressed that it was on Deputy Dunne's initiative that the Bill was brought before the House.

Most Deputies who have spoken have praised the Bill or, at least, the intention of the Bill. There were, of course, "buts." Of course, there are always objections to measures of this kind when they are first mooted. Similar objections were expressed to the health proposals in 1953 and to the comprehensive scheme for social welfare. We were told that all these things should be done on a voluntary basis and that there was no necessity for State intervention. Even in the broad matter of economic planning, there were objections when the idea was first mooted. Now we have a State health scheme, a State social welfare scheme and, if not in fact, subscription by the Parties in this House to the principle of economic planning.

I do not know how the House will vote on this measure. The Bill has the full support of the Labour Party. Whether Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael will vote for it, we do not know. But I would make this pronouncement: this Bill in some form or other will come some day, and I think pretty soon. The fact that the Bill is being introduced is no reflection on the excellent work done by voluntary organisations, but I think it should be stressed that these organisations are voluntary. Because they are voluntary, they are incomplete and cannot do the full job Deputy Dunne wants to see accomplished by the measure before the House. There are very many people who engage in this work. They are people — I do not say this disrespectfully — who have time on their hands. They are devoted to the service of their fellowmen. But it is not a whole-time occupation with them, nor could it be. We have to think in terms of the disabled person rather than in terms of the people who participate in these voluntary organisations in order to help the disabled.

I do not think we can say that we cater adequately for disabled persons. We do not cater adequately for them as far as financial aid is concerned. In order to obtain a disabled person's maintenance allowance a person has to undergo a very severe means test. The allowances themselves, ranging from 27/6d to 32/6d per week, are very inadequate. A disabled person or a person sick in any way receives sickness benefit of £2 12s 6d. Those who suffer from infectious diseases get an infectious diseases maintenance allowance at the rate of 30/- or £2 per week. Again, these payments are subject to a means test.

It would be a very real improvement if all these allowances were to be increased to such a point that these people could live in some degree of comfort. Even that would not be sufficient, in our view. We believe that these people should be put in a position of not alone participating in society but of contributing to the economy of the country. Deputy Kitt, who appears to know quite a lot about the rehabilitation of disabled persons, talked about a centre in Galway. I am sure there are similar centres throughout the country. These centres are grand so far as occupational therapy is concerned. But what this measure seeks to do is to try to make these people feel as if they were citizens and not just segregated and put into a centre where they would all be doing more or less the same type of work.

As I said, the Bill is intended to make them members of society who also contribute to the economy. That is why there appears to be an element of compulsion. The term "compulsion" can be applied to many measures other than this Bill proposed by Deputy Dunne. All our taxation measures are compulsion. The health scheme, the social welfare scheme—under all these, individuals are compelled to pay money or do something of some nature. Therefore, let me stress that the idea is to try to get these people rehabilitated into industry and into society. I suggest this is very laudable not only for the people themselves but for the country as a whole. It is all very well to have excellent centres in which these people would be employed, but it is not sufficient. They are still regarded as different citizens and should not be made to feel like that.

Deputy Dunne, in an excellent speech, referred to the rehabilitation to a limited extent of blind persons who, over the past ten or 15 years, have made excellent telephonists employed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. This scheme has proved a success. The various organisations who cater for the blind engage also in basketmaking and other types of manual work. But, again, this is in centres. In the case of the blind also, it would be desirable if they were, so to speak, allocated to jobs which they could do while still suffering the loss of sight.

The strict medical examination one has to undergo to become a member of the Civil Service has been mentioned, and to this one could add the local authorities. It seems peculiar that disabled persons who could do an excellent job in the Civil Service or the local authority service should be turned down merely because they have some disablement that would not prevent them from doing a normal day's work. If people have an objection to what they describe as compulsion on employers, surely the Government should take the initiative in this matter by determining that many positions in the Civil Service and local authority service should be reserved for disabled persons?

