Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Dec 1979

Vol. 317 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Needs of Physically Disabled: Motion.

Dr. O'Connell

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, conscious of the special needs of the physically disabled in Ireland and the present discrimination practised against them especially in relation to employment, social services, housing and other facilities for their welfare, calls on the Government to take immediate steps to improve the quality of life for disabled persons in Ireland.

The purpose of tabling this motion is to highlight the present discrimination practised against the physically disabled and to propose measures and policies which would establish the rights of the disabled in Irish society and to demand that the Government improve the quality of life for those people by taking immediate action on the proposals which will be made tonight on behalf of the Labour Party.

It will not be enough to highlight the problems, propose solutions and make promises. We must use the opportunity presented by this debate to commit the Dáil to the introduction of a Disabled Persons Bill, which will enshrine the rights of the physically handicapped in law, their rights of access to the environment, their right to employment, housing and other social services, their right to proper treatment in homes and institutions. We will be seeking those things. We feel they should be enshrined in law.

The physically disabled in this country have been fobbed off with promises of action from successive Governments. They now want a charter of rights enshrined in law so that they will no longer have to rely, as in the past, on the goodwill of central government and local authorities to implement changes as they see fit. I envisage a Disabled Persons Bill as the only logical outcome of this debate. It is the only initiative which will put an end to the procrastination which has masqueraded as policy for the disabled over the years.

In the debate this evening, on behalf of the Labour Party I hope to highlight the discrimination faced by disabled people in terms of accessibility to the environment, employment, housing, health welfare and education. It can be seen from this list that the rights of the disabled directly affect four Government Departments. I am sorry that the four Ministers representing those Departments are not present tonight to listen to this debate.

Before I review the discrimination practised against the disabled in those areas, I would like to make a few general points. Although I will be critical of the Government in a number of areas and will be demanding action on behalf of my party on a number of points, I accept that the failure to establish the rights of the physically handicapped in Ireland is shared by a number of successive Governments. We all share the guilt. We have all failed to muster the political will which would enable the financial resources and the policies to be brought forward. I remember tabling a Disabled Persons Bill in 1972, the purpose of which was to outline the points I am discussing here tonight. It remained on the Order Paper for more than four years without even being given the courtesy of a First Reading. The policy of procastination is a long-standing one.

Another general point I wish to make is that it has often been said that implementing a charter of rights for the disabled is in some sense impractical, given their supposedly small numbers when compared with the population as a whole. This section was reflected in the Seanad Debate on the disabled last November when the Minister of State, in Volume 90, column 155, said:

To put the whole issue into perspective one must consider first the scale of the problem—only about one in 2,000 of our population is confined to a wheelchair.

He also referred to the costs involved and other urgent demands on State resources.

The first point to be made here is that human rights is not a numbers game. It is a prescription for the oppression of any minority in our society to maintain that the rights of our disabled citizens will be respected only in proportion to the percentage of our total population they comprise. Every disabled person in Ireland has human rights as an individual not as a group. Every disabled person would not have to be a member of a majority group in our society to claim them.

Even leaving aside this argument, one must realise that tens of thousands of people other than those confined to wheelchairs are in some sense handicapped by an environment which is hostile to human needs. The elderly are impeded by high kerbs, steep stairways and inaccessible public transport. More than 345,000 people are over the age of 65 years. All of those people are handicapped by inaccessible environments. There are 6,000 blind, more than 2,000 have multiple sclerosis, 3,000 people have cerebral palsy, 3,500 people suffer from the after-effects of polio and 14,000 have epilepsy. I could go on and on with the figures. The people with heart and respiratory diseases are also handicapped by a hostile environment. We cannot talk in terms of numbers alone. It is no exaggeration to say that a quarter of our population are adversely affected by the present inaccessible state of our environment. When we talk about taking measures to help the handicapped we are talking about taking measures to help ourselves. We will all get old, become more and more dependent on the environment and we will want to ensure that it is sympathetic to our needs when they arise.

Another point I wish to make is in regard to the United Nations declaration on the rights of the handicapped person passed in 1975. This declaration sets out the rights of disabled people to dignity and basic human rights, proper social services, employment and accessible environment. Article 13 of this declaration states that disabled persons, their families and communities shall be fully informed by all appropriate means of the rights contained in this declaration. In reply to a question of mine, No. 388, on what steps the Government are taking to publicise this declaration the Minister for Foreign Affairs replied as follows:

The terms of this declaration have been brought to the attention of the main public bodies concerned with the provision of health services in Ireland. As the Deputy may be aware, 1981 has been designated the International Year of Disabled Persons and I understand that preliminary consideration is being given in the Department of Health to the measures which it will be appropriate to take on behalf of the disabled in that year. The sentiments and aims of the declaration will be borne in mind in determining these measures.

The terms of the declaration are made known to Government agencies but not to handicapped people. We can always hope that in 1981 the Government will take appropriate measures with regard to the declaration. This is a ludicrous answer and is an indication of the total lack of information provided to the disabled in regard to their rights.

A booklet entitled Aid for the Disabled was produced in 1973. It has yet to be updated. When my office contacted the Department of the Environment and asked for a copy, the answer was that nobody had ever heard of it. This is it, and it was produced by the Department of Local Government in 1973. They said that it must have something to do with the Department of Health. As it took them three days to locate a copy of the booklet, one can only imagine the difficulties faced by the handicapped in trying to get information on their entitlements. The most basic right of the disabled is the right to information. The State must institute a policy of actively informing the disabled of their rights. The disabled should not have to seek the information.

