Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Jul 1995

Vol. 455 No. 4

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Proofing of European Measures.

Michael Woods

Question:

13 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the steps, if any, he has taken to gender-proof and disability-proof all actions and measures which emanate from the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12201/95]

It is the function of the European Commission itself rather than my Department to gender proof all actions and measures emanating from the European Commission. The Government is, however, committed to gender proofing of national programmes supported by EU Structural Funds, as set out in the National Development Plan.

Arising from that commitment the Human Resources Operational Programme contains, for the first time, a section on promoting equal opportunities, involving the ring-fencing of funds amounting to £7.7 million during the period to 1999. My Department is involved in monitoring the implementation of this programme and will pay particular attention to the progress of quality targets in this programme and in the Urban and Rural Development Operational Programme. My Department also examines proposals for action in the social policy field, which relate to my area of responsibility, with a view to profiling equal opportunities issues.

In the Irish Government response to the European Commission Green Paper entitled "European Social Policy-Options for the Union", my Department was instrumental in raising with the Commission the desirability of all Community-funded initiatives being subjected to an equality proofing system which would encompass not only gender proofing but also disability proofing.

The approach by my Department to profiling equality in respect of European Commission policy and action initiatives in the social policy area affecting my Department will continue to apply to reflect the importance given to this issue by the Government.

As regards disability proofing there is no agreed Community policy in place to ensure that Commission initiatives contain such provisions. My Department participate in the deliberations of the HELIOS II European Union Programme for the exchange of information between member states on various measures, including good practice, in relation to people with disabilities. I understand that the question of disability proofing is being discussed in that forum.

I understand that the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities is also considering this issue and will put forward its views on the subject, in due course, when submitting its report.

In the light of the circumstances I have outlined I do not believe it would be proper for me, at this stage, to embark on unilateral action in relation to disability proofing which could preempt or prejudice developments in the other fora which are examining the question.

The Minister does not worry about upsetting other apple carts. Ministers have the opportunity at meetings of the Council of Ministers to press for policy changes and encourage other member states to agree to them. The Minister said there is no agreed policy at European Union level. It is time the EU agreed a policy of disability proofing to provide the support needed by people with disabilities.

The Minister mentioned the HELIOS project, and the HORIZON project has been used successfully here to introduce new and innovative training projects, but such training was always geared to the open market. There should be a policy in the European Union to support people with disabilities, and I would like the Minister to press for an extension of the HORIZON project to sheltered work because that is often the only kind of work that can be taken on by people with disabilities.

In dealing with the question of gender proofing and training for people with disabilities, my Department is and will continue to be involved in monitoring arrangements. It was as a result of representations made by my Department that there was, for the first time, ring-fencing. Monitoring arrangements have been included and my Department will have a role in regard to those. In regard to the HELIOS programme, there is no question of fear of treading on anyone's toes. Such matters have to be evolved by agreement at EU level. Disability proofing is being discussed and it is appropriate that we await the outcome of those discussions. It is better that there be agreement between the member states on which the arrangements for disability proofing can be based.

Would the Minister not agree that one of the ways in which Ministers at the Council of Ministers can promote disability proofing and support for people with disabilities is by seeking and encouraging a convergence of policies between member states, and that where one cannot have uniformity between member states one can at least have convergence? Will the Minister press for the use of the non-Governmental organisations and their networks to provide financial support for people with disabilities because such organisations are quite extensive in Ireland and generally throughout Europe?

The non-Governmental organisations do remarkable work and fulfil a very important role as far as disability issues are concerned. I meet them from time to time, and they are key participants in the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Exactly what their role would be is a matter that would have to be thought through. They have important functions and it will be interesting to see what role is devised for them by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities in its forthcoming report. There will also be an important ongoing permanent role for the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.

In regard to the Council of Ministers, it is not just a question of Ministers pressing for this or that. At EU level agreement must be reached on methods of monitoring. Discussions are taking place at ministerial level and in sub groups to try to reach consensus on what the monitoring arrangements should be and which are appropriate to any programme. When they have been agreed upon, my Department will be very much involved in implementing them, and I am sure any Department would take the same view.

I take it the Minister agrees with the principle of disability proofing, although I did not hear him specifically answer Deputy Wood's question which implicitly asked that. Is the Minister aware of a recent legislative innovation in this area in the United States called the Americans with Disabilities Act which is about three years old? Will the Minister consider introducing a similar innovation here by way of separate legislation or by incorporating it in proposals he intends to bring before the House? Finally, is the Minister aware that there is no single coherent definition of the term "disability", and would he agree that compiling statistics in relation to it can, therefore, lead to confusion? Does he intend to incorporate a definition of "disability" in forthcoming legislation?

That is my intention. It will be difficult to introduce employment equality legislation and equal status legislation without a definition of the term "disability". That is not to say that it will be easy to fix on a definition. It has proved to be quite a difficult and complex area. However, there will be a definition of "disability" in both Bills.

On the question of monitoring, there should be monitoring of any policy decided upon by the EU Commission. The point is who is to do that monitoring and how is it to be done? It is the function of the European Commission to monitor all actions and measures which it proposes. It is not a matter for a Department of equality or of social affairs in any country to monitor the generality of EU material coming forward. Monitoring applies at different levels in respect of different programmes. For example, the monitoring of the Human Resources Operational Programme, which for the first time contained sections on equal opportunities for Ireland and involved the ring-fencing of moneys for particular purposes, is specifically the responsibility of my Department, and we are undertaking that monitoring responsibility. Other Departments administering other funds where this applies will do likewise. It must be carried out at different levels and we must agree on its source.

The Deputy mentioned the American Act dealing with disabilities. The Americans dealt with the position of people with disability in one Act to the exclusion of all other groups. It dealt with employment, equal status, equal opportunity, access to services and so on. I considered that approach but decided against it. It would take a long time to cover all the groups I am anxious to provide protection for. I decided to have a divide between employment-related matters and other matters, the Bill on equal status being in the latter category. The divide would be a functional one rather than a division between categories of people. That is the basis on which I decided to proceed and it is the correct one.

The House would wish to bring in protection for people with disabilities and for those referred to by Deputy Keogh who are discriminated against on grounds of gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, age, membership of the travelling community and so on. That is the basis on which we are proceeding. It has not been easy because many categories of people will be included under the legislation. I hope the House will accept the legislation when it is introduced. The first Bill will, I hope, be published later this year.

Top
Share