Deputy Dunne frankly confessed that this Bill is a "pull" from the British legislation. It is not valid criticism to say we should not always copy the British. The Bill seems to me an admirable one to ensure the placement of this type of person. The main criticism of it—there were many complimentary things said about Deputy Dunne—has been that there is no need for it because the voluntary organisations are doing a good job. I do not believe they are capable of doing a 100 per cent job. Therefore, there is need for the Bill. There are many safeguards in it. There is provision for the training of disabled persons on the initiative of the Minister for Labour. Whether or not he is the proper person, we still do not know. There is provision for the application by disabled persons for inclusion in a register. I suppose the dirty job has been left to the Minister for Labour in section 5, in which he is supposed to determine who is a substantial employer. This would indeed be a difficult task but I am sure some formula could be worked out with, as the Bill suggests, consultation between the employers and the trade union movement.

It is not intended, as section 7 says, that every type of employment should be open to the disabled or that there should be a percentage of these employed in all types of employment. The section lays it down clearly that the classes of employment that would be open to disabled persons would be decided by the Minister, again in consultation with the trade unions and the employers. To those who think that this would do away with voluntary organisations, there is the provision in section 10, in which it is suggested that a national advisory council be established. This could be representative of all the voluntary organisations referred to in the course of this debate.

The underlying theme of the Bill has been commended by all sides, but there are many reservations and it appears the Bill has not got the enthusiastic reception we had hoped for. We have still to learn the views of the Minister but no matter what his views are or what the attitude of the two larger Parties may be, this is a very desirable thing socially and economically and I can see that if it does not come in this Dáil session, it will come very soon.

Mr. Ryan

I and most of my Fine Gael colleagues have no difficulty in giving our unanimous support to this Bill. We congratulate Deputy Dunne and his colleagues on introducing it.

One comes to the moment of truth and one sees that we have in our society a voluntary system and the truth is we employ the smallest percentage of disabled and disadvantaged people of any country in Europe which keeps records. We have a deplorably poor record in employing disadvantaged persons. I think there is a common desire in the House to see more employment opportunities for the disabled and the disadvantaged, but the question is: can we get those opportunities through voluntary effort? I doubt it. Perhaps, because we were saved as a nation from the scourage that blighted Europe in two world wars and in which most abled-bodied men were in the army, we have not sufficient consciousness of the disabled in our community because a large number of those who are disabled were disabled from birth and have been cared for and sheltered in the family surroundings. But if we, as a nation, had found that a majority of our able-bodied people were out in wars which were to disfigure them or if we had had to submit to bombing which disfigured thousands of people in our cities and towns, we would appreciate the serious obligation which lay upon us to give employment to those people. Thank God, we were saved from that holocaust which afflicted so many of our European neighbours, but we have in our midst a large number of people who are not getting equality of employment opportunity and that is all that Deputy Dunne and his colleagues seek in this Bill: equality of opportunity, not preference, not special consideration, not appealing for sympathy and not trying to play upon emotion, but simply equality of opportunity.

Who knows whether or not our disabled friends and neighbours and relations would not make better employees than some persons who seem to be in full possession of their faculties? Who can say that a person who has not all his five senses would not make a better employee than a person who appears to have all five? Who is to say that a person who is blind will not make as good an employee as a person who is not blind? There is only one way of finding out and that is to test them. I think the experience of most employers who have taken on disabled persons is that in many cases such persons proved much better and more loyal and efficient workers with better powers of concentration than many of their fellow workers in the same employment.

The quotas which the Minister would fix under this Bill, I assume, would be related to the proportion of disabled persons in our community. I am particularly glad to see it stated in the Bill that the Civil Service, local authorities and semi-State organisations must play their part. I had a number of Dáil questions here today relating to this subject. I asked the Minister for Defence what proportion of applicants for the Army were rejected on medical grounds. The figure I got from the Minister was 10 per cent. This 10 per cent was rejected on medical grounds, the State saying: "We will not take you." Five per cent of those who applied to join the Garda Síochána are rejected on medical grounds, the almighty State saying "We will not take you." Of those who apply for the Civil Service, from every job from pen pusher to runner, one per cent are rejected on medical grounds.

There are those, we know, in statistical circles who like to consider a figure of one per cent as statistically of no significance. This seems to be a repulsive approach in dealing with human beings. Unfortunately, sometimes we meet this in research carried out by medical people—say in epidemiological research—and they say that figures produced are not statistically significant but the statistically insignificant figure can mean absence or presence of human happiness. In our community so long as we have one being who does not get equality of opportunity we are not giving a fair crack of the whip to the disadvantaged and disabled.