How can the Minister inform the disabled of the services for which they are eligible and how can he plan their social, medical and emotional needs when he does not know how many disabled persons there are in each local authority and health board area? At a time when we can accurately enumerate the number of sheep and cattle in the country as well as the number of what we call illegitimate births, it is outrageous that no one can say with certainty how many handicapped citizens we have. There should be a statutory obligation on local authorities and health boards to maintain a register of disabled persons so that their needs can be planned.

In this motion we refer to discrimination. What we mean is that the lack of initiative and concern has resulted in a situation whereby the handicapped are isolated from society, unable to participate in normal activities due to our hostile physical environment, an inflexible educational system, the refusal of public and private employers to adapt their working environments and an inadequate range of State support services. If our political leaders treated a religious or political minority in the same way in which the handicapped are treated there would be an international outcry and Ireland would be pilloried in the eyes of the world.

A policy of apartheid is practised against the disabled, a policy which isolates them from so-called normal citizens. This policy relegates them to the status of second-class citizens and is most apparent in the inaccessibility of our environment. Can one imagine what it must be like to be unable to enter the majority of cinemas, shops and public buildings and to be unable to find a public toilet that has been adapted for use by the disabled? Can one imagine what it must be like to be unable to use public transport, to be unable to travel through the streets in a wheelchair? Whatever the frustration, pain and anguish that is caused, the end result is that there are so many obstacles to handicapped persons in our environment that our cities have become no-go areas for them.

Even the Minister for the Environment has been unable to estimate the number of buildings owned by the Government and local authorities which are presently accessible to the disabled. He fails to see the value of naming a date by which all such buildings will be accessible to the disabled. He says he lacks the necessary power to implement such a policy. On 31 October I asked the Minister for the Environment the percentage of all buildings occupied by Government Departments, local authorities and other State bodies which are fully accessible to the physically handicapped and if he would declare a date by which all such buildings would be made so. His answer was that the information requested in the first part of the question was not available and that a declaration on the lines suggested in the second part of the question would serve no useful purpose in the absence of powers to give practical effect to it. Where is the political will to cope with the problem? If the Government are unwilling to act, how can we expect action from the private sector? All we can expect from the private sector is apathy and procrastination.

In regard to public buildings owned by private individuals, the Minister points to proposed building regulations which will make all future buildings accessible to the physically handicapped. These building regulations have been in the planning stages for years. In November 1976 it was announced that submissions would be received up to May of that year. It is now three years later and the regulations are still being prepared. Local authorities have failed miserably to enforce a policy of access for the disabled at the planning stage of new buildings which are open to the public. The Minister for the Environment keeps saying that he is encouraging local authorities to use their powers and their influence. Encouragement is no substitute for a statutory obligation. Until new building regulations are introduced and proven to be effective there should be an obligation spelled out in law which would force local authorities to make accessible all public buildings under their control and to do everything in their power to make accessible existing shops, cinemas, theatres and churches.

Public transport is no better. We have purchased an executive jet to facilitate the travel to Europe of Government Ministers and at the same time deny full free travel facilities on public transport to many handicapped persons. Many of those who enjoy the privilege cannot avail of it because our buses and trains are inaccessible to them. CIE have no plan to make public transport accessible to the handicapped. I wrote to them in relation to this matter but did not receive a reply. In the US and in most European countries arrangements have been made to make public transport accessible to the disabled. The scheme for disabled drivers is encountering bureaucratic delays on the qualification that the car must be necessary for work. This qualification creates a serious Catch 22 situation for the disabled. As one disabled group said: "No job, no car; no car, no job".

What must we do to make our environment accessible? The Government must name a date by which all existing public buildings owned by the State will be adapted for access by the disabled. With 90,000 unemployed, a massive public works programme could be undertaken to achieve this. It has taken 11 years to get a ramp built at Leinster House, which is an indication of the kind of procrastination which must be brought to a halt if the disabled are to have access to post offices, social welfare Departments, employment exchanges and so on. The Government should make grants available for the adaptation of existing buildings owned by private individuals. They should set a deadline after which no grants will be given and on which all State support will be cut off from the company that owns a public premises which is not accessible to the disabled.

CIE must produce a plan to make public transport accessible. In reply to a question of mine the Minister for Transport and Power said that he had no official function in the matter. That is not good enough. His Department should provide the lead by adapting public transport for use by the disabled. The job qualification under the scheme for disabled drivers should be immediately dropped and the red tape blocking its implementation must be removed.

With regard to employment of the disabled, a survey undertaken by the Irish Wheelchair Association some years ago proved very interesting. That survey, by Pauline Faughnan, showed that more than 90 per cent of the members of that association were unable to obtain a job in open employment and only 10 per cent were able to find employment in sheltered workshops. That position is particularly alarming with the younger members of that association with more than half classified as nearly or fully independent. However, two-thirds of them remained unemployed. This scandal of chronic unemployment among the handicapped is another depressing instance of how they are being denied their basic rights as citizens of this country.

Most depressing of all is the failure of the State to take a lead in employing the handicapped. The 3 per cent quota system introduced in May 1977 appears to be in a shambles. The Minister is unable to say how many have been hired under the scheme, the percentage of workers in the public service who are handicapped or whether deadlines set up for the programme will definitely be met. The Minister for Labour, in his reply given to me on 31 October in answer to Question No. 405 stated:

(b) It is not possible to give the percentage of handicapped people now employed in the public sector as separate statistics of such persons are not compiled.

The 3 per cent quota should mean at least 6,000 jobs, excluding the Defence Forces. Yet all the Minister can report is that surveys have taken place of the people who might be employed. The National Rehabilitation Board, who were commissioned by the interdepartmental committee to produce this report, presented it on 30 October. When will this be made public? The Minister should come forward with this information. The report was presented to him on 30 October and, as far as I know, the scheme is not working. We have a right to know why.

