I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, and his officials. We will resume consideration of Committee Stage of the Disability Bill 2004. We previously adjourned having agreed section 19. We will now deal with amendment No. 219 to section 20.
SECTION 20
I move amendment No. 219:
In page 23, paragraph (a)(v), lines 36 to 38, to delete all words from and including “referral” in line 36 down to and including “assessment,” in line 38 and substitute the following:
"nomination by the Council of a person or persons with appropriateexpertise to assist in carrying out an assessment in relation to educational services,".
This amendment provides for regulations governing the skills and expertise required of persons nominated by the NCSE to assist with assessing the educational needs of applicants. The provision is similar to that contained in section 20(a)(iii) which applies to assessors generally.
I move amendment No. 220:
In page 24, paragraph (b)(v), lines 4 to 6, to delete all words from and including “periodic” in line 4 down to and including “statements,” in line 6 and substitute the following:
"review by liaison officers of the provision of services specified in service statements, including the intervals at which such reviews shall be undertaken either generally or with reference to—
(I) a particular category or categories of disability, or
(II) categories of persons of a particular age,".
This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 71.
Does it refer strictly to eligibility?
Is the Deputy referring to eligibility for services?
This amendment is not about eligibility. It provides for a review of the service statement as agreed with the interest groups.
When has it been agreed to carry out such a review?
Reviews will be carried out at regular intervals but there is no specified timescale because each case is different.
I am concerned that the Minister of State may specify a timescale in the regulations once the Bill is enacted.
As I have stated, the regulations are being prepared. They will spell out much of the detail and specify timescales, where possible.
I move amendment No. 222:
In page 24, paragraph (c), line 11, after “complaints” to insert the following:
"provided that any regulations in relation to the time within which acomplaint must be made, shall include provision for the extension of such time on the showing of cause for such an extension".
This amendment aims to ensure there would be flexibility within the appeals system. I am concerned that timescales will be implemented through regulations and members of the committee will not have an input into that process. Therefore, flexibility must be provided for in the Bill.
There may be a very good reason for an individual not making an appeal within a particular timescale. The legislation must allow for flexibility because, as Deputies, we will have no control over the regulations. I assume the Minister of State will have some input into them. If flexibility is provided for in the legislation, it will also have to be provided for in the regulations.
I second the amendment. It is important to look at the wording, specifically following: "provided that any regulations in relation to the time within which a complaint must be made, shall include provision for the extension of such time on the showing of cause for such an extension." As Deputy Lynch pointed out, the amendment aims to introduce flexibility to the system. I support it for that reason.
Section 20 deals with the regulations, including those governing complaints procedures and time limits. Amendment No. 222 seeks to extend the wording of the legislation to specifically allow for the extension of the time period where cause is shown. The word "cause", without qualification, seems to leave open the possibility of undue extension of time limits. There is a double-edged sword. We want to ensure the process takes place quickly. We have drafted amendments to set down timeframes in order that, in the interests of clients, the process can be completed as speedily as possible. What is proposed by this amendment is the insertion of timeframes into the legislation rather than the regulations but this would create inflexibility.
I accept the point made by Deputy Lynch regarding an input into the regulations. However, they will be placed before the Dáil and Seanad for approval, giving Members an opportunity to contribute. If they want to persist with this amendment, I am prepared to consider it again and revert to them on Report Stage.
It is an important item. I thank the Minister of State for giving that undertaking.
This section is all about regulations. Will the Minister of State give us an indication of when we can expect to see them?
Discussions on the regulations are taking place between the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of the Taoiseach. In fact, there is a meeting on the issue scheduled for today. The HSE is working on the regulations but it is not possible to say when they will be ready. The process will take some time to complete but I hope to be able to provide a general outline of the thinking within the HSE during the debate on the Bill. The regulations are crucial to the successful implementation of the Bill. I am confident that with good procedures, regulations and standards, it will be effective legislation for people with disabilities.
It would be useful to have a timeframe in this respect. For instance, we know that Comhairle will not be up and running until 2008. However, I understand it will be involved in some of the regulations also. Are we talking, therefore, about a second terminal, something that will go on and on? How advanced are the draft regulations? Have the negotiations started? If so, for how long have they been continuing? The regulations represent a central part of the legislative strategy, yet from what the Minister of State has said, they appear to be at a preliminary stage, although the negotiations are ongoing. People should be made aware of when they will take effect because the strategy cannot kick in until they are in place.
The regulations cannot kick in until the Bill has been passed.
The HSE has been working on the regulations for a number of months. It should be recalled that it was not possible to begin work on them until the Bill was published. Nonetheless, a substantial amount of work has been undertaken. From the beginning I have said the regulations are crucial to the entire process. With the Department, I have placed much emphasis on the need to clarify the regulations and have them published as quickly as possible. I cannot provide any timescales today but I hope after meeting officials from the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Health and Children and the HSE, we may be able to have some indication in this regard. I will inform the committee tomorrow of what progress has been made.
As the Bill also deals with education issues, are the Department of Education and Science and the council involved in the discussions on the regulations?
The regulations governing Part 2 are essentially a matter for the HSE and the Department of Health and Children. The drawing up of the regulations is specifically a matter for the HSE.
Amendment No. 223 has already been discussed with amendment No. 10.
I move amendment No. 223:
In page 24, subsection (1)(a), lines 20 and 21, to delete “chief executive officer of the health board concerned” and substitute “Executive”.
Amendment No. 224 is out of order.
I move amendment No. 225:
In page 24, subsection (1)(a), between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(i) to implement a service statement,".