To those who have a certain hesitation in supporting the obligatory nature of this Bill I would point out that there are very many practices and acceptances in our society of which nobody doubts the wisdom and which are so common in operation that we cannot conceive their never having existed and which came into being when it was found that the voluntary system did not succeed. It was only when statutory obligation arose that those practices and activities became recognised. We now have compulsory holidays because it was found that leaving employers to decide voluntarily when to give workers holidays just did not work. It had to be made obligatory. Now there is no sane employer who does not appreciate the wisdom of giving workers holidays. We found that the voluntary system for safe systems of work did not operate; we had to introduce factory Acts, again bringing in positive obligatory legislation to ensure that workers were preserved from accident so far as possible. We had to impose obligations on employers to have safe machines, to put guards on machines. I am sure no employer wished to do harm to employees; many conscientious employers were anxious to avoid harm to employees but notwithstanding all the desires not to see harm come to workers it was found that the voluntary system was insufficient and statutory obligations had to be imposed. We had to make regulations under the factory Acts because the voluntary system did not work.

Likewise, in regard to conditions of employment. In all these activities concerning the welfare of human beings, the voluntary system does not work and we must recognise, I think, that in our society the voluntary system does not work because we are not giving equality of opportunity in employment to people who appear to be disadvantaged. I say "appear" because, while they may be physically deprived of some faculty which most people have, so far as work capacity is concerned they are in most cases equal, if not superior, to their apparently more fortunate neighbours.

I have the greatest sympathy with those who feel that the compulsory aspect of the proposals here may jeopardise rather than assist those whom the Bill intends to assist. However, as the present position is so deplorably bad here, it is certainly worth while trying the compulsory proposals we have in this Bill, and if we reach a stage where all the quotas laid down in this Bill are filled, and we find that is not enough, we can then, on top of the obligatory quota system, continue to have voluntary effort or we can increase our quotas. There is nothing in this Bill which can in any way jeopardise the prospects which are available to people through voluntary effort, because we can learn from experience that whatever the law prescribes will certainly be less rather than greater than what society itself feels ought to be done. Therefore this Bill is only trying to drag this country a little forward to reach the relatively low levels which have been achieved in other countries. When we have that done, then it will be time to argue whether or not the next advance should be made through compulsion or through voluntary effort.

I have discussed the principle of this Bill with a number of people who are concerned with rehabilitation, with looking after the deaf and the blind, and I have found overwhelming support for it. All these people, with one exception, have expressed the view that it was a pity compulsion had to be introduced, but they did not see that there was any alternative way of achieving a higher level of employment for the disabled. These people are themselves, for the most part, voluntary workers. They are people who give joyfully of their time and their energy, of their money and of their experience to help their less fortunate neighbours. But all these people who appreciate the value of voluntary effort find that all their efforts are being thwarted because of the poor response they get from prospective employers. These people are loud in their praise of the few good employers who have given employment to the disabled. Most of these people have found that the employer who took one on for a trial period was so delighted with the results that he came back and asked for more people who were disabled. The prospect is that if we increase the opportunities, we shall have more people anxious to exceed the minima which will be set by the Minister under an Act such as is now proposed. Therefore, the sooner we introduce this system the better.

The Bill proposes—and quite rightly —that there should be a register of disabled persons, and the purpose of that ought to be clear. In countries which have not got a register of disabled persons, people have avoided their obligation by taking into their employment a person who has, say, a top of a finger gone or who has some other impairment which is not of any significance. In order to overcome any possibility of avoidance, it is important that we have a register of genuinely disabled persons; otherwise, we shall have that tendency to excuse oneself from the provisions of this Bill by having people who are not impaired or disabled but who are just suffering from some minor cosmetic disadvantage—I think that is the word the medical men use in their reports. It is important that there should be genuine disablement as defined in the first section of the Bill.

The Bill also proposes — and quite rightly—that the Minister may specify higher quotas in some activities than in others. This reminds me of a problem which has existed for many years and which has not received sufficient sympathetic consideration from successive Governments, that is, the competition that some organisations, such as the National League of the Blind, have to face, where there are some State bodies or penal institutions engaging in the manufacture of articles which disabled people are capable of making. This is deplorable. The resources of the imagination of the State ought not to be limited to the making of mailbags, mats and such things in prisons. It is vital that the State would not in any way compete with organisations which are encouraging disabled people to lead useful lives, and that is what has happened in the past.