Minister for Health (Mr. Haughey)

What was the title of the report?

Dr. O'Connell

Unfortunately, this Minister is not the one involved. We should have four Ministers here tonight because this matter concerns all of them. On 31 October I asked the Minister for Labour the progress to date in implementing the employment quota for handicapped persons in the public sector including (a) the number of people employed under this scheme since May 1977, (b) the percentage of handicapped people now employed in the public sector and (c) whether the deadlines originally set for the programme will be met. The Minister for Labour, in his reply, stated:

(a) The National Rehabilitation Board, at the request of the interdepartmental committee which was set up to implement the scheme have carried out a survey of a number of Government Departments and State bodies to obtain a clear overall picture of the types of jobs into which eligible handicapped persons could be placed. The NRB is also arranging to provide a register of handicapped persons considered suitable and most likely to be placed successfully.

The NRB survey report was received in my Department on 30 October and will be presented to the inter-departmental commitee in the next week or two. I have made additional staff resources available to the committee to speed up the advancement of the quota scheme when they have considered the report.

(b) It is not possible to give the percentage of handicapped people now employed in the public sector as separate statistics of such persons are not compiled.

(c) Due to the complexities in the implementation of employment quotas of this nature which came to be realised only in the course of the committee's deliberations it may well be necessary to revise target dates, but I am hopeful that existing deadlines can be met.

I would like to see that report. The indications are that the scheme is not working and that the Government are not complying with their own regulations on this matter. I do not wish to underestimate the problems faced by the administrators, but I believe the lack of a commitment given to the scheme is apparent and a very poor example for employers in the private sector.

I have spoken of a policy of apartheid, of isolating physically handicapped people instead of adapting society to meet their needs. AnCO training services are a good example. Handicapped people should, wherever possible, train in an open environment. Yet, in 1978 AnCO trained 16,268 people and only 224 of these were handicapped. I obtained that information in the AnCO annual report. The Robins Report from the Department of Health stated that as many as 15,000 adult handicapped people could benefit from preparation and training for work. The Minister for Labour said that all new AnCO training centres will be constructed to accommodate the handicapped. Why can the existing structures not be adapted in a likewise fashion? The sheltered workshops have made a great contribution to the disabled, but the rates of pay within these workshops should be increased. The average wage is £5 to £12 per week. In reply to a question of mine on 31 October the Minister for Health stated:

They receive a weekly allowance ranging from £5 to £12, in addition to a weekly payment of £1.75 for each dependent child up to a maximum of three children.

Taking that rate of pay with a social welfare benefit of £14.20, in some cases, a single person gets a weekly income of less than £27 to live on. That is farcical. It simply is not enough and wages in workshops should be pegged to AnCO training rates at the very minimum.

Strong incentives must be given to private employers to employ the disabled. This should involve the use of the stick as well as the carrot. Tax concessions and remissions of social insurance contributions should be used as carrots but some form of stick should also be employed. If a quota system in the private sector is unworkable, why not make all State aid conditional, or at the very least proportional, to the number of handicapped people employed by a firm and the efforts made to make the work place accessible? Give the firms concerned the concessions I mentioned but also, if they do not co-operate, discontinue their grants. The whole point is to create a society where the handicapped are treated like every other citizen. Why not transfer the responsibility for the employment needs of the disabled from the Department of Health to the Department of Labour? I am aware that that is contrary to the Robins Report from the Minister's Department, but it appears a more logical approach. Those people are not sick; they just need work like thousands of others. They should be helped by the Department of Labour.

I should now like to deal with the question of housing. This is a matter for the Minister for the Environment and I regret that the Minister for Health has to listen to this part of my contribution. The housing needs of the disabled are subject to the willingness of local authorities to provide accommodation or grants for adaptations. As far as adaptations are concerned, some local authorities are conscientious but many are not. There were a total of 692 house adaptation grants, averaging £960 each, approved in 1978. As far as I am aware, approval for grants is being delayed and adaptations can take up to two years to be completed, though the Minister for the Environment admits to having no available information. On 20 November I asked the Minister for the Environment the average length of time taken by local authorities for house adaptations for the physically handicapped and if he was satisfied with the working of the grants scheme for the disabled. The Minister told me that the information requested was not available in his Department. There should be a statutory obligation on local authorities to ascertain the housing needs of the disabled in their area. Only by finding out the housing needs can one do anything about them. The Minister for the Environment has promised action but it will be more a request than an obligation. That is not good enough because many local authorities are not anxious to co-operate.

A certain percentage of local authority houses should be constructed for the disabled from the start. In this way each new housing estate will have some provision for the disabled. In Britain 15 per cent of all new public housing is constructed for wheelchair use and an even higher percentage is built to facilitate the general mobility of the disabled within the home environment. We have a long way to go, but we must do something positive about it.

Surely our local authorities might show a bit of foresight in adopting a similar policy of building accessible housing from the start? Not only would this benefit the physically handicapped, but other groups in our society, such as the elderly, whose needs are not met by present house designs. There was a recent conference in Dublin on Design for the Disabled. I am not 100 per cent sure, but it may have been hosted by the National Rehabilitation Board. This conference was a tremendous success and demonstrated how easily and inexpensively buildings can be designed or adapted to meet the needs of the disabled. Expense is no longer an excuse. What is needed is imagination and political will.