If we accept that the assessment is the holistic view of what is needed, the service plan is what we will get. This amendment seeks to ensure the service plan would be implemented. Clearly, it would involve no drain on the Exchequer because it is in order but it would place the onus on Health Service Executive officers or whoever will be implementing the service plan to make it. It would ensure the enforcement of the service statement. If the Minister of State is worried and wants to ensure matters progress, we must ensure this happens. The amendment simply seeks to achieve this in order that the service plan would be enforced.
I support the amendment, including the key words "to implement a service statement". It would strengthen the legislation because it strongly favours the interests of people with disabilities. The focus of the debate must be on their interests because sometimes we take our eye off the ball when dealing with legislation. It should not be forgotten that there are examples of good practice in the disability service. The debate should not solely concern regulations and complaints. There are examples of top quality services being provided for people with disabilities but the problem emerges when there is a lack of consistency and some receive a service while others do not. In dealing with this legislation it is important to understand what is happening in service delivery. The amendment is strong and would give the Bill some teeth. This is important from the viewpoint of people with disabilities.
Section 21(1)(a) provides for the enforcement, through the Circuit Court, of a resolution arising from mediation, a recommendation of the complaints officer that has not been the subject of an appeal, and a determination of the appeals officer. Amendment No. 225 would allow a person to seek a court enforcement order relating to a provision in a service statement without going through any of the complaints or appeals process beforehand. This would have the effect of bypassing complaints under sections 13 and 14 and appeals under section 17. I do not, therefore, propose to accept it. However, an applicant does not have to go through the entire redress process before seeking an enforcement order which, as I outlined, can be sought in respect of any recommendation of the complaints officer which has not been the subject of an appeal.
I am not accepting the amendment because when one takes into account the amendments we have made, it is unnecessary. The complaints officer must adjudicate on a complaint. If he or she agrees, there is recourse to enforcement through the courts. There is a direct appeal and an enforcement process as a result of the changes we have made in the Bill, not least removing the CEO from the process. In addition, if we decide to change to the Ombudsman — the DLCG is deciding on that issue today — there will be no necessity for this section. I suggest that we leave the matter in abeyance until we see the decision of the DLCG.
I will have no difficulty in doing so. As I said, we are discussing the matter in a vacuum since much of this section is dependent on what the DLCG wants and whether the Minister of State agrees. I was under the impression that we would know today what the DLCG had decided at the meeting on Friday. May I take it there was no decision at that meeting?
No. It decided it needed to have a further discussion on that specific aspect of the legislation and the outcome of our meeting the last day. It needed time to reflect. It is meeting today to decide on the matter.
I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage based on the outcome of today's meeting. I take it that after today's meeting, there will be no further meetings on the issue. I also take it there will be a decision today and that we will then know what we are talking about.
Yes. We will also know whether we are dealing with the Ombudsman as the appeals mechanism or the existing system. Even under the existing system, however, it would completely destroy the complaints mechanism if people were in a position to go directly to the Circuit Court. It would render the complaints officer, an important person on the side of the applicant, redundant. That would not be in anyone's best interests.
I do not think it would have that effect.
The Deputy has kindly agreed to withdraw the amendment based on the forthcoming decision.
Yes.
Amendment No. 226 has already been discussed with amendment No. 10.
I move amendment No. 226:
In page 24, subsection (1)(a), line 39, to delete “chief executive officer concerned” and substitute “Executive”.
Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 are out of order.
Is it the Minister of State's position that the section becomes defunct if the Ombudsman rather than the appeals officer comes into play? In the event of a reference being made to an appeals officer, will the Ombudsman assume a role? If so, will it not be possible to make an application to the Circuit Court to enforce determinations? In other words, the Ombudsman will have moral authority but not the same power as the Circuit Court to enforce orders. Does the Minister of State not agree this would be a retrograde step? Why should the Ombudsman not replace the appeals officer, while maintaining the provision to give an applicant recourse to the Circuit Court in the event that the executive or education service provider continued to fail to implement or give effect to the statement?
Everybody agrees the system which pertains under the Ombudsman has been successful since her office was established. The consensus is that the moral authority of the Ombudsman has more force than any other authority in the context of enforcement. One can have either the system proposed by the Deputies or the Ombudsman system. I reiterate my view that the Ombudsman system is in the best interests of people with disabilities. We have provided a choice whereby if the DLCG believes the system, as originally proposed, is stronger, it may choose to maintain it.
The Minister of State appears to indicate that, if introduced, the Ombudsman system which he regards as so good will remove the need for the courts to be involved. There is, however, no reason to preclude the involvement of the courts. In other words, although the complainant will not need to go to court if the Ombudsman resolves an issue, this is not a reason to remove the provision.
As representatives of the disability community will have pointed out to the Minister of State on Friday, they have a fundamental difficulty with the process of appeal and complaint because one can only take an appeal or complaint about the process as opposed to the content. In replacing the proposed system with the Ombudsman, the means of complaint would be the same and would, therefore, make no fundamental difference. While the Office of the Ombudsman has been a major success, people with disabilities do not have the right to take a case to the office in the same context as I do, for example, with regard to certain services or difficulties I may have with the State. The difficulty is the proposal provides that they may take a case on a restricted, narrow basis. The problem, therefore, is not so much the individual or office but the mechanism by which a person may take a case. Offering a choice between the complaints office and the Ombudsman is a false argument. The issue is the grounds on which one can take a case.
I am concerned about relying on the moral authority of the Ombudsman and removing the notion of legal authority. It is important that immediate action is taken on services and the legal route guarantees protection of civil rights and liberties.
While I do not wish to be awkward, is the Minister of State aware of the number of occasions on which no action was taken on foot of recommendations issued by the Ombudsman in cases taken by people denied access to services?
