Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Apr 1997

Vol. 151 No. 2

Equal Status Bill, 1997: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Senator O'Toole has requested a five minute sos between Committee Stage and Report Stage.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendment No. 12 is related to amendment No. 11 and they may be taken together by agreement.

SECTION 19.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 11:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 39, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
—(Mrs. McGennis).

The question of access to public transport for the disabled was referred to by myself and a number of others on Second Stage. During the debate on the Employment Equality Act, 1997, which has been referred to the Supreme Court, we discussed the percentage of unemployed disabled. Their most basic necessity is to get to their place of employment.

The Centre for Independent Living mounted a protest outside and tried to enter this Chamber but were unable to do so because it is not wheelchair accessible. Section 11 states that the Minister may, with agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, make regulations. That is too loose. It also states that it may at some time happen. "Shall" puts an emphasis and requirement on the Minister to do so while "may" leaves it at the discretion of the Minister of the day. The current Minister, Deputy Taylor, announced that he is retiring. Therefore, I wish to put the onus on whoever replaces him to do that. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment to ensure the next Minister requires transport authorities to replace their fleets with wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Sections 19 and 20 enable the Minister, with the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, to make regulations. Replacing the word "may" with "shall" would make it compulsory and change the intention of the proposal. It would make it virtually impossible to operate. Therefore, I will not accept the amendments.

I agree "shall" means it is compulsory, which is the intention of my amendment. I do not accept that enabling the Minister to do so is strong enough. Those who have lobbied and tried hard to ensure public transport fleets are replaced with vehicles that are acceptable to the disabled have listened for years to promises that they would be replaced. I want this to be compulsory, not discretionary. I am not looking for the entire public transport fleet to be replaced immediately. As a once-off measure, when the public transport fleet needs to be changed, the Minister must ensure that the new vehicles are accessible to the disabled.

The powers being given to the Minister make it possible for him or her to make it compulsory for vehicles and railway stations to be accessible to disabled people. The effect of the amendment proposed would be that the Minister would immediately have to declare this a reality. It would be nonsense to suggest that this would be a reality if "may" was replaced by "shall".

The Minister is now being given the power to make it compulsory, in agreement with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, to ensure that both vehicles and stations are user-friendly for disabled persons.

The Minister referred to amendment No. 12, which I am prepared to discuss. I do not accept the Minister's statement that this would be nonsense. The section states: "... The Minister may, with the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, make regulations..." and the amendment proposes to change that to: "...The Minister shall..."

That does not suggest this has become a reality but it compels the Minister to do what he should be doing. The word "may" is much weaker, as I learnt in my first day on the Government side when Senator Neville tried to introduce the same wording into legislation he believed was weak.

That was different legislation.

Those were different times but the same words. The wording is weak and gives the Minister discretion. It is nonsense to talk of equal status if disabled people do not have access to public transport or train stations. I do not know if the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications is directing this legislation, but I am very disappointed that the Minister of State does not see the necessity for or merit in this amendment.

The Senator does not remember what happened to my amendment.

Senator McGennis, without interruption. Senator Neville should desist from interrupting if he wishes to comment on the section.

Senator Neville's amendment may have been defeated but that does not take from the merit of his suggestion, nor is there a lack of merit in my amendment. The Senator and the Minister of State know that the authorities should be compelled to do so. Otherwise the section will gather dust.

It is difficult to disagree with Senator McGennis. However, I cannot support this because it would put every bus operator in the country out of business. That will happen if regulations are introduced which "shall" require bus operators to make their vehicles readily accessible. It cannot be introduced in this way as businesses would go to the wall.

The section states that: "...The Minister may, with the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, make regulations requiring...vehicles...be equipped so as to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities." I would support an amendment suggesting that, after a certain date, all new buses would have to have this facility. I know three or four operators in my area running family businesses with a couple of buses and providing a good social service. Their buses are insured and they pay their taxes, but it would be very costly to update those old buses. It might be impossible to do so in some cases as a special design would be necessary.

I am uncomfortable opposing Senator McGennis on this matter but this would be inoperable. "May" should be left in the section so that a Minister can make a start on a process that will take some time to implement fully. However, the Senator is right to raise the issue.

I am at risk of being supported by Senator O'Toole, so I will put his mind at rest. The section specifies "...road or rail passenger vehicles that are likely to be put into use for the first time..." so there is no question of requiring current operators to upgrade fleets that are 30 or 40 years ago. Some buses might be worth less than what it would cost to adapt them and I acknowledge Senator O'Toole's point that adaptation would not be viable in those cases. Subsection (2) states: "Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a vehicle that is designed for private use or for use as a taxi, limousine or hackney." The legislation is framed to accommodate the difficulties suggested by Senator O'Toole. The intent in the section is good but there is not, nor has there ever been, compulsion with regards to public service vehicles.

We have been renewing our public service transport fleet with EU money and Members were lobbied strongly on the upgrading of vehicles. There is a vehicle to take disabled people around the city but people cannot get into the city from Blanchardstown or Ballymun to use that adapted vehicle. Members have said that this must be done and the Minister agreed, but he has now watered this section down.

If Senator O'Toole wishes to support my amendment, that should put his mind at rest. I do not suggest that, overnight, any number of public service vehicles should or could be adapted and the legislation is conscious of that, as it refers to vehicles being used "...for the first time." If someone is changing a vehicle, they should be compelled to ensure that it is accessible for disabled people.

