Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1967

Vol. 231 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. Moore

When we discussed this matter a few months ago, we on this side of the House said that we appreciated the sentiments which motivated the Mover of the Bill. I am sure every Deputy realises the leeway we have to make up before we will have what we could describe as a good, comprehensive scheme for the training of handicapped people. However, if we examine the Bill we will see that it appears to be superfluous in regard to some of its provisions. We are providing training facilities and while they may not be as extensive as we would wish, nevertheless more than a start has been made. I want to mention some of the institutions which are providing training facilities for handicapped children and for adults. Most Deputies give some help to these various institutions in their spare time. One which I help, in a very small way, is the Polio Fellowship. This organisation has done remarkable work in the past 20 years and it is perhaps an organisation which has the brightest future because the incidence of poliomyelitis is dying out, thanks to the introduction of drugs and the general rise in our health standards. In County Dublin this voluntary organisation has provided a marvellous training centre to which young people from all over the country are brought to be trained, to return later to their home towns to play an important part in the community.

I should like to disagree with the mover of the Bill in regard to section 5 which would compel employers to take on a quota of disabled people. This would be almost impossible to implement. Deputy Dunne and myself, and other Deputies, who have had some experience of industrial life know that very often if a man or woman has been out of work through illness and wants to return, the doctor representing the employer, or the company, and the doctor representing the patient often disagree in regard to whether the person is fit to return to work. How then, could you ensure that a disabled person was certified as being fit for a certain job, unless there was an absolute shortage of labour and employers wanted to take him on? The kernel of the problem is that no handicapped person wants to be given a job through charity. Handicapped people want to get jobs because they are able to do them. They want to go into jobs on their ability to give the employer a return, whether the employer is a private one or a State organisation. They do not want to be given jobs through a kind of widespread public pity. This is a weak section of the Bill, even though I know from the mover's point of view it is most important.

The Bill suggests that consultations should take place between the Minister, the trade unions and the employers. Very often if you try to introduce a disabled person into a certain trade you will get a reaction from the unions and on occasion you would say rightly so, because their members would be affected. It could be that the employers would say: "If I am to remain competent and to stay in business I will have to have people who have ability." Here, I might stress the need for training people. If I were in a position to do so, I would subsidise institutions like the Polio Fellowship, the Remedial Clinic, the Rehabilitation Institution and various religious institutions like the Merrion School for the Blind and the Institute for the Deaf and Dumb. These are the people who are training the handicapped to enable them to take their place in the community. Anybody who does any work among handicapped people will realise that the last thing they want is pity, but what they do want is help and training. It would destroy the confidence of the handicapped person if that person were placed in a job simply because a Government Minister, with the help of the employers and the trade unions, had decided that that person should be placed in employment because of his or her disability.

This country, like most countries, lacks a lot of things but one thing it does not lack is its tremendous desire to help the less well off sections of the community. The tremendous amount of money raised every year for voluntary organisations, backed in a lot of cases by Government help, has given us the framework for the training of people who have not got their full faculties. In so far as blind people are concerned there are new developments every year which will enable these people to play their full part in the community. The Government should provide up-to-date training equipment for handicapped people to ensure that no person will be denied the right to full training because his private means does not allow him to partake of them. We could help tremendously in this way and I feel this would be the right approach.

By his action in bringing this Bill before the House, Deputy Dunne has pinpointed the desire of many people to do more than we are doing for disabled people. A tremendous amount more requires to be done. This State was never actually engaged in a world war but continental countries who have been engaged in world wars have had to improve their training facilities because of the vast numbers maimed in wars. No country can afford to ignore its handicapped people, even from an economic point of view. From a humanitarian point of view nobody inside or outside this House wants to ignore them. They have a great part to play in the community and it is up to the Dáil to provide facilities for them. I do not disagree with Deputy Dunne on this matter but I feel that section 5 could not be operated. I do not think that any Minister with the best will in the world could force employers to take on people in that way. I also say that the people whom Deputy Dunne has in mind would be the last people to train people to go into factories or offices and they feel that they are competent, then that alone would help their general health and it would make them feel that they are wanted. All handicapped people want to feel that they are wanted as members of the community but they do not want to be regarded as objects of pity. I would support any measure which would provide more money for the institutions I mentioned to be used for extensions and better facilities. But we should not try to place anyone in employment out of a sense of pity.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If there is one subject on which the time of this House should be expended, it is the improvement of conditions for disabled persons. Deputy Dunne's Bill has served the useful purpose of focussing attention on a very important national problem. I have been associated for a number of years past with a charitable organisation which plays an important part in the rehabilitation of disabled persons. It is only right to avail of this opportunity to express appreciation of the support, goodwill and sympathy of the general public in the matter of doing something practical for the disabled.