I have been amazed to see some disabled people working away with their hands or working away at highly complicated and intricate machinery. From watching them, one would get the impression that their disablement was negligible, and one would be at a loss to understand why they were working in sheltered workshops and in voluntary institutions, until one sees those people move away from those machines and just walk or endeavour to walk or move in a wheelchair along the corridors of the workshop or factory, and then one would see their disablement. It would strike wonder in one to see how such a disabled person could, while at the machine or at the work table, produce so much and work with such speed and such accuracy.

We have to overcome, therefore, the natural reluctance of employers to engage a person who, at first sight, appears to be grossly disabled. We must convince employers that people who socially may appear awkward or limited are not necessarily going to be limited when they get to the workbench, when they stand in front of a machine and start working. The contrary is true, because most disabled people will have greater willpower, greater powers of concentration and a more determined approach to work than people who may regard work a bore, work as something which just has to be done in order to get some free-and-easy money for spending during the off hours. The disabled person is a person who finds his or her greatest satisfaction in working. That being so, our employers have nothing to fear under a Bill such as this; rather the contrary, I believe that they and the people who would work with the disabled would find a new inspiration and a new encouragement which would be of very great benefit to the community.

If and when we enter any European community, we shall find ourselves having to employ disabled people whether we want to or not, because most of the countries in the EEC already impose statutory obligations on employers to employ the disabled in a fair proportion. We shall have a similar obligation placed upon us. Now is the time to prepare. But I do not think that is the only reason why we should pass this Bill. Far from it. The valid reason and the most adequate reason for passing the Bill is to give equality of opportunity to the disabled. That is not a mere abstract notion taken from a textbook. That is something that can be a living reality, something which will mean something to the disabled. It means very little to them to hear their rights discussed because more than discussion is called for.

This Bill should have the support of the Government. I know Governments are unwilling to accept Bills promoted by private Members but I think this Bill comes better from a private Member because it is the response to social conscience, the recognition of something which everyone wants to see achieved and which voluntary effort has failed to achieve. There must be some element of compulsion. Compulsion may be a nasty word but all this Bill asks is statutory recognition of a moral obligation. It does no more and no less. We believe it should get the support of the Government.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am anxious to know what the official reaction of the Government is to this Bill. We can speak here until next year and still be in ignorance of what the Government will, in fact, do about it. We do not know whether it is wholly acceptable or whether only certain sections in it are acceptable. The compulsory aspect of it in regard to employers taking on a certain proportion of disabled persons is the kernel of the Bill. The Bill is not put forward to enable speakers to make heartfelt speeches on the plight of the disabled. It is put forward to enable the Government to pass into law a statute making it mandatory on employers to bring into employment those who have been unable up to now to find employment on the free labour market. It is not a rival to the voluntary bodies. In fact, its purpose will be to supplement the work of these bodies and, from that point of view, it is an admission that the law should rightfully supplement the work of voluntary bodies.

There is undoubtedly a real prejudice amongst employers against employing disabled persons. We may as well recognise that fact at the outset. A disabled person will find on the labour market a whole range of prejudices on the part of employers against employing him. It has been pointed out that any fears that may exist on the part of employers have proved to be groundless and an employer may, in fact, be missing out from the point of view of an economic asset if he refuses to employ disabled persons. Because of the prejudice on the part of employers, both State and private enterprise, the disabled person is doubly handicapped. He leads a crippled life in more senses than one and must regard himself as a secondclass citizen. This situation has been ended in other countries and there seems to be no valid reason why this country should not fall into line. We realise that a certain complexity is added to the passing of this Bill because we have never enjoyed a position of even near-full employment. That means the spectre of unemployment is always looming round the corner.

The Bill suggests that a proportion of jobs should be earmarked for the disabled. We seek to put the disabled on the same level as the able-bodied in certain designated employments for which they are suitable. We are seeking to humanise the labour market. Over the past 150 years, the labour movement has sought all the time to humanise employer-worker relationships, making the position less that of the person who has nothing to sell but his labour being completely at the mercy of the man who can hire and fire him. Starting from the 12-hour day and child labour, the labour movement has succeeded in bringing the hours worked down to a civilised level and in the abolition of child labour. We now seek to humanise the position where the disabled are concerned. There is no sentiment behind this Bill. The record is there to show that in other countries the disabled can make a worthwhile contribution to the economy, as worthwhile a contribution as the able-bodied.