A special housing list for the disabled should be created in each local authority area. At present, some physically handicapped people are housed in totally unsuitable accommodation. I know of one handicapped person living on the seventh floor in Ballymun, totally immobilised—imprisoned you might say, because there is no access outside that place. That is the attitude which is adopted towards them. A separate housing list is necessary, so that vacancies can be matched to these people's needs. Housing aids for the disabled should not be confined to housing grants for adaptations. They should be eligible for special grants for purchasing their own homes from the design stage, so that builders can incorporate from the start the necessary features. This would avoid many costly alterations in the future.

Many disabled people spend their lives in homes and institutions. Perhaps, one of the most vivid and scandalous examples of the second-class standards of disabled people is that they have no right to the disabled person's maintenance allowance while in institutions. When I mentioned a case of a woman living in an institution, who had not one penny and no one to visit her, I was called a liar in this House for mentioning this fact. However, when I asked the Minister and the Deputy to look into the case, they conceded to me, in private, that I was right. That disabled person had not one penny to her name; she could not buy a bottle of minerals at the end of the week. Living in institutions, they have no right to disabled person's allowance; it is purely an arbitrary thing. This allowance is paid directly to the institution and disabled persons in residence have no entitlement to pocket money, which is wrong. In the Eastern Health Board area, the policy is to contact relatives of inmates to see if they can provide money before consideration is given to giving residents a weekly sum for purchasing small comforts such as minerals, newspapers and so on. Such a policy amounts to an attack on the dignity of disabled people in institutional care. Also, such people are ineligible for the new mobility allowance of £3 a week to facilitate travel for those who cannot use public transport. This is another example of discrimination practised against disabled persons living in homes and institutions.

The Minister has agreed to run a pilot programme for some disabled people in institutions whereby they will be eligible for some form of mobility allowance. I must congratulate him on this welcome development. What he envisages is a block grant. Again, the operating list would be arbitrary and not available as of right. I would caution the Minister to be more flexible, rather than having it as a block grant. These people should have a right to a weekly income as well as the mobility allowance, and also be represented on the boards of management of these institutions, so that their voices can be heard in how these homes are run.

On the health and welfare front, there is a dire need to increase benefits, particularly in the light of soaring fuel costs. Disabled person's maintenance allowance, invalidity pension, and the allowance under the free electricity scheme should all be increased substantially in the next budget, so that disabled persons are able to survive the winter with some modicum of comfort. Special attention should be paid to the delivery of fuel to the elderly and the disabled and those unable to fend for themselves in a panic situation, where those who wish to grab the most the quickest come out the best.

Physically handicapped people should qualify for the medical card in their own right, as well as for the telephone. The limit imposed on their bus passes, preventing their use at peak hours by those disabled who are able to use public transport should be removed. This is discriminating against them, because of the fact that many of them have to attend hospitals at early hours and the fact that the bus passes are not available to them as of right all the time is a discrimination against them.

One other point I wish to mention, because it was a recommendation of the Central Remedial Clinic, Clontarf, is the question of day centres, for which there is an acute shortage for physically handicapped people. Every community care director should be charged with ascertaining the number of physically handicapped in his area who could benefit from day care. This is yet another instance where the registrar of disabled people would serve to facilitate planning. Once the demand for day care is quantified, facilities should be provided as a matter of urgency, including full transport facilities to and from the centre. By proposing an emergency programme for the provision of day care facilities, I am not attempting to burden the State with extra expenditure. The State will actually save money by keeping people out of institutions, where the costs are highest. Long stage residential care is also a priority. Waiting lists for homes are lengthy. Some physically handicapped people are being placed in psychiatric hospitals and homes for the aged because there is no other place to put them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has five minutes.

Dr. O'Connell

Thank you. The short stay beds in residential institutions are also needed to care for handicapped children in the event of a family crisis, or to provide parents with a break from what is a very demanding responsibility.

In education every effort must be made to provide for physically handicapped children of normal intelligence in a normal school environment. The present policy of isolating these children in special schools is discriminating and is another instance of the apartheid mentality controlling our whole approach to the needs of the disabled. On the question of educational establishments which are not making full facilities accessible to the physically handicapped, unless they decide to do this within a specified time the State should seek to withhold payment of grants. Education for the handicapped means more than the provision of equal rights to quality education for handicapped children. It means that architects, designers and builders and urban planners must all be educated in how to meet the needs of the physically disabled in society. Those who build our environment must be shown how easy it is to build an open environment, accessible to all the population. The planning needs of the disabled could constitute a required subject in the degree course for architects and planners.

As I said, all the rights outlined in this debate should be enshrined in a Disabled Persons Bill. Britain has a Disabled Persons Act dating back many years. There should be statutory rights regarding information, housing, access to public buildings, and welfare services, and this could be incorporated in this Bill. Such a proposal is by no means unrealistic. The British have a Bill dating back to 1970. It is almost 1980 and we have done nothing about it.

The whole point is that debate and discussion about the needs of the handicapped are helpful, but promises of action are even more so. The Government say they will establish a register of physically handicapped people. They say new building regulations will be introduced to create proper access for disabled. They say full information will be made available to the disabled. But a statutory obligation must be created to ensure that this and all future Governments will honour and protect the disabled in Irish society.

We have depended very much on voluntary groups. We have seen the great role they have played and are inclined to pat them on the back. The danger is that this excuses the State from its obligations. If you say this, the Government condemn you, saying you are belittling the effort being made by these voluntary organisations, that they are doing a wonderful job. Of course, they are; but we have to help them. We cannot say: "It is your job; it is your obligation". We must say: "We are here to help you more". We must ensure that we do not let them bear the burdens themselves. It is up to us as legislators to do so. There is no reason why we cannot bring in a Disabled Persons Bill which would incorporate my proposal which will not burden the State with too much expenditure but would give them, as of right, the opportunity to serve in our community as equal citizens with the rest of us. This is an obligation on us. I hope that the Minister, on behalf of his colleagues, will make a declaration to this effect in this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Health to move his amendment.