There are many forms of disablement. There is disablement from birth. God in His goodness sees fit to give many of us the use of our limbs; to others that great gift has been denied. What an extraordinary experience and handicap it must be for a physically healthy person to meet with a serious accident and to find he no longer has the use of his limbs or has the misfortune of losing the great gift of eyesight. We should carry out in every county a survey of the number of disabled persons there, those who through physical disablement cannot provide for themselves. Comment should be made on their home environment and living conditions. Training and rehabilitation should be made available to them to enable them, to the fullest limit of their physical resources, to obtain an independent livelihood.

We have a responsibility in this country to all our citizens. We must have a special responsibility towards the poor. But we must have a very great responsibility, indeed, towards the disabled. Disabled persons, because of their disability, may be suffering a certain psychological effect, something which usually goes with being disabled. They may feel they cannot take their place in the community like the rest of us. A serious effort should be made to break down that feeling and make it known to them, by example and word, that there is a place for them in the community, that they can take their place in whatever sphere of activity they are trained for, and that in that training they will have behind them the full resources of the Government and the local authorities.

It is embarrassing to find so many charitable organisations such as the Rehabilitation Institution and the Polio Fellowship, all appealing to the generosity of the public to help provide a standard of living and a place in the community for disabled persons. Tributes have already been paid to such organisations. There can be no more wonderful work. But there is a bounden obligation on the State to provide for those who are disabled through no fault of their own. We cannot close our eyes to our responsibility for training them and, when they are trained, to our responsibility to find suitable employment for them. There must be many lines in administration today, office work and certain types of factory work, in which disabled persons could fill a place as well as those with all their faculties.

Disabled persons must have an inner feeling of hardness against the outside world. Why? Because they are so often helped as an object of charity. This must have an inner effect on them, making them feel they have lost their independence, have not confidence in themselves and have not sufficient confidence to take their place with those of their fellow citizens blessed with all their faculties. Local authorities should be empowered to provide to the limit of their resources for the training and, if possible, the employment of disabled persons.

It is extraordinary how you seldom meet a disabled person in bad form. My experience, and the experience of many, particularly the medical profession, is that you always find a disabled person to be of a most cheerful and happy disposition. They have accepted their disablement. In cases where they have been disabled from birth they have not had the experience of the full use of their limbs. Nevertheless, the happiness and cheerful disposition of most, if not all, disabled persons is astonishing.

There is no more charitable work which could be undertaken than to assist the State in the formulation of a scheme whereby there would be the fullest measure of support and co-operation between local authorities, charitable organisations and the Department of State that will mainly be responsible for providing an Estimate in this House and seeing to it that the disabled people cannot and will not be described as our forgotten citizens. Surely there must be some responsibility on the State to provide suitable training centres for these people and to finance these training centres completely from State funds.

It is amazing to see the number of disabled persons who, when trained in any line of trade, as we have seen from the efforts of the Rehabilitation Institute, can produce an excellent standard of work, and, above all, the change that it has brought about in their mentality. They feel independent. They feel they can take their place in the community like other citizens, and their disablement vanishes into the background. There is no amount of money that could bring that great ease and peace of mind to those who are so unfortunate as to be disabled.

I would ask the Government to give serious thought to the opinions expressed by Deputies and also to the contents of this Bill, bearing in mind that all Parties in this House have a moral and a Christian obligation in this matter. However, the main responsibility rests with the Government. They can take action, whereas the Opposition can only focus attention on the problem. We want the Government to take action to ensure that there will be suitable and ample provision for the training of disabled persons, and that employment and full maintenance will be provided for them to enable them to enjoy a new life, a high degree of independence and a high standard of living.

A special tribute should be paid to the many firms and business organisations throughout the country who have taken disabled persons into their employment. I hope and trust that before very long suitable legislation will be enacted which will enable proper training facilities to be set up and, through the Department of Health, suitable employment to be provided, thus making it possible for those of our citizens who are disabled and who are deprived of the great blessings which we all enjoy to take their place in the community as independent citizens able to earn their own livelihoods.

Minister for Labour (Dr. Hillery)

It is obvious that all members of the House who have spoken here are well-intentioned towards the problem of the disabled person. It is obvious, too, listening to the last speaker especially, that Deputies have only this way of giving expression to their good intentions and desires for the disabled, either by supporting a law or exhorting the Government of the day to support financially organisations which help the disabled to find employment.