It would be useless to put on the Statute Book a Bill containing a number of desirable provisions but with no element of compulsion in it. If the Government give no indication of how they propose to deal with this Bill, then that will presumably be the parting of the ways. If we are to give the disabled the same rights as other citizens enjoy, then there must be some element of compulsion in the Bill. In that compulsion is enshrined consultation between trade unions, workers and the Government. Ultimately the arrangements made will have to be those in conformity with the facts, facts deduced as a result of consultation with bodies who are both realistic and practical in their particular spheres of endeavour.

We say, and it is very important, that it is essential to get an authenticated register of the disabled. At the moment there is only vague speculation about this. I remember in the report of the League of the Blind last year the Secretary, Mr. Paddy Lyons, referred to this difficulty about a uniform definition in the area of the blind, as to who would be declared to be blind. This Bill, would, in fact, initiate an investigation into this area, an investigation which is long overdue. It is an investigation that will not come about unless this Bill is passed into law with this compulsory aspect. We need to get this properly authenticated register of disabled people and we need to co-ordinate more effectively than at the moment the efforts of the different voluntary bodies. Everybody admits that these voluntary bodies have, in the face of indifference on the part of the State, done tremendous work in past years. Everybody recognises the fact that the State can no longer be a mere bystander when it comes to the welfare of our citizens. The establishment of the Department of Labour proved the State's willingness to be more than a bystander in the field of industrial relations. Certainly it should not be the State's wish to stand aside in this matter of legislating for the disabled. We should get in there and see how we can help the different voluntary bodies and say to them: "We are now passing into law certain necessary measures which must be carried out by employers in regard to employment. We propose to humanise the labour market in the following ways; we propose to say that so many places will be reserved for those who have passed certain training requirements. There will be no question of charity, no need to feel grateful because you get these positions, this will merely be your due, which is accepted by the people."

Comparisons between Britain and European countries and this country in regard to the number of disabled people employed and the methods adopted to obtain employment for them make very poor reading. This is in countries which very often do not claim to have as high a standard of Christian morality as we do but which, nevertheless, in their own humdrum pagan fashion appear to be able to look after their unfortunate sections with a great deal more concern than we do. Apparently we have the idea that the disabled should be corralled into institutions or put to particularly unimaginative work, and as long as the private citizen gives his contribution once a year to these institutions or organisations then his conscience is salved for that year. In other countries they have proved that a citizen who is able-bodied, endowed with all his faculties, without any physical or mental shortcomings, does not fulfil his obligation to the disabled merely by dipping his hand into his pocket on a flag day. This Bill proposes to abolish this kind of flag-day charity. Instead it proposes to institute central State measures which will remove this kind of problem. This is not to say that I wish in any way to look down on the forms of help we have given in years past, but I do want to say that we stand accused if this is our only means of providing help for the less fortunate. If this is our only expression of concern for their predicament then we stand accused. Have we ever investigated, for example, the types of disabled people who could be employed in offices or in other forms of employment? Have we examined in the State sector, in the Civil Service, what jobs could easily be undertaken by people with one disability or another? Unless we incorporate a compulsory aspect I do not think we will ever get around to doing that. As long as we leave it as a matter for the voluntary organisations, confined purely to their activities, I do not think there will be any pressure on us to undertake the kind of work which is essential if we are to put this whole question of a programme for the disabled on a worthwhile rational basis.

At this stage we would be extremely grateful to the Minister if he could say how far he can support this Bill, bearing in mind that the kernel of the Bill is this matter of requiring compulsion to give a certain quota of positions in industry and elsewhere to people designated as disabled under the bodies to be set up under this Bill. There would be full consultation with the bodies involved, bodies which have done such worthwhile work so far. No impracticable decisions would be arrived at. They would be realistic decisions and there would be no loss of good employees to the employer. One of the conditions in the Bill is that the type of person we would be sending for employment would be able to do the particular job.