Minister for Health (Mr. Haughey)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—

"recognises the positive measures which the Government is taking to improve services for the physically disabled and is satisfied that it will continue to develop these services to the fullest extent that resources permit."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has half an hour.

Mr. Haughey

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that Deputy O'Connell, in moving the motion in the name of the Labour Party Members, has not approached the matter in any political way. I intend to follow that line because I am sure he will agree with me that this is really not a matter for party politics. It is something we should all attempt to discuss here in a calm and reasonable manner. Indeed, it is something on which we would all be agreed in so far as the objectives are concerned and the targets which should be achieved. We might disagree on the emphasis placed in different areas or on the adequacy or otherwise of the resources being made available from time to time. I do not intend to deal with this motion in any defensive way. I shall talk about various things going on. I hope to do so in a constructive manner. I will not attempt to suggest that everything is as it should be. But, when I talk about what is happening, I merely do so to inform the House as fully as possible and perhaps in the hope that we can, between us, agree on where the emphasis should be placed in the future.

The first matter to which the motion draws our attention is responsibility for the disabled and the handicapped in our society. At present that responsibility is divided among a number of Ministers. I believe that co-operation and co-ordination between those Departments is the way to deal with the matter. Suggestions have been made from time to time of a Minister for the Disabled. On reflection it will be seen that that would not really be the best way to deal with the matter because such a Minister would be relying largely on going to other Departments trying to get things done. It is better to place specific responsibility for a specific section of activity on a particular Minister and in that way ensure an overall satisfactory situation.

I should like to deal with the point made by Deputy O'Connell about a Disabled Persons' Bill. I would not be impressed with the efficacy of such a Bill. I do not think it would really contribute greatly to the situation. It might be a nice thing to have on the Statute Book. But it is effort, activity, commitment and programmes that matter, not enshrining principles in legislation. We have plenty of examples of things enshrined in legislation, when indeed the practice does not always measure up to the objectives or the principles laid down.

Deputy O'Connell quoted with approval the British Act of 1970. I do not think that Act, in itself, made any contribution to the situation obtaining there. If one looks through that Act one finds the continuous usage of the phrase: "make provision in so far as it is in the circumstances both practical and reasonable". That fatal phrase recurs throughout the British Act. Somebody some day might feel it desirable to have a Bill which would declare the rights of the disabled in statutory form but I would not afford it very high priority. Rather I would concentrate on getting on with the things we are trying to do.

The principle I would put before the House is that the disabled person has a right to the full benefits of citizenship, to participate in the life of the community as fully as any other citizen to the extent that his or her disability permits—that the disabled person should be fully integrated into the community where possible. This leads us immediately to a number of requirements, the first being to reassure the disabled person that he or she has this recognition in our community and providing them with a means of earning their livelihood to the greatest extent their physical circumstances permit.

That is why I place very great importance on vocational rehabilitation, the provision of sheltered workshops and the training of the disabled to enable them take their place in the employment market. I have made many speeches over the last two years pointing out that many disabled persons can do a job in the open community as effectively, and indeed in many cases more effectively, than their more fortunate brothers and sisters. It is very important to realise that throughout the open employment market there is scope for suitably trained disabled persons. I have appealed again and again to employers to consider employing disabled persons because they find that these people give as efficient, and very often more dedicated, service than others.

We have been making some progress in providing new places for training and sheltered employment for the handicapped. The total number of places in community workshops catering for the physically handicapped is now about 1,450. In the last year or so ten new workshops have been established. It is very encouraging to go and look at one of these workshops and see the level of efficiency being achieved there. In most the atmosphere is congenial and encouraging. Such workshops as are being provided are doing a wonderful job. The trouble is that we have not got more but we are proceeding with them. One of my most constantly recurring tasks is the opening of one of these workshops in different parts of the country. Fourteen additional placement officers and 16 additional youth employment officers have been sanctioned by the National Rehabilitation Board. The NRB and their organisation are under review. We have a consultative report under consideration and we are endeavouring to see that the NRB are expanded and developed to ensure that they meet their serious obligations to the disabled.

Allowances and conditions for trainees in the special training centres and for sheltered workers were mentioned by Deputy O'Connell. I recognise that the situation there is not satisfactory, but I allocated additional funds and as a result the NRB have been able to increase the allowances payable. With the disabled allowance plus the amount being paid in the form of remuneration, a married man with three children can now take home between £51 and £56 per week and a single person can take home £26 or £27 per week. I know it is not adequate, but at least it is an improvement.

Allied to that is the question of the allowances paid to persons in residential institutions. This is a matter of fairly general application. I have initiated a survey of what is paid throughout these institutions and when I get the information I will see that the allowance is rationalised and that the same amount is paid in the different institutions. It varies greatly at the moment; in some places it is reasonably adequate and in others it is totally inadequate.

Deputy O'Connell referred to information about the disabled and mentioned, for instance, day centres. There is no doubt that we need them and there is talk about a day centre in Clontarf by the Irish Wheelchair Association. It is quite clear that in heavily populated urban areas day centres are necessary, but whether they are needed outside those areas is a question which must be looked into. We cannot take firm decisions on the structure of day centres throughout the community until we know more about how many disabled people there are. Deputies will know that a survey on that is also under way. The health boards, the NRB and the Medico-Social Research Board are combining to produce a register of the physically disabled, giving the numbers and telling the extent of the disability, the requirements and so on. That is a very basic thing. I agree with Deputy O'Connell that we cannot have effective planning and cannot proceed with a programme of day centres until we know the extent of the disabled population, not just the numbers but the form of their disability. I am anxious that the compiling of that register be completed as soon as possible.