The question which has been put by Deputy Dunne is whether we should legislate for this problem. This question must be considered by any responsible person dealing with the problem of disabled people or indeed in dealing with other problems. Some people think legislation solves every problem. There are areas where the making of a law and its enforcement are reasonably straightforward and easy, for example, in regard to having a lamp on your bicycle or not selling intoxicating liquor outside of certain hours. There are other examples—and I am very familiar with them—where the co-operation of the people affected is required for the working of the law. Indeed, it could be said in certain areas of our social activities that if the law is not acceptable to those affected by it, then the law will not be effective. Again, there are areas of social activity where the objectives which we desire can be achieved by the promotion of voluntary co-operation and where, indeed, the making of laws would deflect many people from their good intentions and cause them to seek to find ways around the laws. I think this is one of the areas where, if we make laws, we may work to the disadvantage of the people we have set out to help.

The Bill was presented to us I believe because of this feeling on the part of almost every Deputy that he wants to do something to help disabled people. Recognising this, I think Deputy Dunne was clever. He said: "If you want to help the disabled, if you want to show the sincerity of your intentions, you can only do so by voting for this Bill." I yield to no one in my concern for the training and placement of disabled people. I believe that the task should be tackled by voluntary effort, not by compulsion as proposed by Deputy Dunne.

It is a long time since he introduced the Second Stage of the Bill. He quoted from the Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of the International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled regarding the difficulties that are experienced in placing the disabled in a stagnant economy, or during times of depression where there is heavy unemployment. I should like to quote from the same source about placements in such conditions. I quote:

Special attention should be given to the selection of really suitable disabled persons for any work that is available on the basis of their ability to compete equally with qualified able-bodied applicants and care should be taken to see that their chances of being considered are equal. Vocational training ... should be concentrated on the production of very highly skilled workers for whom jobs might exist ... and who, in any event, would have better chances because of their level of skill....

Sometimes too, trade unions do not exert the positive influence they might.... Enlightened trade unions can, however, play a leading part in helping with resettlement of the disabled, especially by demonstrating their general support for it to employers.

This Bill is, as stated by its sponsors, based on the British Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. Three of the main provisions of that Act are the establishment of a register of the disabled, a compulsory quota system for the employment of the disabled and the designation of employments which should be confined to the disabled. It must be remembered that the main purpose of the British Act was to cater for people disabled as a result of the war. I think it is important to remember—and this was mentioned by Deputy Kitt, I think—that the disabled persons register in Britain includes many people with heart, stomach and lung complaints whom the ordinary person would not immediately include among the disabled at all.

Mr. S. Dunne

I would not agree with that. Surely a person suffering from a heart complaint is seriously disabled.

Dr. Hillery

Ordinary people speaking about disablement would not include disablement from illnesses with which people could usually carry on their business. Because of the inclusion in the register under the British Act of what we regard as illnesses, employers can, if they want to, fill their quota from members of their existing staffs who are suffering from heart, stomach and lung complaints and say that they have already complied with their quotas. That is a way of getting around the law.

A publication by the British Information Service on "Rehabilitation and care of the disabled in Britain" reports that the "Ministry of Labour enquiries have shown that the successful placement of the disabled is mainly due to the efforts of Disablement Resettlement Officers and to the helpful attitude of employers". The general view of these resettlement officers is that the quota system is unnecessary in conditions of full employment and is unenforceable when the supply of labour exceeds the demand or the number of jobs available.

The power to designate employment specifically for disabled persons has been exercised in Britain in respect of two employments, car park attendants and passenger electrical elevator or lift attendants. The British Committee of Inquiry on the Rehabilitation, Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons, 1956 (Cmd. 9883) recommended that there should be no extension of designated employments. The fact that only two employments have been designated shows that those with experience regard this provision of designated employment as of very limited value in promoting the employment of disabled persons. This Committee also concluded that it was impossible despite the elaborate British health services to get a full register of the disabled under the British Act. I think Deputies will agree that the experience in Britain suggests that we should look very carefully at this type of legislation before we consider its introduction here.

Power to provide for the training of disabled persons is already vested in the Minister for Health by section 50 of the Health Act, 1953. Health authorities are required to make provision for the training of disabled persons and their placement in employment and they may do this by co-operating among themselves or with other bodies. In practice, health authorities make provision for training in two ways: (1) a number of mental hospitals have established work shops where patients are employed, some by way of occupational therapy, others by way of training with a view to their eventual return to normal employment. (2) health authorities co-operate with voluntary bodies which provide assessment and training for disabled persons, the health authorities paying training allowances and lodging allowances where trainees are required to move from their own homes. The courses provided by vocational schools are frequently used for the training of suitable disabled persons.

The National Organisation for Rehabilitation was formed by the Minister for Health as an advisory body on all aspects of rehabilitation, to co-ordinate the work of voluntary and other bodies and to initiate schemes for the assessment, treatment, training and placement of disabled persons.