I wish to raise another issue about which we are all concerned. Is there any other legislation on the Statute Book which prevents a person from asserting his or her rights in the courts? If so, are such measures constitutional? Can one prevent someone in legislation from asserting his or her rights in the courts or through law? I am not certain this is possible, although I may be wrong.
By allowing the decisions of the Ombudsman to be appealed to the court one would depart from important established principles, namely, those governing the relationship between the Ombudsman and the Oireachtas. Allowing the Ombudsman's judgment to be appealed to the courts would undermine this relationship.
Deputy Lynch is mistaken in playing down the grounds of appeal. As I noted at a previous meeting, the applicant may appeal the contents of the service statement. This is a significant ground for appeal because in appealing the grounds of the service statement, an issue we teased out at a previous meeting and one which I have since checked out, the applicant effectively appeals the services he or she is not receiving. This inevitably must come into the grounds of appeal.
As we tried to explain to the DLCG the other day, we have considerably improved the Bill in providing for a direct appeals system whereby the contents of a service statement can be appealed to the complaints officer and then directly to the Ombudsman. This is an effective complaints and appeals mechanism, much more so than provided for under the Bill, as originally published, which contained a significant loop through which the CEO would be able to reject the findings of the complaints officer for reasons that were practicable. We have strengthened this provision by including strong grounds on which a person may appeal to the Ombudsman, if the Ombudsman comes into play, or the appeals officer, if the original section remains in the Bill, and then to the Circuit Court, if the appeals officer's decision is not satisfactory to the applicant.
In respect of Deputy McGrath's question, everyone has a right to take a case to the Ombudsman on general grounds under existing legislation. Under the Bill, people may take a case to the Ombudsman on specific grounds.
Are the Ombudsman's recommendations usually implemented? Are figures available in this regard?
If there are figures, I am sure they can be obtained. It has been my experience in several Departments that they respond immediately to implementing directions made by the Ombudsman. The authority and prestige of the Office of the Ombudsman have a significant effect as regards the implementation of decisions across Departments. It would be a foolish Department which would ignore the authority of the Ombudsman. That is why the Ombudsman's office has been so successful in ensuring people's rights. A separate division dealing with disability complaints and appeals in the Ombudsman's office will have a significant effect and a high profile when publicising cases where the system does not deliver the services required.
We all agree that the Ombudsman has authority but there are cases where that authority has been ignored. The issue of social welfare payments to the grandparents of children of drug addicts arose recently. These grandparents provide a great service for the State by assisting their grandchildren and the Ombudsman recommended to the Department of Social and Family Affairs that it assist them by granting social welfare payments but nothing has happened in one year. Legitimate cases are being recognised by the Ombudsman but the measures recommended to address them are not being put in place.
In this case we are not looking just at a recommendation of the Ombudsman but a determination. It is not so much the authority of the Ombudsman as the acute embarrassment of a Department that would not implement the determination of an Ombudsman that will ensure compliance.
The Ombudsman drew attention to the nursing home saga some time ago but nothing was done about it.
There was a recommendation. The tax rebates for widows came through quickly.
Will the Minister of State explain section 21(1)(b)?
It is a technical provision. It includes in the enforcement process complaints officers' recommendations where no appeal is being made or an appeal has been abandoned. Section 21(1)(b) is a technical provision to provide for the enforcement process if there is no appeal or an appeal has been abandoned.
In what way? What does it do?
If the Deputy reads it, it is clear.
I have read it; that is the point.
It is self-explanatory. Should I read it for the Deputy?
I want the Minister of State to explain what it does.
It is a technical provision.
Yes.
The Bill states: "if such an appeal has been brought, it has been abandoned and the reference to the date on which the determination or recommendation, as the case may be, is communicated to the parties shall, in a case where such an appeal is abandoned, be construed as a reference to the date of such abandonment".
What does that mean?
It protects the position where there is no appeal made or the appeal has been abandoned.
Was there not a recommendation that legislation be written in accessible English?
It mentions the determination of an appeals officer.
It is a technical provision covering the reference in paragraph (a).
How would it work?
If an appeal has been abandoned, it cannot be enforced.
Does someone have to be told the appeal is being abandoned?
Obviously.
It is complicated.
Would it be possible to have this rewritten in plain English?
Something could be done on Report Stage. It is convoluted.
The Government produced a book last year entitled, Better Regulation.
There is no amendment on this.
We have been asked to accept the section but if we do not know what it means and the Minister of State cannot explain it, how can we accept it?
The generality should have been discussed on Second Stage. We are dealing with the amendments now.
Respectfully, my experience of Committee Stage is different.
This matter cannot be discussed unless an amendment has been tabled.
It is a technical provision to assist the applicant where, if in the process of the appeal, he or she decides to abandon it. He or she can return to the original position.
In layman's terms, if the appeal is abandoned, it can be restarted.
No.
The person returns to the status quo of the service statement.
He or she will return to the position before the appeal.
That is common sense. Why is it necessary to include this? If a person does not go ahead with an appeal, the position remains the same.
It is a technical provision; there are many others in the Bill.
Most make sense but this one does not.
It is about the mentality of the person drafting the Bill. At some stage, it was almost a punishable offence to appeal a decision. If the appeal was abandoned half way through, a person would receive nothing at all. That would be the only reason this would make sense, in order that a person would not be punished if he or she abandoned an appeal. Is that the thinking behind this?
It has nothing to do with it. The date of the abandonment is the date from which they can return to the original position.
Exactly. Why is it necessary to include it? It is common sense. It appears the only reason it has been included is to stop someone being punished for appealing in the first place.
We will go back to the parliamentary draftsman.