What we seek to do by this proposed legislation is to remove this prejudice which at the moment works very much against disabled people who might be admirable in every respect for the particular job and militates against the possibility of their being accepted into employment. If in this Bill we merely say that there are many desirable features but that we need co-operation, we need the voluntary principle to be continued, and drop this compulsory aspect then we give consent to the continuance of this prejudice which exists. Only the disabled person knows about this prejudice. It may never be referred to in print but it does exist and if we want proof, let us look at the figures for the numbers of disabled people employed in industry and in the State services. The figures are there. The country has a poor record in this matter of voluntarily giving to these citizens a fair share of the nation's work and now it is essential that the State should step in and take on this work, supplement the work of the voluntary bodies. I hope the Minister can now give us some idea of his attitude to the Bill.

Major de Valera

There can be no doubt about one's feelings in regard to a Bill of this nature. Therefore, I follow the line taken by Deputy O'Leary when he said that it is mere sentimentality to enlarge on the deserving nature of these cases. The practical solution is what matters and in this regard there are a number of questions I should like to ask. Let us approach the Bill not so much from the point of view of the principle of it—there everyone is competing to say how concerned he is—but how to get a practical solution of the problem.

The first thing that strikes me is that disablement can be of two sorts. It can be a physical disablement which makes a person suitable for only one type of employment, or it can be what is called a cosmetic disablement. The first category raises specific problems, and the second is very difficult to define. Let us deal with the first. If you are dealing with a person who has some positive disablement, as, for instance, a person who is blind, a person who is deaf, or a person who has lost a limb, it will be impossible simply to legislate and say he must be employed. We have to face the fact that these people, by the physical nature of their disablement, are limited in their employability. Blind persons may be suitable for working in a telephone exchange, and there are certain other crafts for which they may be trained. In a general sense, their employability is extremely limited.

In an industry where audio warnings are necessary, such a person cannot work alongside other workers because he could be a danger to his comrades. In the transport industry, in certain railways and industries of that nature, a person who was deaf could generaliter carry out certain functions efficiently, but he would be a possible danger to other employees. In a case like that, the employees would probably be the first to realise the risk. A person whose limbs were not one hundred per cent efficient would pose precisely the same problems in industry. All of us who have had experience — whether we approach it from the point of view of employer or labourer—know that there have been cases where the workers have actually refused to work with another person because some disability or peculiarity made him a danger to his comrades, so what I am saying is not by any means fantastic or imaginative.

Having made this point, I hasten to add—in case I may be misinterpreted—that I am not out of sympathy with what is in this Bill. I want to secure a realistic solution to the problem. As I said before, I could not agree more with what Deputy O'Leary said about this hysterical exercise of indulging in sentimental speeches about the deserving nature of these cases. I do not want to be taken as being hostile to the Bill. I want to see what results we can get.

With regard to the first category of disabled people, we must appreciate that owing to a dispensation of Providence, if one may put it that way, there are members of the community who have the capacity to be useful members of the community in certain directions, but who have not got the all-round potentialities the average able bodied man or woman has. Therefore the problem becomes complicated. To my mind, you cannot legislate globally and say that a certain percentage shall be employed. I do not want Deputy Dunne to think that I am shooting down everything prematurely. One has to express oneself when one is working out an argument. There is a serious problem in the selection of what is suitable employment and what is not, and what are the proportions to be used.

When we come to the second category of disablement, there are even more difficulties in some cases, because who is to say whether an apparent disability from the point of view of appearance rather than ability is a measure of whether a person is employable? I can see that an effort is made in section 7 and again in section 9, to meet a number of the points I am making, but how can you segregate these people statutorily? It has been stated, and I support it, that a disabled person in proper employment can be extremely efficient. For instance, with a disablement involving immobility, you do not have to be an athlete to be able to work at a desk, provided you can get to the desk. If a person has some disability of the lower limbs which restricts normal movement, that person can still be extremely efficient and indeed there are many instances of such people who are. Let us be careful not to press that case a bit too far.

I should like to know the ratio of such people employed as against the number of people who suffer from that kind of disability. In the State services or in private employment, you will find people in this category who are completely efficient. This is a question I cannot answer but I should like to know the answer. What proportion are these people of the people who can be classified as suffering from the same disability? These people have been in jobs and they have got promotion in their jobs, because of their efficiency and ability to do the job. That seems to point out that there has not been any great barrier in their way, once they have secured the particular employment. So much for that.