The National Organisation for Rehabilitation operates a Placement Service for disabled persons and a Youth Advisory Service to guide the training of disabled young persons and to place them in employment. This service was re-organised in March, 1967, and took over placement officers formerly employed by the Rehabilitation Institution. This has resulted in a co-ordinated placement service covering the whole country for the disabled, with the exception of the blind. The National Council for the Blind, which is a voluntary body, is involved in the training and placement of the blind. The number placed in employment by the placement officers of the National Organisation for Rehabilitation in the first six months of operation of the re-organised service was 282.

One of the main bodies in the field of training for the disabled is the Rehabilitation Institution which has training centres in Dublin, Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Longford. This institution and other voluntary bodies provide in all 443 places for trainees and the National Organisation for Rehabilitation has put 154 disabled persons into training so far this year. At a recent date, however, there were no fewer than 113 vacancies for trainees unfilled mostly in the garment making and domestic economy centres. There are waiting lists for entry into some of the other centres. These figures do not include the blind who are provided for separately by the National Council for the Blind and the Department of Social Welfare. The Board for the Employment of the Blind gives constant employment to 70 or 75 workers. The only training it provides is on-the-job training. The Department of Social Welfare in co-operation with the Council runs training courses for blind telephonists in Dublin. Portion of the training is done in the employment exchanges.

With regard to the proposal in the Bill for the establishment and maintenance of a register of disabled persons, health authorities have power to appoint placement officers to look after the placement of disabled persons or to co-operate with other bodies providing such a service. The National Organisation for Rehabilitation undertakes placement work for voluntary bodies and others, including health authorities. In time this service, together with the service for the blind, should have a complete register of disabled workers who are able and willing to take up employment. The Employment Service of my Department co-operates with these specialised agencies in the placement of disabled persons.

As I have already stated, I expect better results from voluntary methods and, therefore, prefer them to compulsion in so far as seeking to secure employment for disabled persons is concerned. This is the type of thing where I think that compulsion would not be in the best interests of the disabled. It would probably alienate the goodwill of employers and, judging by experience in Britain, it would be of doubtful value anyway in securing expanded employment opportunities for the disabled. I feel that for a very doubtful value we would be taking the risk of alienating the goodwill which is already obviously doing so much good and which can be made to do more. I think that the successful placing of disabled people should be achieved by training them to the full extent of their abilities rather than compelling employers to give them work because of their disabilities. I would like to quote from a letter I have received from the National Council for the Blind:

We must secure employment for our blind people not because they are blind and not because of legislation, but rather because, in spite of their handicap, they are suitable for and capable of open competitive employment. If as a result of legislation or trade union pressure, numbers of unsuitable blind people are forced in through doors of offices and factories, the consequence would surely be tragic. This might equally apply to any group of handicapped people.

Contrary to statements continually being made, only a very small number of our blind people are capable of open employment, and we feel that their placement can best be secured by having each placement made a success, thereby convincing an employer that a blind worker can be a productive and useful employee.

Mr. S. Dunne

Can the Minister say who wrote that letter?

Dr. Hillery

That is a letter to me from the National Council for the Blind. I suppose I should tell the Deputy that I have been seeking opinions personally and through the officers of my Department because this is a very serious Bill.

Mr. S. Dunne

The National Council for the Blind. It sounds like an organisation——

Dr. Hillery

It is an organisation.

Mr. S. Dunne

I know it is but let me finish what I was going to say.

Dr. Hillery

I could nearly say the same myself.

Mr. S. Dunne

It sounds like an organisation which is heavily loaded in favour of the considerations which might occur to employers. It is very representative of employers? I am not saying there is anything wrong.

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy is taking the line that the employers are against this.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am not.

Mr. James Tully

Who is Chairman of that organisation?

Dr. Hillery

This is not employers against workers.

Mr. James Tully

Who is Chairman of the organisation?

Mr. S. Dunne

It deals with employers' potential difficulties in the matter.

Dr. Hillery

No. If you alienate the goodwill of people and have them trying to get around the law rather than thinking how to help you are going to lose rather than gain.

Mr. James Tully

Did the blind people's trade union write to the Minister?

Dr. Hillery

Yes, I met them too and we had a very good discussion.

Mr. James Tully

And they had a different view entirely?

Dr. Hillery

They felt honestly that they would like some form of pressure, if you like, on employers to employ more but I would like them to be here if I were quoting them. I think if we had a discussion, all of us together, they would agree that you would only legislate if you had to. I shall get back to what I was saying.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am not trying to put the Minister off his stroke but would he mind telling me who the Secretary and Chairman of the National Council for the Blind are?

Dr. Hillery

I do not know that it would be fair because you might say something about them. They are people doing good work.

Mr. S. Dunne

I might say something about them?

Dr. Hillery

This House is privileged in many ways and we are dealing with a serious problem. I would not like anybody to have a go at people who are trying hard.

Mr. S. Dunne

I do not do that sort of thing.