This section deals with search warrants and persons entering properties, by force if necessary. However, there is no requirement to have the Garda involved. There also does not seem to be a requirement for the person named in the warrant to carry out the search to show any identification papers. These are normal provisions required in legislation dealing with this area.
It is peculiar to omit such provisions from this section. In the event of information needing to be gathered, people will not accept this as normal. It is peculiar that there is no reference to gardaí, not necessarily in respect of their carrying out such searches but rather in the context of their accompanying those charged with doing so.
The section uses the phrase "accompanied by such other persons as the named person thinks necessary". Can that person tell the Garda what to do? It does not state that the court must do it. Other legislation provides for the Garda to be requested to attend and the person carrying out the search is required to show identification.
It also states that they can enter, if need be, by force. When force is required to enter a premises, the Garda is normally required to oversee the action.
It is not universal in legislation and is not required. The view is that it is not necessary to name the official or gardaí accompanying the person.
In other legislation, individual officials and gardaí are not named but accompanying——
What other legislation?
The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, for example, comes to mind, because of the debate with the then Minister, Senator O'Rourke. There was a major issue regarding the need for identification. Who might need a search warrant in a case such as the one under discussion? Would the appeals officer get the search warrant and if necessary break down a door to get into a building? This is important. Who do we think will have the search warrant?
The section allows the appeals officer to seek a search warrant for the premises and then to bring along whoever he or she sees fit, officials or gardaí, to execute the warrant. That is a fairly common provision in other legislation and is the most appropriate in the legislation before us.
The other legislation refers to the inclusion of a member of the Garda if necessary.
It is not necessary in this case.
I move amendment No. 229:
In page 25, before section 23, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
"23.—In this Part ‘housing authority' has the same meaning as it has in the Housing Act 1966 amended by section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.".
This amendment defines "housing authority" in the Bill in reference to the Housing Act 1966 amended by section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. In order to take account of the DLCG and interest groups' views about the wider needs of people with disabilities and the very strong views of a number of the Members on Committee Stage, the Government has decided to broaden the sectoral plan of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to specifically include housing.
Amendment No. 231 is an alternative to amendment No. 230. Amendments Nos. 233 to 235, inclusive, and amendment No. 253 are related, therefore, we will discuss amendments Nos. 230, 231, 233 to 235, inclusive, and amendment No. 253 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 230:
In page 25, subsection (1), to delete line 37 and substitute the following:
"23.—(1) In this Part—
‘access' means physical access, access to information and access to communications;
‘public building' means any building which is used by a public body, and any building which is used for a public service but is not owned by the State.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) and section 27, a public body”.
In this amendment we are defining access as meaning physical access, access to information and to communications. We are also defining "public building" as any building which is used by a public body or any building used for a public service but not owned by the State. The DLCG and the Irish Wheelchair Association maintain that this part of the Bill lacks a definition of access and accessibility and maintain that access should be interpreted in the widest sense, including physical access, access to information and to communications. They also say it should cover all services, private and public, delivered to the general population.
The Irish Association for Spina Bifida has said that the terms "public bodies" and "public buildings" need clarification and amendment. For example, does a post office come under the term "public body" or "public building", even if owned by a private individual? Will buildings used for public service not in ownership of the State be treated as public or private buildings? We need some clarification.
Regarding amendment No. 231, in page 25, subsection (1), line 37, we seek to delete subsection (4) and section 27 and substitute "provisions of the Equal Status Acts 2000 and 2004".
This section is not as strong as the requirement under the Equal Status Act and is spoiled by the demand to include special services, thus maintaining the permission to keep people with disabilities separate. The Institute for Design and Disability was strong on that point.
In the case of building regulations, proper enforcement of Part M would make a significant difference to access if this is not provided for. It is currently necessary to ensure compliance with fire regulations. A fire certificate from a building control officer is required before building can start. A similar access certificate, issued by a building control officer, would provide independent assurance of compliance. I understand that this is currently the practice in Australia. The legislation before us means that the compliance of public buildings with Part M shall be ensured by the allocation of certificates of compliance by a building control officer who will also be charged with the periodic monitoring and inspection of such buildings. That is what we are seeking. The Equality Authority maintains that the Bill could undermine the Equal Status Acts 2002 and 2004, which is why these amendments are being moved.
Amendments Nos. 230, 231 and 235 are very important. They deal with the issue of access for people with disabilities, and with the issue of definition of a public building. They are key issues regularly raised by the disability groups and by the disabled themselves. As far as I am aware, all the disability groups support change in this area. Particularly for those with a physical disability, access for many of them means equality. That is the key issue.
Regarding amendment No. 235, the compliance certificates are very important. Follow-up and accountability in the interests of the disabled also constitute a key recommendation.
My amendment is quite technical and is meant to ensure compliance with other subsections. Regarding access, it should not necessarily be confined to people with a disability. If buildings and our public thoroughfares are accessible, it makes life easier for everyone. People with mobility difficulties are probably more restricted than others, but I have seen the elderly, and mothers with buggies, struggle to access particular buildings. By ensuring compliance on access for people with disabilities, the Minister of State will be achieving good for the greater society.
Deputy Stanton is right regarding the need for a fire safety certificate and it would not be very difficult to also make an access certificate mandatory. The implementation of the compliance certificate, and its monitoring at a later date, may well cause problems. We have enforcement officers with regard to illegal buildings but in Cork, for example, there are only three, which is not enough, and very unsatisfactory. They are swamped with work because of all the development work that is ongoing. It is beyond me why those constructing new buildings or renovating existing structures are not forced to ensure access is available to all.
