Vol. 511 No. 1
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of persons with a disability employed by his Department; the proportion of overall staff numbers this represents; the steps, if any, being taken to ensure that his Department meets the target of 3%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22385/99]
There are currently three people with a disability employed in my Department. This represents 1.7% of overall staff numbers. This figure shows a decrease on last year when the Department employed four staff with a disability equating to 2.4% approximately. It should be stressed that the 3% target relates to the Civil Service as a whole and it is not always possible to ensure that all Departments individually fulfil the quota at all times because of staff movement and promotions. Furthermore, my Department has a request from the Civil Service Commission for the assignment of an officer from one of the panels for people with a disability. We will continue to recruit from these panels on a regular basis with the aim of ensuring that the target quota is reached in the shortest possible time.
Is the Taoiseach aware of a report in the Irish Independent which states that among the top offenders are ten Departments, ranging from the officer of the Chief State Solicitor—
The Deputy should not quote on Question Time.
I am not quoting but informing the House of the facts. I am entitled to refer to numbers and these range from 0.5% to 2.4% over ten Departments. The Taoiseach has a specific responsibility in a number of them. What steps does he propose to take to bring the figure up to the 3% level set in the middle 1970s?
With regard to my Department and the office of the Attorney General and the office of the Chief State Solicitor, for whom I have administrative responsibility, although with regard to the latter that will not always be the case, I would like to see a higher figure and the achievement of a 3% limit. I have urged my Department to employ people from the different panels.
A difficulty was brought to my attention when we considered the figures for 1998 earlier this year. The scheme is operated on only three panels. The telephonist's panel in my jurisdiction is controlled by Eircom, so I cannot employ telephonists. That is probably the strongest panel. With regard to the clerical officer panel of the Civil Service Commission, we have submitted an application for another person.
Given the movement of people within Departments in recent years we should try to adhere to the target in the clerical officer grades. It is the only panel available to us and in so far as we can recruit from that panel – there are vacancies – we will. I support that approach and have advised the administration and personnel sections in my Department accordingly. That would bring the figure up to 3%.
I should not stop at 3%. If we can recruit more people who are suitable we should do so. I have argued previously that the definition is broad enough because it refers to having a tangible impact on the functional capacity of recruits to do a job or having an impact on their ability to function in a particular environment or leading to a discrimination in obtaining or keeping employment of a kind which they would otherwise follow. That definition should allow for a reasonably broad spectrum, but there are only three panels. One of them is closed to me and the other is very limited, which means I am effectively only left with the clerical officer grade.
Do I understand the Taoiseach to mean that with regard to the personnel or establishment section in his Department and the related Departments for which his Department has responsibility, he has simply asked them to try harder? Is it the case that he has not gone further or that he considers he cannot go further?
Not only have I asked them, but they have accepted my point and have asked the panel to provide suitable people for them.
Has the Taoiseach set a timetable?
That should have been done, but it has not been finalised yet.
Will the Taoiseach agree that a problem which a Department like his faces is that in achieving these targets there are only a limited number of entry points? In his Department it is the general recruitment grades to the public service. Most of the people were recruited long before there was any special provision for people with disability. Does he agree that given the number of promotional posts coming up in his Department he should perhaps throw some or all of them to open competition, with special consideration to be given to those who have disabilities?
I am not sure if the Deputy means outside the three existing panels.
The secretary-general post in the Taoiseach's Department will shortly become vacant.
The Deputy is aware there is a system for the appointment of secretary-generals to Departments.
The Taoiseach is in charge of it and can change it. He is not a creature of the system.
We have made a number of good moves in those areas. In this instance we are trying to recruit people with disabilities into the Department. We will not solve problems in the manner suggested by the Deputy. The only two panels open to me are the clerical officer and executive officer grades. The telephonist's panel is not available. I have asked that people be recruited to those two panels and I believe they should be.
Is it the case from the Taoiseach's reply that the only posts open to people with disabilities are those at the bottom, that that is all the Taoiseach will do, and the fact he is Taoiseach and supposedly in charge is irrelevant because he will not change the existing system? Is that what he has fought so hard become – a person who presides rather than decides?
I am disappointed that Deputy Bruton is trying to create an impression that the Taoiseach could widen the panels for people with disabilities so that a person with a disability—
The Taoiseach could invoke an existing Government decision.
—could apply for a secretary general's post. Deputy Bruton knows that is disingenuous.
The Taoiseach is wrong.
There is no possibility of that. It is misleading to put that forward.
It is not misleading.
The Deputy is trying to suggest to a person with a disability that they could apply for the post of secretary general of a Department. A politician should not blindly mislead a person with a disability. It is a disgraceful and stupid suggestion to put forward.
Deputy Higgins (Mayo) rose.
The Deputy should be brief. All questions are important and we may not reach certain questions.
No person with a disability can qualify for a senior position in the Taoiseach's Department. They are only entitled to lesser jobs.
They can qualify if they are on a panel.
I call Deputy Jim Higgins and ask him to be brief.
Deputy Bruton wants to mislead people with disabilities. Such people can be included on three panels – the telephonists' panel, the clerical officers' panel and the executive officers' panel – or they can come through the normal system if they are not on those panels. A person with a disability does not have to be categorised on a panel if they do not wish it so. It is misleading to make the inference Deputy Bruton has tried to make today. As with civil servants and public servants in the normal system, a person with a disability can reach the top positions in the public service.
All senior jobs in the Civil Service are a closed shop and disabled people outside it have no chance of getting into it. That is a fact.
I call Deputy Jim Higgins.
(Mayo): Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the statistics for the performance of Departments alluded to by Deputy Quinn are pathetic in terms of our obligation to discharge our responsibilities for people with disabilities? Does he accept the 3% target is relatively modest? Does he agree that, disregarding the jobs at the top of the service, the fact that those at the bottom are not being filled is an indictment of our performance? Does the Taoi seach acknowledge that his hoping and urging are aspirational and do not matter a whit to people with disabilities who are not getting jobs? Does he accept that, in failing in our responsibility as politicians in charge of Departments, we are undermining our moral and political responsibility of supervising legislation such as the Employment Equality Act or the Equal Status Bill which are supposed to monitor what is happening in the public and private sectors?
I accept that the target is not that high or onerous and should be improved upon. This Government has done more in the disability area than anyone else. It established the Equality Authority, implemented the legislation to which the Deputy referred and is bringing forward the disability Bill.
It closed down the Department of Equality and Law Reform.
The Deputy's outgoing colleague said it was time for it to be integrated and that it had achieved its purpose.
We have a Minister for asylum seekers.
It has continued to do an extraordinarily good job—
Not so.
—and there is greater integration and facilitation than ever before between disability organisations.
People can gain promotion from whatever grade in the public service at which they happen to be. It should be remembered that many people with disabilities believe they should not be categorised by being included on a panel and some of them make their way through the system with the normal rigours of competition and do very well.