Dr. Hillery

I know the Deputy does not. While I quote these people, the decision is my own.

Mr. James Tully

But the Minister, having quoted those people as against the others, did in fact, hold them up to public criticism.

Dr. Hillery

No, if the Deputies like, I shall meet the trade union of the blind with the Deputies and we can discuss it, but I think they would come round to the idea that if we find after adequate experience that it does not work we can then consider legislation. I do not think they would press for legislation if we can do it any other way. However, if the Deputies like I will meet them and the union and we can talk about it together. I do not like quoting people when they are not here. They might totally disagree with what I say.

Mr. James Tully

I think I know them and I am very interested to hear their names if they are the same people.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to conclude his speech.

Dr. Hillery

If you like we will meet the trade union concerned. I will be there and we will discuss this again.

Mr. S. Dunne

Certainly, we will make those arrangements.

Dr. Hillery

I do not want to shift the responsibility of my decision on to any other group of people. When I quote groups I quote them, as I have quoted the experience in Britain. There are people who have been dealing with this problem and have experience of it. I might add that the reason I did not speak in the debate before the Summer Recess was to give me time to enter personally into discussions with a variety of people and hear their views.

Adequate assessment and training of the disabled and an efficient placement service are the best means of helping disabled persons to find suitable jobs. Consultations with the National Organisation for Rehabilitation and the principal voluntary bodies confirm this view; these bodies are opposed to the principle of compulsion and they feel, to my mind quite rightly, that the introduction of compulsion would be likely to endanger the present fruitful relations which they have with employers. Compulsion is of course justified in certain special conditions such as, for instance, those calling for the urgent relief of war disabled after a war. If, after we have done our best in assessing, training and with a well-developed placement service we find that it is not satisfactory then we should have a look at this idea of compulsion again.

I was in Norway recently studying training centres and other aspects of their labour activities, and I had the opportunity of studying the arrangements there for the training and placement of disabled workers. I discussed them with the Minister and the people concerned, and I also saw the workers. I found that there, too, the philosophy of compulsion has been rejected in favour of voluntary arrangements. I might add that they are highly successful, so before we reject the voluntary system, we must try it out to the full and give it more help. Voluntary organisations can be very successful. Deputy Treacy admitted—I am quoting him—that "many employers have realised the need and have engaged a number of these incapacitated people and put them to productive work. Many of these employers pay glowing tributes to the work of these persons when properly trained and put to suitable occupations. They can be very effective and cannot be regarded as a burden on the employers concerned". I fully agree with that. It must be quite a time since I agreed with him.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is coming on.

Dr. Hillery

Those are in fact the main arguments against a Bill of this kind. Adequate training and careful placement are the measures necessary to satisfy employers and to enable the disabled to lead contented and useful lives. Deputy Flanagan was on to it when he said that these people must not be selected for employment merely because they are disabled. They can be trained and so placed that they can hold their own with able-bodied persons. Deputy Flanagan made a very valid point there.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is a long time since you agreed with Deputy Flanagan.

Dr. Hillery

Does the Deputy disagree with what he said?

Mr. S. Dunne

I will deal with that in a few moments.

Dr. Hillery

The Bill also proposes that certain classes of employment should be designated as specially suitable opportunities for the employment of disabled persons. This, in effect, means that certain classes of employment should be reserved for disabled persons. As I said, in Britain where such power exists and has existed for 20 years, only two types of employment in fact have been designated for the disabled—employment as lift attendants and employment as car park attendants. Even though this question has been considered again in Britain, the number of reserved employments has not been extended. This, I think, shows clearly the very limited value of having powers to designate certain employments for disabled persons.

We consulted the National Organisation for Rehabilitation on this point, too, and they do not recommend at present that any particular employments should be designated for disabled persons. A committee which I set up last May has been examining the possibility of improving employment opportunities for the disabled in the central and local government services and in State-sponsored bodies. The committee comprises representatives of government Departments, Dr. Tom Gregg, Medical Director of the National Organisation for Rehabilitation, Dr. Norman Moore, Medical Director, St. Patrick's Hospital, Dublin, and Colonel Adams, Honorary Secretary, National Association for the Mentally Handicapped. The committee also had the benefit of the advice of Dr. Ivor Browne, St. Brendan's Hospital and of the Chief Medical Officer of the Civil Service. I received an interim report from them and this is being examined in the Department of Labour at present.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister said it was set up in May?

Dr. Hillery

I can assure the Deputy I have gone very thoroughly into this.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am glad to see you took some steps as a result of this Bill. Those are very good and able men.

Dr. Hillery

As I said, I have received an interim report. The question is still being studied by these people. They have furnished some information which would seem to answer some of the questions raised by Deputies in the course of the debate on this Bill before the Recess.