It is not beyond the wit of engineers to construct a building which does not have stairs but which has lifts and is accessible to everybody. We can build tunnels under rivers but we cannot construct a building that does not have ten or 12 steps up to the entrance. It is outrageous that somebody who cannot use steps must either go to the back of the building, down a side lane or depend on passing strangers to gain entry to it. Those days should be long gone. This is our opportunity to rectify the situation and we should take it.
It is strange that in this section and in every other section — with the exception of section 38 — in Part 3, we do not do what is required under the Good Friday Agreement, that is, ensure equivalence in terms of statutory duty. In the Six Counties, there is a section — known as section 75 — which mainstreams affirmative action requirements on all public bodies and establishes a right of equal access to all public buildings and services within a particular timeframe.
I will table a substantial amendment on Report Stage which will delete all these sections and replace them with this statutory duty. I will do what was done in respect of the Official Languages Act, which listed not only State Departments but all public bodies. It also provided that if a public body became private, it still had the statutory duty attached to it thereafter. This statutory duty would promote equality of opportunity for people with disabilities. There would be a duty on those public bodies to carry out their functions, not only in terms of ensuring that their buildings are accessible but also in the context of services and the recruitment and promotion of staff.
I am referring to other sections but they are relevant because I will suggest that they be deleted and replaced by the equivalent of section 75 in the Six Counties. We are required under the Good Friday Agreement to have equivalent legislation or better, so we can force the Six Counties to mirror what is done in the South. As we go through the sections, I will point out the other major faults that exist in the sections dealing with access to services, information and the sectoral plans. When the disability legislation consultative group last met the Minister — I am not aware of what happened at the meeting on Friday — it asked that there be a clear statutory duty on all Departments and public bodies. The group seems to favour the model I mentioned.
Does the Minister wish to discuss what happened at Friday's meeting? Was any progress made? At a press conference yesterday, the Forum of People with Disabilities stated that it was withdrawing from the process because it did not receive a commitment from the Government to move on the issues it was raising. This is relevant to much of the work we will do on Part 3. Was the forum correct to say that the Minister had indicated that there were no commitments and that there will be no further concessions by the Government on the substantial issues raised by the consultative group? There were five substantial issues and two of them relate to this Part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 253 is tricky. I visited Glendalough recently and significant work has been done there to enable people with disabilities to gain access to the site. When I was there, I saw some people in wheelchairs and they were able to get around the site quite easily. They were able to view and enjoy the surroundings, which was great. I saw the work that had been done to lay smooth paths that were properly graded. Steps had been removed and replaced with slopes and so forth.
Amendment No. 253 requires that each public body should make heritage sites in its ownership, management or control, and accessible to the public, accessible to people with disabilities. The requirement would not apply where disability access would adversely affect conservation or compromise the site. That is what the section is about. It is a welcome provision but it is marred by withdrawing the access on the grounds of interfering with the integrity of a site. The provision takes no account of the fact that any modern intrusion on a site by visitors, able bodied or not, must in some way compromise that site. This makes it clear that even if everyone else has access, a person with a disability may not have the same right. It should be redrafted to provide access as specified under the Equal Status Act.
The section provides that if it has a significant adverse effect on the conservation status of a species or habitat or the integrity of the site or compromises the characteristics of the site, people with disabilities, in effect, will be unable to visit or enjoy the site. How could that section be interpreted if it is left unchanged? There does not appear to be any way of appealing. Somebody could make a decision that providing access could have an adverse effect on the site and there does not appear to be any way of appealing that or of obtaining a second opinion.
I understand the sensitivities in respect of heritage sites. We have enough examples of it at present. However, a balance must be struck. There is an attempt in this section to achieve a balance but how will it work in practice? If the head or manager of a public body decides that laying a path will have a significant effect or impact, is that decision the end of the matter? Can it be appealed or can somebody else adjudicate on it? There does not appear to be provision in the Bill to do that.
The Deputy is referring, in other words, to a third party.
Yes.
Those with disabilities are as reasonable as other people. Nobody expects the entrance to Newgrange to be widened. Where such action is practical, however, it should be carried out. It is not a case that it may be done, it should be done. It seems unforgivable that a person, because of a disability, would be unable to participate in this island's rich heritage or culture. The Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Transport know that better than most. People with disabilities are practical and reasonable. They know that certain things will not be done and they would not expect them to be done. They have as much respect for these sites as others. This is a matter of being practical and reasonable but making people do these things where it is possible.
Section 23 obliges public bodies to make public buildings accessible in accordance with the regulations. Under section 23(2), the Minister may request the NDA to prepare codes of practice on accessibility. Amendment No. 233 will strengthen the obligation on public bodies to comply with such codes as far as practicable. In proposing the amendment, I am happy to support the suggestion from the NDA.
Amendment No. 230 would require the insertion of a definition of access to mean physical access and access to information and communication. I am satisfied that Part 3 as constructed gives adequate meaning to access in the areas concerned. In the same amendment a definition of public building is proposed that is very broad. I do not propose to accept these amendments and consider that the definition of "public building" in section 23(5) is more appropriate.
Amendment No. 231 seeks to make the section subject to the provisions of the Equal Status Acts. Those Acts already apply to public bodies in addition to private bodies. Section 23 places further obligations on public bodies to take action and make buildings accessible as specified, for example, by retrofitting them to make them accessible over a ten year period. I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 234 seeks to specifically exclude heritage buildings from the scope of section 23(3)(a). I am satisfied that sections 23 and 27 as already constructed achieve the objective sought as the definition of “heritage site” in section 27 is sufficiently detailed to afford the protection envisaged. I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 235 seeks compliance with Part M of the building regulations by the allocation of certificates of compliance by building control officers. Any measures taken to ensure compliance with Part M will form part of the sectoral plan of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Amendment No. 253 seeks to delete section 27(1)(b) and replace it with a reference to the equal status legislation. Such facilities already come under equality legislation. What the Bill seeks to do is to require positive action to make such facilities accessible while also recognising the special protections that must apply in certain cases. Again, this is reflective of conservation policies which seek to maintain our heritage for future generations. I do not propose to accept this amendment.