The situation in residential care needs to be looked at and I have promised the representatives of the disabled that this will be done. Nobody is satisfied with the situation in the residential care institutions. A group of disabled people suggested that we should set up a working party to look into the whole situation of residential care, but we decided in the end that a much more informal type of review would be quicker and more effective. We are getting on with that. Allied to that is the question of personal allowances paid to persons in residential care, the type of institution it should be, the openness of the institution and indeed the extent to which the disabled residents should participate in the running and management of the institution. I have no objection to bringing the disabled into the management of their institutions. The more the disabled persons fully participate in the running of the institution the better.

On the question of day centres, other factors arise. Deputy O'Connell touched on the question of where we should direct our resources, because resources will always be scarce and must be allocated to the best advantage. More support in the home of the disabled person is a priority; and it is necessary to keep a balance between building up support services for the disabled in their own homes and allocating funds for day centres. They are not necessarily mutually contradictory, but it is something which has to be planned with some care.

Deputy O'Connell mentioned the question of cars for the disabled. We recently increased the grant from £500 to £1,000. But the disabled, with some justification, pointed out that, whereas £500 some years ago was a fairly substantial grant for a car, £1,000 is not a great deal today. However, we doubled the amount of the grant. I came across the dilemma referred to by Deputy O'Connell, namely, where a person would only get a grant for a car if he had a job but could not get a job unless he had a car. We should have broken through that knot, because although some health boards may not yet be fully alert to the situation, the situation is that a person who has a job is entitled to a grant—or a person who has the prospect of getting a job. If that is not clear to the health boards I will make it clear to them, because the primary purpose of the grant for the motor car is to get a disabled person to work. It can be a bit more flexible than that and I hope that the health boards will be more flexible in their administration of the scheme. The grant can also be made available to a disabled person who, for instance, lives in a very isolated place, and health boards should sympathetically consider giving such people grants for an adapted type of car.

My concern is primarily with the health aspects of the disabled. Apart from the specific matters I have mentioned, like sheltered workshops and day care centres, the general community services are as important to the disabled as they are to anybody else. In that regard we have been improving the situation. The number of social workers employed directly by the health boards has been doubled over the past two years and public health nursing staffs have also been steadily increased and will increase until we get to the level of one per 2,616 of the population, which was recommended by the Working Party on Nurses Workload in 1975. That ratio has already been reached in some areas. These are two very important general community services which are of importance to the disabled.

The National Rehabilitation Board, on the question of buildings, recently brought out an excellent publication called Access for the Disabled, Minimum Design Criteria. That was for the information of architects, developers and others concerned with the planning of buildings. It is a very good publication and I hope it will have a very beneficial effect.

I am told that most of the training centres for architects, engineers, designers and planners have the needs of the disabled in their curricula. I have a list here of the various regional colleges and schools of one sort or another and most of their curricula have that provision. For instance, the Cork Regional Technical College have inserted the following requirements in the relevant syllabi for special facilities for disabled persons that in treating this syllabus, consideration should be given to the provision of special facilities for disabled persons. This type of provision is included in most of the institutes training the planners and architects of the future.

The assurance of employment of some sort is probably the greatest single demonstration we can make to the disabled person. So far as the public service is concerned, that responsibility lies with the Minister for Labour. Deputy O'Connell and other Deputies are familiar with the present situation. The interdepartmental committee were set up to give effect to reaching the target of 3 per cent in the public sector. They asked the rehabilitation board to carry out a survey for them in the light of their expert knowledge of the situation and to give them a report. They got that report back and it is now up to the interdepartmental committee to proceed with the implementation of that objective of 3 per cent guided by the report of the National Rehabilitation Board. I know I will be reflecting the views of everybody in this House when I convey to my colleague, the Minister for Labour, the fact that we would all like to see that target actively pursued and realised as quickly as possible. Special studies are being made in the Department of Labour and AnCO arising from that report.

When we come to housing and buildings the situation is far from satisfactory. The Office of Public Works accept their responsibility in this area. They say a great number of public buildings are unsuitable and no matter what they do they cannot adapt them, but they are doing what they can. In future—and this is what is important—all new buildings will be suitably designed, providing ramps, making doors sufficiently wide, lowering door handles, special positioning of electricity sockets, domestic and sanitary fittings at lower levels, insulation measures and so on. It is the intention that all new buildings will comply with the minimum needs for the disabled in their design and construction.

On the question of housing, this is a matter for the local authorities. The Minister for the Environment has constantly impressed on local authorities, the need for action in this area. This is something which we should all undertake, particularly Deputies who are members of local authorities. If there are local authorities in any area not measuring up to their responsibilities, the Deputy/councillor should take the lead and insist that his or her local authority do their part. So far as I know, county councils or county borough corporations can pay up to two-thirds of the cost of adaptation and these grants are regarded as reasonably satisfactory. It is really a matter of all of us endeavouring to see that the local authorities meet their obligations so far as housing is concerned. Some of them are quite progressive and set aside in their housing schemes a proportion of accommodation for the disabled. But the pressure has to be kept up by the Minister and by every one of us in our own spheres.

Nineteen eighty-one will be the Year of the Disabled. We are already preparing for it. We will have a national programme for that year. I will be consulting public and voluntary agencies about objectives and commitments so that we will be ready to make a good, substantial contribution. Perhaps we need a national steering committee to co-ordinate the arrangements for the Year of the Disabled, but it will give us all an opportunity to look at progress and rededicate ourselves to the work that needs to be done to ensure that we discharge the responsibility which we have as a community and as a State to the disabled in our midst.