It is not true, for example, to say that the present medical examination for entry into established posts in the Civil Service precludes all disabled persons. Apart from such an obvious grade as blind telephonist, which was specially created to cater for suitable blind persons, the medical examination permits the appointment of a disabled person whose disability is such that it would not interfere with the performance of the duties of the post which he is seeking and who has the normal expectancy of life. I suppose it would be obvious to Deputies that a person with a bad physical disablement could be accepted for a clerical post, a desk post, but that he might be totally unsuitable for a post which required a great deal of travelling. The reference to the ten per cent of candidates for the Garda Síochána and the Army who are rejected on medical grounds fails to take account of the duties required of members of both of those bodies.

Mr. James Tully

That was Deputy de Valera's point.

Dr. Hillery

I forget the point.

Mr. James Tully

It was Deputy de Valera's point.

Mr. S. Dunne

It would be like a point he would make.

Dr. Hillery

Persons who are disabled would not be fit for such posts.

Mr. S. Dunne

He suggested the Army or the Garda. It was Deputy de Valera's point. Who else would think of that?

Dr. Hillery

It may be that the point was made on the basis of some other reasoning, but if it was made as an argument in favour of having people accepted, I would point out that people have to be able to do the work for which they are appointed.

Mr. S. Dunne

He was probably explaining why those people could not be accepted in the Army and the Guards.

Dr. Hillery

It is too far away to remember the context in which the point was made. There are not any reliable figures available here of the number of disabled persons or, much more important, of the number of disabled who would be able, with or without special training, to take up ordinary wage-earning employment. As I have already mentioned, the placement service operated by the National Organisation for Rehabilitation should in time have a fairly complete register of disabled persons who are willing and able to take up employment.

Reference was made to a figure of 30,000 disabled persons but even if this figure is a fair approximation of the number, a very high proportion of these would, by reason of their disabilities, be capable only at best of sheltered employment. For example, of the estimated 20,500 mentally handicapped, only 2,000, or one-tenth, are likely to be capable of open employment even after training. As far as the training for disabled people is concerned, I have already referred to the fact that on average, 20 per cent of the places in existing training centres are unfilled.

I think it was Deputy Corish who referred to training centres and sheltered workshops as providing occupational therapy only. The training centres are designed primarily to train disabled workers to take up open employment. Sheltered workshops, in addition to providing work for disabled workers who would otherwise be classed as unemployable, also serve in many cases as training centres and as a means of re-activation in the final stages of rehabilitation. In regard to sheltered employment, as envisaged in section 9 of Deputy Dunne's Bill, I am discussing with the Minister for Health, Deputy S. Flanagan, what steps can be taken to make more sheltered employment available and what State assistance can be given to enable this to be done. In particular, the Committee to which I have already referred are considering to what extent central and local government authorities and State-sponsored bodies might provide a level of indirect employment for disabled persons either by placing a proportion of their contracts with sheltered workshops or otherwise buying goods or articles from them.

As I said a few times tonight, I am convinced that the successful placement of disabled persons lies in proper training. As the House knows, the Industrial Training Act gives An Chomhairle Oiliúna, the new training authority, power to arrange for the provision of training courses for disabled workers, and this was specially brought into the Bill to highlight the case of disadvantaged workers. I have asked the Chomhairle to pay special attention to the needs of disabled persons and to work for them in co-operation with voluntary bodies who are now doing such valuable work in this field.

I am opposed to compulsion. The bodies which are doing the bulk of placement work for the disabled, and which I regard as being in the best position to speak from experience, are opposed to the idea of compulsion. They are of the view that the answer lies in adequate training and efficient placement.

The Committee to which I have referred—that which I set up in May— have expressed the same view in their interim report. In fact, they made a positive recommendation that reliance should be placed on the co-operation and good will of employers rather than that they should be required by law to reserve a fixed number of posts for the disabled. In this, as in other spheres, I am a firm believer in seeking voluntary co-operation. It would have to be clearly demonstrated to me that such co-operation was not forthcoming or that it was not producing the results we want before I would go over to the side of compulsion by law.

As I said in the beginning, there are some laws which are clearly accepted by everybody and are easily enforced. Other laws are not willingly accepted and means are sought of getting round such laws. This would be such a law, and enacting it before we have fully tried the voluntary methods would be to risk the benefits and the progress made in the voluntary field.

I always ask myself how is it some people believe that if you pass a law you solve a problem, especially if the law passed is to apply to other people.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister has paraded many hoary and tired arguments against the idea of compulsion. He has ended up on a point concerning unenforceable law; laws which are not accepted are not enforceable but are bad laws, laws which are not accepted by the people it is not possible to enforce them, and so on.