This legislation goes much further than the equality legislation. The positive action measure contained in this section is strong. For instance, all the provisions in equality legislation only apply where a person can show that he or she has been less favourably treated than somebody else and where the necessary accommodation can be achieved at a nominal cost. By contrast, in this legislation an obligation is put on the public sector to provide access, to retrofit buildings and to take account of Part M in respect of building regulations. Part M applies to all new buildings but section 23 obliges bodies to apply it to their existing buildings. In this way the public service will have an obligation to take a lead role in the provision of accessible facilities. It gives a specified date by which public buildings will have to be retrofitted to comply with Part M and provides that further amendments to Part M will also apply to public buildings. We are satisfied with the term "public building" as defined in the Bill.
In respect to the points raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I listened carefully to what the DLCG had to say about this section and I have since had proposals from it which are being considered. This is one of the best parts of the legislation which provides a very specific obligation on public buildings to mainstream and do it within a timescale. It provides a very clear complaints procedure. Where people are not happy with the progress being made there is a right of appeal to the Ombudsman. The statutory base which is being provided in the Bill is significant in terms of accessibility to public buildings.
How stands amendment No. 230?
The definition of "public building" is what concerns us. The Minister of State has pointed out that section 23(5) defines the term "public building" to mean "a building, or that part of a building, to which members of the public generally have access and which is occupied, managed or controlled by a public body." We wanted the definition to state that a public building "means any building which is used by a public body, and any building which is used for a public service but is not owned by the State". Post offices come to mind. An Post is a public body and all post offices will have to be accessible. Other semi-State organisations such as RTE and others like that will probably also have to provide access. There is not much difference between what is in the Bill and what we propose except for cases where the building is in private ownership but is occupied, managed and controlled by a public body.
That is included.
Privately owned buildings are also included. Who has the responsibility for retrofitting a building? Is it the owner or the public body that occupies or controls it?
The public body.
Will the public body have to pay for the retrofitting?
Yes.
The local health board provides services from a community centre where I live. The health board is not in total control of the building and it is not there all the time. It provides a dental clinic and a chiropody service. The local nurse also provides a baby inoculation service there. Who is liable for providing access in such a case where a public body is not wholly responsible for the building, is not there all the time and is simply using part of the premises?
The part that it occupies should be accessible and the onus will be on it to ensure accessibility.
Despite the fact that it is not there all of the time?
The definition states that if a building is occupied by a public body then it should be accessible and would be covered by the Bill.
If the owners of the building do not want any changes made to it then will the public body have to leave?
That would be a matter for the public body but it has a responsibility to ensure under the definition in the Bill that the building is accessible.
Can a public body force the owner to change the building?
At issue there would be whatever arrangement exists between the owner and the occupier.
What if there is preservation order on the building?
That would come under the heritage provisions.
It would be a matter for city councils.
The building would come under section 27.
Most of the discussion is about access by the public in public buildings. What about access by the staff working in them? The Minister stated that the access will be provided in the area to which the general public has access. If someone with a disability was working with the ESB, is there any duty on the ESB to ensure that such a person has access to the canteen, the toilets and so on?
That has been already covered under the employment equality legislation, where employers that are employing people with disabilities must give reasonable access.
I move amendment No. 232:
In page 25, subsection (2)(b), line 47, after “consult” to insert “the Equality Authority and”.
It is important that we have an interaction between equality legislation and the bodies charged with dealing with disabilities. The Association for Higher Education Access to Disability was anxious that this be submitted. The DLCG maintained that the provisions outlined in this Part of the Bill should be in accordance with and supported by any codes of practice and guidelines developed by the NDA and the Equality Authority. We want to include the Equality Authority in this amendment.
Is there any crumb of hope that the Minister of State agrees with that?
In Amendment No. 232, Deputies Stanton and Murphy wish to oblige the NDA to consult with the Equality Authority when preparing a draft code of practice on the subject of accessibility of public buildings. The NDA is a statutory independent body. Section 23(2)(b) is a general provision which explicitly requires the NDA to consult with whoever it considers appropriate. In addition, if the Minister thinks it necessary, he or she can specifically direct the NDA to consult with any person or body which he or she considers appropriate. The subsection is sufficiently broad to allow consultation with the Equality Authority and I do not propose to accept the amendment.
This legislation is under the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is important that the Equality Authority is included as it contains the experts in this area. It should not be just at the discretion of the NDA, which should form a partnership with the Equality Authority. The representatives of the Equality Authority feel that they should be involved in this and should be consulted.
The Minister continues to state that we should accept the great improvements that have been made in the last few years and we all do so. However, this legislation is at the beginning of a process and is part and parcel of a greater structure that should be put in place. A great effort will be needed to kick-start what needs to be done. It seems practical that people with a great deal of experience are brought into this. There may be no need for that kind of intensive consultation in five years, but as we are at the start of a process, we need to bed this down.
The Deputy made the comment that it would seem practical to bring in those bodies. Both are within the auspices of my Department. They are in constant consultation and sit on the same committees. Given that they are both the responsibility of the same Department, it is not necessary that consultation between them be underpinned in legislation.
They may not have someone in the future as dedicated to the disability movement as the Minister and his officials.
If there any practical difficulties about them consulting with each other, I will be happy to address that.
I move amendment No. 233:
In page 26, subsection (2)(f), line 13, to delete "take account of" and substitute "comply with".