I cannot follow Deputy O'Connell in all the points he made, because he succeeded in packing a good deal into 40 minutes. One point which struck me and which we have in hands is the little booklet Aids for the Disabled. The Department have taken that over and are updating it.

Deputy O'Connell raised another point and I will take note of it: it is very important that more information be given to the disabled. Members of the community who are fortunate enough to be members of the Irish Wheelchair Association or any of the other groups get as much information, guidance and help as they need; but there is a case to be made for disseminating more information to the disabled members of our community. I fully accept the United Nations principle that the disabled should be made aware of their rights. We may, in view of the suggestion by Deputy O'Connell, expand the booklet and make it much more an information booklet than it was in the past.

This is a non-political motion. It is serving to direct our attention to the different problems and to what still remains to be done. Deputy O'Connell packed a great deal into his opening contribution and I am sure Deputy Boland will also be contributing. The contributions made to this debate will be carefully considered and studied by me and my advisers. We are in touch with the organisations with special responsibility for the disabled. We are aware of the needs and of where the gaps exist. In so far as it is within our power and administrative capacity and within the financial resources available to us, we will continue to endeavour to improve the situation for the disabled.

Mr. Boland

Article 3 of the United Nations Resolution 3447, Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, sums up the debate adequately. It states:

Disabled persons have the inherent right to respect for their human dignity. Disabled persons, whatever the origin, nature and seriousness of their handicaps and disabilities, have the same fundamental rights as their fellow-citizens of the same age, which implies first and foremost the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible.

That surely is what all of us in the legislature and in public life should be aiming towards. There are other worthwhile objectives contained in the same declaration.

Article 8 states:

Disabled persons are entitled to have their special needs taken into consideration at all stages of economic and social planning.

We need to examine our collective consciences as to whether or not that article is or has been respected in this country. Article 13, which the Minister might take specially into account, states:

Disabled persons, their families and communities shall be fully informed, by all appropriate means, of the rights contained in this Declaration.

We have not been entirely successful in the implementation of that article. Next year, as the Minister said, has been designated by the UN as the International Year of the Disabled. Let us hope if we come to talk about the disabled at the end of 1980——

Mr. Haughey

1981.

Mr. Boland

——that we will not have to reflect on the performance of the country in relation to that aim as an international year in the same way as we would have to speak about the sorry state of Ireland's performance in relation to the International Year of the Child. As regards the steering committee the Minister referred to, I could not help thinking that, if one were to reflect on the similar committee charged with implementing the success in this country of the International Year of the Child, one could only make the suggestion that it was a steering committee with square wheels. The legislation promised during the year has not emerged. When we look back on debates such as this, where everyone agrees that it is of a non-political nature and that something needs to be done and where everyone expresses the right sentiment, no real progress is made despite the passage of time.

In the United States in 1973 a rehabilitation Act was passed and it was stated that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be precluded from participating in, be denied benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any programme or activity receiving financial assistance. It was not until 1977 that that was put into effect in the US, but when it was it was with a real sense of purpose with time limits being laid down in the public and private sector after which bodies would not receive any federal assistance if they had not complied with the strict guidelines in relation to the provision of services for the handicapped. That kind of thing needs to be done here.

I accept the Minister's suggestion that there is not need for legislation. There is need for a commitment and for something to be done. There is need for public bodies to be told that by a certain date they must achieve certain things and, if they do not, that they will suffer financially. The private sector who are grant aided and provide facilities to which the public have a right of access must be told something similar. Certain dates must be set down. It is only by that kind of activity that there will be an improvement in trying to provide proper facilities for the disabled. We can introduce whatever legislation we like, but if it is aspiration rather than direction and if there is not the threat of withdrawal of financial aid, it will not get anywhere.

There are 3,500 to 4,000 people confined to wheelchairs. They are the people we would normally regard as disabled. However, the disabled are a much wider category. There are people suffering through disability at birth, illness, disease or through accident. In the interesting and detailed submission made in 1977 by Mr. Liam Maguire, chairman of the Irish Wheelchair Association, it was stated that, apart from the people we think of as disabled, one in five in the community at some stage during his life will suffer some form of temporary disablement, whether it is through an accident, the breaking of a limb—from which he will recover but will have a temporary disablement, through temporary illness that can be controlled through medication—or old age. He made the point that in research carried out in the Athens Centre of Ekistics it has been suggested that approximately 50 per cent of our population is handicapped by the environment of our human settlements. That is no credit to our architects, planners or those in public life who accept the plans and submissions put forward. It is not an outrageous suggestion that half the population suffer through the planning of the physical infrastructure which is provided for use in their day to day life.

The survey which Deputy O'Connell referred to, carried out by the Irish Wheelchair Association, revealed some interesting statistics. Of the members surveyed 64.7 per cent wanted more social contact, social participation, holidays and the younger members wanted integration into youth activities. Surely there is a need for those involved in providing facilities for youth clubs to encourage those running them and developing youth organisations to ensure that those permanently disabled within their community have facilities provided for them. There is an obligation on those who provide grants for youth clubs and so on to see to it that the facilities are there and that clubs and organisations are encouraged to ensure that there is participation on the part of the physically disabled. Approximately 18.4 per cent wanted work and only 10 per cent were employed in open employment, with 9.3 per cent in sheltered employment. This survey was carried out two years ago. Some 15.5 per cent wanted assistance towards personal independence. That is an interesting figure because so many disabled people just want help to make themselves independent so that they will not need help. That is an important and admirable aspiration on the part of so many of them, seeing that 8.4 per cent put home adaptation as their first priority.