This is an area of discussion in which one could meander about fruitlessly for the rest of the night. O'Connell said he could drive a coach and four through any law and that is a pretty poor quotation too. Another little quotation comes to mind—"too foolish, imprudent and dangerous". I wonder does that ring a bell in the memory of any of the Members of the Army of Destiny—foolish, imprudent and dangerous—because it should. It is the kind of stuff anyone would have heard if he wanted and it is what I often hear propounded on Fianna Fáil platforms when I am going about trying to find out where the truth lies in politics. As nobody seems to know what its origin is, let me just refresh the mind of the House. James Fintan Lawlor, who was handicapped, severely handicapped but a very brilliant man said: "Somehow, somewhere and by somebody a beginning must be made and that beginning is now and forever shall be foolish, imprudent and dangerous".

That is the attitude of mind being brought to bear on this modest Bill of mine by the Minister and his Party. The things which he has said about compulsion will be found, if any Member of the House is sufficiently interested and energetic enough to wade through copies of Hansard in the mid-19th century when eloquent members of the British House of Commons were able to convince themselves, and it would appear convince many others as well, that to introduce laws compulsorily to prevent employers from sending children of tender years down into the bowels of the earth was morally offensive and calculated to bring about the economic ruin of the British Empire.

Dr. Hillery

We have laws protecting young people in employment.

Mr. S. Dunne

I do not think they are all that effective. I saw a few young people going into the Mansion House the other day and if they were sufficiently protected they would not be permitted to mix with those at that gathering.

Dr. Hillery

They only looked young to you; you are getting old. People look young when you are getting old.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am pleased when I contemplate my contemporary doing me the honour of submitting to imagination. Our society in the years which lie ahead, in so far as it will be divided politically, will be divided, generally speaking, on the principle of whether we are or are not ready conscientiously to undertake the revision of our society by the introduction of laws to do so, or whether we shall leave the fate of our people to be determined by chance and by the vagaries of a system which is now generally condemned by practically all sections of the community—the so-called system of free enterprise. Freedom, how are you? Freedom, moryah.

It is hard enough for the best equipped citizen to make his or her way in the kind of world in which we live even if he or she has had the fortune to have had a background which could afford education and training, if he or she has had the good fortune to have been born physically and mentally perfect. Even with these advantages it is hard enough for such a person to go through life and to achieve such an apportionment of happiness as it is possible to have on this planet; but what chance has the incapacitated person in the kind of competition that is being talked about and which we all know exists in society today?

It may be said in discussing these matters that we in the Labour Party are preaching to the converted, that we are pushing open doors—and the devil knows what other clichés may be used —but there is a kind of sentimentalism—that is the word that properly describes it — mouthed about these things which is very often used as an excuse not to do anything. The Minister said everybody is well intentioned towards the disabled. Sure, and we are all against sin. Sure, and we are all for good weather, too. We had better not fight about that. We all want everybody to be happy. But how far are we prepared to go to do something about it, to put our political futures, if you like, to the hazard of doing something about achieving the uplifting of all members of our society?

This is the real test of political integrity, and God knows I am as wanting in that as is the least Member of the House. I will not make any point on that score but I hold very strongly that a Bill of this kind makes effective what is in the minds and the hearts of the people. Nobody will deny that if a job is available in any form of employment, in industry or any other kind of work, and two people present themselves for that job, and one is obviously handicapped physically or found to be handicapped or retarded mentally, that person will not get that job in competition with the other individual if the other is 100 per cent in every way.

This inequality, over which the sufferer has had no control whatever, has come about as a result of causes for which he or she has to pay. This situation represents the most cruel dilemma of our society today, and God knows there are many examples of cruel dilemmas—the old people and so on with whose condition we all sympathise and try to do something about, not enough, but something. This problem has often struck me as the acid test of our social conscience.

The Act on which I base this Bill is the British Act of 1944. It will be said that that Act was introduced in England because of the huge numbers of disabled through war action. It was also, of course, introduced at a time when it was anticipated that a chronic postwar condition of maximum unemployment would develop in Britain. As we know, Britain was sufficiently fortunate to have had a socialist Government after the war and there was not unemployment but there was full employment for the first time in history.

Therefore, this Act was not put to the test for which it was designed. People who wanted work got it. As the Minister has said, in a condition of full employment a Bill of this kind would be unnecessary. I agree with that. When employers are making money in a booming economy, the more people they can employ the more money they can make. It has nothing at all to do with right or wrong or with how we deal with disabled people: it is simply a question of making more money. If employers make greater profits by employing more people, as they can do in a booming economy, they will employ more disabled people because they have to.

