asked the Minister for Labour the obligation on Government Departments, semi-State bodies and local authorities to employ a percentage of physically handicapped people; and the number of physically handicapped people employed therein.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment of Physically Handicapped People.
17.
A 3 per cent quota for disabled persons employed in the public service was introduced some years ago and responsibility for overseeing its implementation was placed with the Minister for Labour.
Significant progress was made until the introduction of the various embargos on recruitment to the public service with recruitment eventually suspended to grades to which disabled people were likely to be recruited.
The total number of disabled persons employed in the Government Departments, semi-State Bodies and local authorities at 31 December, 1987 was approximately 1,866 which represented a quota of 1.59 per cent.
Would the Minister not agree that a quota of 1.59 per cent, or 1,866 people, employed in the public service as against the statutory regulation of 3 per cent represents a very poor success rate? Would he also not agree that those figures reflect very poorly on our social commitment to the handicapped and the disadvantaged?
In 1977 a target was set, not a statutory regulation, for the employment of disabled persons in the public service — the Civil Service vocational education committees, public authorities and the health boards. All categories of disabled persons, including physically and mentally ill, come within the ambit of the quota provided they were substantially handicapped or obtaining or holding employment, and they had to be capable of actually doing the job for which they would be employed.
The Minister for Labour of the day was given responsibility for the quota and he asked that this be done by persuasion and co-operation within the public service. For the first three or four years that went fairly well because there was recruitment of public service employees, particularly to the grade which suited the handicapped. Unfortunately, because of the embargo they are in grades which have been affected since 1981.
I hold the same view as the Deputy that persuasion and co-operation are the only way we can do this. I suppose it is because the Department of Labour were responsible that they have managed to employ more than the required 3 per cent. It was felt that if we tried to implement the system under a statutory basis it would not work and we appealed to people to make the system work. It is true the embargo has created difficulties and that the numbers have contracted.
Allowing for the fact that there has been a contraction of recruitment to the public service, the ratio of 3 per cent should be maintained across the board. This confirms the age old belief that at times of severe cutbacks, the first to go to the wall and to be victimised are the minority groups and those who are most disadvantaged. I ask the Minister to ensure that those targets are met and that the type of success rate which operated in the Department of Labour is translated across the other 14 Government Departments. What measure does he propose to take to ensure that this is effected?
A few months ago the House said we should try to encourage various sectors of the public service when recruiting staff to show a bias in favour of the handicapped. That is what happened in 1977. I do not want to give the impression that the number of handicapped employed in the public service has been reduced; what happened was that there was a five year programme to reach the quota of 3 per cent. That figure was never achieved. Most of the people recruited at that time are still in employment but because of the embargo the figure has not exceeded 1.5 per cent, except in one or two areas where the 3 per cent target was exceeded and this was probably because some Departments worked harder towards reaching that goal.
Will the Minister indicate what steps he has taken in view of the embargo to get permission or whatever from the Cabinet to reach the target of 3 per cent within a short time? I take it 3 per cent is still the objective. Is it his responsibility to ensure that the disabled who might be seeking jobs get the training necessary to be able to qualify for the jobs that might be available in the public service? Has he any responsibility for ensuring that the buildings which the public service use are accessible to disabled——
This is clearly an extension of the subject matter.
The Minister indicated that his Department are responsible for seeing that this 3 per cent——
I am concerned only with the subject matter of the questions before me.
Accessibility and training are two very important aspects of ensuring that disabled people get work. It is part of the question.
It may well be the responsibility of another Minister.
Will the Minister take steps to encourage the private sector to employ disabled people?
The Deputy is referring to the responsibilities of at least two other Ministers, those for Health and the Environment. The responsibility I have is to try by a policy of persuasion and co-operation — a policy never written into any formal orders — to get the public service to recruit more handicapped people. The only way I can do that under the guidelines set down is to try to get State organisations to consider employing people on the training, but FÁS deal directly with the NRB. I do not believe there is difficulty with training. The workshops in which we are partly involved but which are mainly under the Department of Health and the NRB train people very well.
Could the Minister give us an example?
Will the Minister not accept that we have not lived up to our responsibilities to the handicapped and that the figure of 3 per cent was not a very high target to set at any time? There is not much point in saying to a handicapped person that there is a job available for him in a building if it is not accessible. Would part of the Minister's brief be to see that these buildings are accessible?
This is an extension of the question in respect of a matter which is the responsibility of another Minister.
Will the Minister highlight it to the relevant Minister?