Recently a woman complained bitterly to me that her husband, who wanted a taxi licence, was told his car would have to be adapted for wheelchair use. She felt it was reasonable to say the provision was nonsense as disabled people could drive Mini Micras. This is the mindset with which we are dealing. We must realise the difficulties that disabled people face daily. I saw a video made by disabled people made about a DART journey. It showed a person crawling up the steps to a DART station and dragging a wheelchair behind him. That is not good enough. If this legislation means what it says, it should state that it "shall" be done and not that it "may" be done.

The Senator should be aware that, until now, Ministers had no power to order transport operators or owners of railway stations to make any changes. These sections give the Minister the power to enforce what both the Senator and the Minister seek to do.

The Senator referred to vehicles in operation for the first time. That specifically does not refer to new vehicles because most of the private bus operators import second hand vehicles. If "shall" was inserted, they would have to import special vehicles which would probably not be available to them, and this would put them at serious risk. The Senator should rely on the good sense and prudence of Ministers, with their new power, to work on this issue after the section comes into force.

The Senator should read the section which would have "shall" followed immediately by "with the agreement of" another Minister. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform could say "shall" but he would still have to get the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and there could be a contradiction in both sections.

I am quite prepared to remove the need for agreement and resubmit the amendment on Report Stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, will not be aware that this exact wording was provided for in the Employment Equality Bill, 1996. When I attempted to remove the need for agreement the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, explained why that provision was necessary. If the Minister of State wants me to remove the need for the agreement of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, I am quite willing to do so.

This section is too soft and it sells out the disabled. We are talking about the public transport system and I do not accept what the Minister said about the requirement of those who are operating private transport systems. If they are bringing in secondhand buses, they are not caught by this because there is the first-time loophole through which they can escape. There is an obligation on the public transport system to allow people with disabilities to use it.

I reject the idea that this section is soft or a sell out of disabled people. This is a very strong section giving new powers to Ministers to insist that disabled persons' transport needs will be met. That was never done by any previous Administration. It is unfair to say it is soft and a sell out is unfair.

The Senator's amendment would make this section unworkable and whoever is Minister in the near future would not make the necessary commencement order which is required to bring these sections into effect, because he would not be in a position to do so. Therefore, the effect of her amendment would be that there would be no section on this matter. I strongly advise the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

On the advice of the Minister, I will resubmit it on Report Stage and ensure that it is not unworkable, that it can be signed and that it is the Minister for Equality and Law Reform who will make the regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That section 19 stand part of the Bill", put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Question, "That section 20 stand part of the Bill", put and agreed to.
Sections 21 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27.

Amendment No. 13 is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 13 to 33, inclusive, and amendment No. 36 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 13:
In page 21, subsection (2), line 43, to delete "section 46" and substitute "section 28".

These are technical amendments which are needed because of a procedural flaw in an amendment to Part III on Report Stage in the Dáil. They correct the cross-references concerned.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 22, subsection (6), line 26, to delete "section 46" and substitute "section 28".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 22, subsection (1) (a), line 30, to delete "section 45" and substitute "section 27".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 22, subsection (1)(b), lines 31 and 32, to delete "section 45(6)" and substitute "section 27(6)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 23, subsection (4), lines 5 and 6, to delete "section 48" and substitute "section 30".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 23, line 7, to delete "section 46" and substitute "section 28".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 23, line 9, to delete "section 42" and substitute "section 24".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 12, to delete "section 46" and substitute "section 28".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "section 46" and substitute "section 28".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 24, subsection (2), line 13, to delete "section 50(1)" and substitute "section 32(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 24, subsection (1), line 20, to delete "section 53" and substitute "section 35".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 24, subsection (2), line 22, to delete "section 45" and substitute "section 27".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 24, subsection (2), line 30, to delete "section 48" and substitute "section 30".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 25, subsection (1), lines 3 and 4, to delete "section 52(1)" and substitute "section 34(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 25, subsection (2), line 7, to delete "section 52(1)" and substitute "section 34(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Section 36 and 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 26, subsection (1)(a), line 40, to delete "section 54(2)(b)" and substitute "section 36(2)(b)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 26, subsection (1)(b), line 41, to delete "section 55(1)" and substitute "section 37(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 27, subsection (2), line 16, to delete "sections 54 to 56" and substitute "sections 36 to 38".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 27, subsection (2)(d), line 27, to delete "section 51" and substitute "section 33".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 27, subsection (2)(e), line 29, to delete "section 56" and substitute "section 38".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 27, subsection (2), line 40, to delete "sections 54(1)" and substitute "sections 36(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 41 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 64.

Amendment No. 34 is a Government amendment. Amendment No. 35 is related. Therefore amendments Nos. 34 and 35 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 34:
In page 37, subsection (1)(b)(ii), line 22, after "implement" to insert "a decision or order under Part III of this Act or".

These are technical amendments consequential on an amendment to redress procedures in Part III on Report Stage in the Dáil.

Amendment agreed to.

The reference to the Employment Equality Act, 1997, in amendment No. 35 should be italicised.

Government amendment No. 35:
In page 37, subsection (1)(b)(ii), lines 24 and 25, to delete "under section 42 of that Act" and substitute "under section 27 of this Act or section 42 of the Employment Equality Act, 1997".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 37, subsection (2)(b), line 34, to delete "section 22(1)" and substitute "section 23(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 65 to 79, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.

I understand we are adjourning for ten minutes.

I propose we adjourn for five minutes.

I understand that Senator O'Toole and Senator McGennis will be contributing so I suggest we adjourn for ten minutes.

If the staff have sufficient time to deal with the amendments in five minutes that is fine with me.

We will adjourn for ten minutes to facilitate them.

Sitting suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 7.10 p.m.
Top
Share