On the other hand, if there is recession employers will pick and choose for the purpose of getting into employment only those they consider to be most productive. That is the rule of life in the world in which we live. It is the rule of the jungle. The fittest survive. This lights up the problem of the fittest surviving and the weak not doing so well. "Goodwill" is a lovely word. It is part of the sentimental build-up given to a situation when the attitude of mind really is that if one pretends it will go away—there is goodwill about—everything will be all right if we leave it alone, do not rock the boat, the disabled will be looked after by the good decent Christian employers we have in this country.

Let me say, and let me not be misconstrued, that there are such people. They may be in the majority. I do not know. I know a few of them. I do not know if they qualify under the heading of Christianity but I know and I have my opinions about their capabilities. I should not care to leave the fate of these misfortunate people entirely to their tender mercies.

Take the matter mentioned by the Minister and in which I am especially interested—the question of the number of blind telephonists. How many blind telephonists are employed in the Civil Service? Does the Minister know? Would I be right in saying three or four?

Dr. Hillery

I could not answer. I will find out, if the Deputy wishes. It is handled by the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. S. Dunne

The man who first recruited blind telephonists in the Civil Service was the late Deputy Norton when he was Minister for Social Welfare.

Dr. Hillery

Recruitment is done through the Department of Social Welfare but I could not say that three or four is right or wrong.

Mr. S. Dunne

Six at the outside. How many blind persons are there in the country? The number is estimated at 7,000 and the total number in employment is 2 per cent of that 7,000 —the lowest percentage in Europe, if not in the world. Then the Minister talks of goodwill and his desire to see what the future will bring to encourage employers and so on to employ blind persons. One would think that this State had only just been founded. We have been running our affairs for over 40 years. Have we not had time to do something about this matter? For many of those years we had a Fianna Fáil Government. The 2,000 attending at the Mansion House were told that these were the halcyon days. We have had all these years of Fianna Fáil rule and only now begin to talk about what we will do, or hope for, for the disabled. I admit that the Minister was not in office all that time. We can take no pride in the fact that of our 7,000 blind persons only 2 per cent are in any form of employment and that only a handful of blind persons are engaged as telephonists in the Civil Service.

Part of this Bill is designed to make it compulsory on the State and local authorities to employ disabled persons in suitable occupations, not at work that they cannot do or in jobs where they would not be able to give an adequate return for the money they would get but on work which they can be trained to do. One would have thought that switchboard work was eminently suitable for blind persons. Yet, since the late Deputy Norton took the step that he did there has been little or no increase in the number recruited. Then we are told about goodwill and the desire to do something for the disabled. It is just not there.

The Minister referred to a document which he had received from the National Council for the Blind. I have here the report of the National League of the Blind. This is a body which consists of blind persons, the general secretary of which is blind. This report in its presentation and composition demonstrates one remarkable fact about these people. The handicapped seem to accept their handicap as a goad to achievement. The production of such a report, I venture to say, would represent too great an effort for most of the Members of this House. Here we have sightless persons undertaking work of this nature and accomplishing a task which would defeat most sighted persons. In the course of that report they do me the honour of referring to my effort here in the matter of this Bill. Contrary to what the Minister said when he was quoting the comments of the National Council for the Blind, they have this to say with regard to compulsion:

It is a matter of regret, however, that some of the organisations catering for the disabled are opposed to this Bill on the grounds that they do not like the compulsory element contained therein, nor do they favour State interference. This is an attitude which it is difficult to understand since there is an element of compulsion in almost every piece of legislation and what they describe as State interference does not seem to worry them when they put out their hands for increased grants from public funds.

In every law there is an element of coercion. The Minister talked about laws not being operable unless they had the support of the mass of the people. That is true. I think he mentioned the licensing laws. There is quite a respectable body of opinion that would make the most determined effort to circumvent the licensing laws. At least, we hear of these efforts. Does that make the licensing laws bad or any better? The fact is that compulsion is inseparable from any legal activity. So, when the Minister seeks to raise this hare of compulsion and to depict me in the public eye as somebody who wants to hound him with a moralistic whip into doing the right thing, he knows very well that that is not acceptable. The people of this country have a fair idea that in putting forward this Bill I am speaking the mind of the average man. Everybody one talks to expresses the opinion that not enough is being done for the disabled but few have the time in fighting the battle of life to pinpoint the inadequacies. This is what I have tried to do—to underline the inadequacies and suggest the remedies. I am not making any great claims for this Bill which I have had to draft myself not having the vast resources at the Minister's disposal.

Dr. Hillery

I found no fault in the structure, just the principle.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is very nice of the Minister to say that. It would be very difficult for the Minister to find fault with it as it is taken almost word for word from the British Act, as I freely admit.

Dr. Hillery

Look at the results there.

Mr. S. Dunne

Consider the risk of our being accused of misdemeanours in high places by certain members of the Minister's Party in taking up such a thing as a British Act.

Debate adjourned.