I move amendment No. 235:
In page 26, subsection (3), between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(c) The compliance of public buildings with Part M shall be ensured by the allocation of certificates of compliance by a building control officer who will also be charged with the periodic monitoring and inspection of such buildings.”.
Amendments Nos. 236 to 240, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 236:
In page 26, subsection (4), line 33, after "may," to insert the following:
"following consultation with such other Ministers of the Government or other persons or bodies as he or she considers appropriate".
I wish to speak on my amendments, Nos. 237 and 238. Reference is made in section 23(4) to a building being used temporarily as a public building. The difficulty is that temporary arrangements can apply for years.
Such as school buildings.
Yes. In such circumstances it is not known how long "temporarily" will be. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently moved offices and it is temporarily in a new building. God knows how long it will be there. I do not see the reason for this. It would be better if the term "temporarily" were qualified in some way as such an arrangement could go on for donkey's years. If a building is used as a public building then citizens of the State should have access to it, including people with disabilities. This subsection should be removed and in this regard the amendment proposes the deletion of paragraph (a).
While the Minister has tabled an amendment similar to amendment No. 238 in my name, which I welcome, my amendment is phrased in a more positive manner. The amendment seeks to delete paragraph (c) and replace it with a new paragraph (c) to the effect that, as per subsection (4), “A Minster of the Government may, by order declare that subsection (3) shall not apply to a public building ... if he or she is satisfied that”, as per the proposed new paragraph (c), “provisions are in place for a reasonable accommodation of people with disabilities”. The head of service should be satisfied that provisions should be in place for reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. That is what we are seeking. I am concerned about the reference in paragraph (c), as it is currently drafted, to “the frequency of use of the building by such persons”, although I accept that the Minister is removing that reference by amendment No. 239 in his name, which more or less covers what we are seeking to achieve but in a different manner.
Section 23 places quite onerous and costly obligations on public bodies to make existing buildings accessible over a ten year period and to comply with a National Disability Authority, NDA, code of practice in making buildings accessible as soon as is practicable. Section 23(4) allows the Minister to make an order to exempt certain public buildings from the retrofitting requirements subject to specific criteria. These are that a building is being used only temporarily as a public building, that it will cease to be used after three years or that, because due to the use to which the building is being put, it is not justified on cost grounds.
As published, the Bill contains a further criterion linked to how frequently the building is used by people with disabilities. However, I accept on advice from the NDA that this may not be practical in application so I intend to move amendment No. 239 to delete this condition. I will also move amendment No. 240 which will require the Minister to consult with other relevant Ministers and persons as appropriate. I am satisfied this Government amendment also addresses the change sought in amendment No. 236 so I do not propose to accept that amendment.
Amendment No. 237 would delete the conditions in 23(4)(a) that a building is only being used temporarily as a public building. The impact of this proposal would be that public bodies would be required to make such buildings accessible even though they are in short-term use. Investment in making such a building accessible would be poor use of public funding. It is therefore important that this provision remains in the Bill. I do not accept the amendment proposed.
Amendment No. 238 seeks to delete from the Bill the exclusion in paragraph (c) which would allow a Minister to exempt a building from retrofitting requirements where it would not be justifiable on cost grounds, having regard to the use of the building. The effect of the amendment would be to replace the provision with an obligation regarding reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation is linked to the individual and relates to the provision of special treatment and facilities as framed in equality legislation. Such requirements are subject to nominal cost factors. In section 23, however, the Bill requires that public buildings be made accessible to members of the public with disabilities as a group. The standards of access are determined by building regulations. The amendment as drafted does not convey the meaning intended and I do not propose to accept it.
Discussions of temporary buildings do not relate only to schools. I acknowledge the Minister of State's point about accommodation which is provided temporarily and is still in place after 30 years. I have seen, though I will not say where, a motor taxation office housed in temporary accommodation for approximately ten years. Local authorities put housing offices in the suburbs where they are more accessible to the public which are also housed in temporary accommodation for five or six years.
It is quite easy to make prefabricated buildings accessible. They can be provided on order with a ramp or steps depending on one's requirements. If toilet facilities are being provided for public use in a prefabricated building, the dimensions to accommodate disabled users can be set out at the ordering stage at no extra cost. The Bill's provisions are unreasonable.
Given the plans for decentralisation, it could be argued that many current offices are being used temporarily. The Bill appears to provide a loophole in failing to qualify the word "temporarily". Perhaps the Minister of State will explain the timeframe to which the term refers. Time is of the essence. While everyone would think it reasonable if the time involved were a couple of months, beyond that people with disabilities are being prevented from accessing public buildings for an unacceptable period. As Deputy Lynch said, temporary accommodation can be used for anything from weeks to decades. We must close the loophole and treat people with disability with respect. Any building which is to be used temporarily to accommodate a public office should be examined before occupation to ensure it is accessible.
Accessibility is provided for in the case of new buildings which must comply with regulations even if they are to be used temporarily. We must be realistic. While I accept that one does not want a temporary building to be used forever——
Some are.
——we must accept that public bodies will inevitably be located in temporary accommodation from which they cannot move as quickly as they would like. I am keen to establish Deputy Stanton's definition of "temporarily". Realistically, we are not talking about months but years.
It depends. The issue is probably the definition of "building" as opposed to whether a building is temporary or permanent. If a building is a disposable structure, it may begin to disintegrate after ten years and require repairs. The temporary structures used by the public service are usually prefabricated buildings. The example we should have used at first was the accommodation which housed the occupational therapist at Cork University Hospital for six or seven years. Despite who it is an occupational therapist deals with, the Bill provides that the accommodation he or she uses does not have to be accessible. The Government is leaving itself open to such scenarios. Thankfully, a new extension has been provided at Cork University Hospital.