Another interesting aspect of the figures produced was that 18.6 per cent of the members of the Irish Wheelchair Association at the time were in institutional or residential homes, a very high proportion, higher, I suggest, than it need be if the awareness of the community generally were higher than it actually is. If the facilities provided were better and if in a more positive way we assisted the physically permanently disabled to live a full life in the community, there is no need for almost one in five of the membership of that large organisation to be confined to institutions or residential homes. But if they are to be so confined the point being made is valid: surely we are insulting their dignity and our own as fellow men if we deny so many of them a reasonable amount of money as pocket money. To my shame and amazement I discovered in the last few years that so many of these people who are being well cared for physically in permanent residential institutions receive no financial aid. While being cared for as regards their bodily needs they are financially destitute.

There is not much point in bringing such people on an outing or day trips and feeling that we have fulfilled our commitment to society when we have not an awareness of the fact that these people have no money to buy something either for themselves or their companions. The Minister's suggestion that this survey which is being carried out might bring about a rationalisation is an overdue and perhaps inadequate suggestion. We should ensure from the beginning of the next financial year, next month, that everybody confined to an institution gets enough money on a weekly basis to enjoy a decent standard of comfort. That applies not only to physically disabled but to many other people who are confined in long term institutions and who are financially destitute.

There is need for the Department of Education to ensure that much better facilities are provided in the normal school so that many of those who are partially physically disabled and virtually forced to go to special schools at present could be integrated with school children of a similar age and encouraged to participate in ordinary education in ordinary schools through such schools being properly designed and proper facilities provided in them from the outset. That is not being done at present. As regards the special schools provided, we are not yet providing adequate facilities. Only yesterday I wrote to the Minister for Education about a constituent, a deaf child who is collected and brought to school for the day. This five-year-old child is collected by bus at 7.30 in the morning and returned at 5.00 in the evening all through the winter. We may think we are providing a great State service with a special school—and an excellent school in providing for the educational needs of that child—but a very great burden is placed on him at that age and on his family. This need not happen if we had more special buses and transport for that school.

The time is overdue for the provision in public buildings, not by exhortation but by direction, of ramps and other special facilities to allow the permanently physically handicapped to use them without embarrassment and trouble for themselves, sanitary facilities, elimination of doors which are too narrow and light switches which are too high and so on. We always give the example of the ramp we have provided here after 11 years. What would one do in a wheelchair after getting into this House? If one wanted to get into this Chamber, one could avoid the front stairs but to get in by the doors here you would go down one flight of steps, up a flight of steps, along a corridor, through a door and up another flight of steps and you would get into the Chamber. Unless you were lucky enough to become a Minister you would have to go up a flight of steps again to get into your seat. And this is the House of Parliament. Congratulations—after 11 years we provided one ramp beside the front door and we are talking of it ever since. We have heard much about the aims and aspirations of the Office of Public Works but I would hate to be permanently physically disabled trying to get into that office in St. Stephen's Green which has as great a flight of steps as any public building in Dublin at its front entrance.

I accept that many local authorities have been remiss in providing properly adapted local authority houses from the outset. I believe part of the reason is that they have not done a survey of those on their housing waiting list who are confined to wheelchairs or permanently physically disabled. Also many local authorities are far too slow in carrying out modifications of dwellings they allocate to physically disabled people whom they discover to be in need of rehousing. Far too many local authorities are much too slow in processing special grants for the adaptation of private houses. There is a relatively generous special grant available now but because it is of an unusual nature, local authorities take an unusually long time to process such applications. There is no need tor exhortation or legislation in that case but there is need for a direction from the Minister for the Environment telling them to send him a register of the permanently physically disabled on their housing waiting lists, giving details of the housing stock provided ab initio for such persons and details of the housing stock being converted for them, together with details of the grant applications received for adaptations from the physically disabled and how long it took to process those grants and to pay them.

There is need for a Minister to direct local authorities to have street furniture redesigned, to have kerbing dished or ramped at corners, audio signals attached to traffic signals and special hearing facilities made available in public buildings for those whose hearing is impaired. Let us not suggest such things cannot be done on an immediate basis. In 1975 the Dutch Government allocated the equivalent at that time of £5 million for the conversion of public buildings in the manner I have suggested but it directed that all the money was to be spent and the facilities in toto provided by the end of 1976, less than two years. If there is a will and a financial commitment and direction, it can be done. Let us not have a debate on it at the end of 1981. The point needs to be made that conversion of existing buildings is relatively costly while the redesign of buildings at planning stage is relatively a negligible cost. Consequen tly, there is an obligation on all the schools of planning and architecture as from now to turn their minds in this direction. I welcome the production of the publication by the National Rehabilitation Board on access for the disabled and minimum design criteria. This should help greatly.

For years past I have been unsuccessfully chasing both the Minister for Health and the Minister for Tourism and Transport to find which, if either of them, would accept the responsibility of the relatively simple conversion of public transport so as to make it easy of access for both permanently physically disabled and also those temporarily disabled, the elderly, the arthritic, the rheumatic and so on. Neither Minister seemed able to bear the responsibility beyond suggesting that the question might better be directed to the other Minister. Is it not time to have this relatively simple conversion done? The Minister has other ways of getting here from Malahide but if he were to go to the railway station there—and he claims to be relatively fit—he would find difficulty in climbing into the train there with all his facilities. Perhaps he would stop to think for a moment how very difficult it must be for those in wheelchairs or on crutches to board an ordinary train at present. The need for the conversion and adaptation of public transport generally become very much apparent.

Debate adjourned.