In regard to other employment— the more manual type — it is quite clear that physical disability becomes practically complete disability. Nowadays, there is hardly such a thing as an unskilled worker; everybody is required to have some sort of skill or training. Even people working on a building site require certain skill. Anything involving machines requires a good deal of equipment and training. Is there safe room for physically disabled people in those categories? These are all questions one has to ask and one has to find the answers to them before one can actually frame a Bill. Again, that is not to be taken as a criticism that this Bill was put forward, because a start has to be made somewhere, but it seems to me we have not yet enough answers, or perhaps we have not even asked all the questions we should ask about this problem. It may be an unpopular thing to say just at the moment but I think it is a little premature to legislate, unless we are more precise. That would be my attitude to the Bill.

There is another question one has to look at with regard to this. Take the suggestion made, with regard to State employment of a clerical nature, that there should be a compulsory intake of a certain proportion—however that would be arrived at—for, say, clerical work in the Civil Service. Let us ask ourselves a question. First of all, there is competition for that employment by all citizens and, whereas one wants to talk about equal opportunity—and I agree something is necessary to try to afford disabled people equal opportunity—there is another side to the coin, that is, equal opportunity for the persons competing for such a post. If you could achieve it— that applicants could be taken on merit, on their suitability for the job— then I do not think Deputy Dunne would be thinking of introducing a Bill for a purpose such as this.

But let us be specific. You have, say, six applicants for a post and, of those six, two are suffering from a disability, but a disability which does not disable them for the job in question— lameness or something like that. Supposing there were two of the applicants out of the six suffering from that disability: everybody is all for seeing that these two would be treated equally, but might not that pendulum swing too far? Might not the situation be as visualised under this Bill, that those two—if the proportion were such —would be automatically ahead and other candidates, who were perhaps more suitable for the job, had better qualifications and more ability, would be rejected?

When we talk of equality of opportunity, this is a very real problem in dealing with this. There you have, say, people competing for a Civil Service post. The normal thing would be that everyone is interviewed on his or her ability for the job. If you put a compulsory ratio in a particular direction, you defeat the primary purpose and necessarily so. I quite agree that Deputy O'Leary's answer to me probably would be "yes" but what is happening in practice is that an unfortunate, who is equally likely to do the job well, will suffer because the examiners or interviewers will shake their heads and say: "Oh, the poor fellow is lame" and raise an objection. I completely sympathise and agree that that should not be so but how do you achieve that by legislation?

Mr. S. Dunne

This way.

Major de Valera

The effect of legislation might well be that somebody more highly qualified, somebody more deserving of the job, even somebody from a general social point of view who might be in a better position to do it, will be blocked. This, of course, is one of the great difficulties in social legislation of this type. You can get only a kind of average equality. This type of legislation inevitably entails a large number of injustices, whilst putting right an overall injustice. This is the great difficulty of the socialistic approach— it hurts so many individuals although it does so much for the community at large. I put these points for consideration here because I think they are relevant. What one is really looking for here is the mechanics of trying to achieve what has to be done, and the mechanics appear to me to be difficult, but I shall not labour that aspect of it very much longer.

A further point which occurs to me, though, is that we are introducing an element of compulsion here. I am sure it is a problem the Labour Party would have faced in this. You are going to introduce an element of statutory compulsion in regard to the hiring and firing. This Bill would be a start to this. This will present its own difficulties, even with workers working with workers and all the rest. No doubt Deputy James Tully would recognise the type of problem which can arise out of it. But, fundamentally here, we are going to bring in a statutory, mandatory, compulsory element into hiring and firing relations. In other words, we are starting statutorily to regulate employment.

In all we hear about freedom of employment and all that sort of thing —this issue arises remotely out of that; it is something to be adverted to—I am wondering whether, with sympathy for a lot of this approach, there is not a lot more staff work which both the Government and the Labour Party would have to do to investigate the nature of this problem. Admittedly, I have only touched on this problem rather generally because, as I said at the beginning, my intention was to ask questions, not to give answers, because, quite frankly, I do not know the answers. The problem is too involved, too broad, and raises too many issues to blow an answer off the cuff like that, but I do want to ask the questions, as much of the sponsors of the Bill as of the Minister who would have the information.

Debate adjourned.