I do not know anyone in a temporary building which is a solid structure. People do not usually move into permanent structures on a temporary basis. We should focus on the definition of "building" as prefabricated accommodation, which is what the draftsperson meant to indicate. To define buildings as "temporary" is incorrect because prefabricated structures are seldom used on a temporary basis.
In the vast majority of cases, provision for accessibility is made at temporary accommodation at schools and elsewhere. It is a quid pro quo. I am sure accessibility was addressed at the temporary building at Cork University Hospital. I would be prepared to consider outlining a timescale of a number of years. Deputies are welcome to offer suggestions.
I am more inclined to say six months on the grounds that accessibility is easy to provide in respect of temporary structures which are simple to manipulate. One does not have to take down a breeze block wall.
Yes, but there are many temporary buildings which are not prefabricated.
It is temporary use, not temporary buildings. That is where I have the problem.
Yes, temporary use. That is fair enough. There are buildings which it is intended to use in the short term from which offices cannot move for some years through no fault of the Department concerned. We must be reasonable and sensible. We do not want to invest moneys which should be used more efficiently to provide accessibility to mainstream buildings.
The onus should be on public bodies to ensure the temporary buildings they move into or buildings it is intended to use on a temporary basis are accessible. Public bodies should not for reasons of costs choose buildings which are not accessible. It is very frustrating for a person in a wheelchair to arrive at a building to do business to find he or she cannot get inside. We have all seen it happen. It is very frustrating and demeaning for a citizen to have to wait for someone to come out from a building he or she should be able to access.
The problem with the phrase at issue is the failure to define the term "temporarily". The Minister of State said that public bodies and Departments can remain in buildings for a number of years, which is not an acceptable excuse. Departments and State bodies should ensure the buildings they rent or use for short periods are accessible from the first day of occupation.
Will the Minister of State explain how section 23(4) will operate? It states: "A Minister of the Government may, by order declare that subsection (3) shall not apply to a public building specified in the order...”. Does this meant the public body must apply to the Minister for an order declaring the building exempt? This appears to be the intention. The order will be made by the Minister responsible for the relevant public body. An Post, to cite one example, might request the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to declare a building temporary and therefore exempt. I wonder how this measure will operate and upon which criteria will a Minister base his or her order.
I wish to make a point on buildings which are leased for temporary use. Some of the leases on these buildings suggest that they will be occupied for longer than six months. Public bodies often lease buildings for ten or 20 years, in which case they have a duty to ensure that the building is accessible soon after its occupation.
If we suggested two years as a reasonable period for temporary occupancy but the public body, which originally intended a temporary occupation of a building, remained beyond two years, they are required by the Bill to take measures. I am not aware of any Government agency which occupied a building for a period shorter than two years. A classic example is Cork Courthouse, which continues to present difficulties in terms of access. It is a place which people might not wish to access at certain times. Six years ago, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in order to facilitate restoration of the courthouse, leased a building which was converted into a temporary courthouse.
Was the building accessible?
Areas of it were not. It was a former store. No agency occupies a building for fewer than two years. Why not make the span shorter? Engineers have to survey the building to determine whether it is habitable and safe. It is not difficult to make a building accessible if one is determined to do so.
It is important to point out that we are discussing old buildings which have expensive retrofitting requirements. Section 23(1) imposes an overriding obligation on all Departments, even in the case of temporary buildings, to ensure that "a public body shall ensure that its public buildings are, as far as practicable, accessible to persons with disabilities". A public body is therefore obliged, upon renting a temporary building, to ensure access. This obligation is further strengthened in section 23(2)(f).
The difficulty is that an opt out is possible through the term "temporary".
Let me finish. Section 23(2)(f) states:
A public body shall take account of an approved code of practice to such extent as is practical having regard to its resources and obligations and, in particular, shall do so—
(i) at the time of the construction, material alteration or extension of a public building,. . .
The issue here involves the temporary occupation of old buildings where retrofitting would present significant costs. A Minister who is responsible for the building must have regard to this in making his or her order. I am satisfied that this provision represents common sense. It is not intended to be a way for public bodies to avoid making temporary buildings accessible. Public bodies will not be able to disregard the accessibility of these buildings. A timescale, if included, should be realistic and cover at least two or three years. I am satisfied that the spirit of this section will ensure that concerns expressed by the Deputies will not arise. In the case of temporary buildings, the onus remains on public bodies to provide accessibility.
Recently, I heard of a situation which a wheelchair-bound person could not enter a court which sat on an upstairs floor of a building. A court case was lost because of this. It is quite a serious matter. The Minister of State said that he would explore whether "temporary" may be qualified. We would be happy he does so.
I am prepared to consider whether it is satisfactory to make the provision subject to a three year timescale.
Is that negotiable to two years?
If I suggested two years Deputy Lynch would look for a shorter time.
It might be helpful if Ministers revisit their orders at regular intervals. I accept the Minister of State's point on old buildings which need to be retrofitted. Nothing in the Bill prevents an order being revoked. What action may a Minister take if a situation continues for seven years? The Minister of State might consider this proposal and respond to it on Report Stage.
A complaints procedure exists if a public body does not take reasonable steps.
How is "reasonable" to be defined?
: A situation could arise where a public body is in a temporary building but is not attempting to vacate the building or to correct its inaccessibility. In such a situation, there is a right to redress through the complaints mechanism.
How would that work because the complaints mechanism is concerned with service plans for individuals?
: No. There is a complaints procedure which is appealable to the Ombudsman under section 36.
Let us say that a time limit of three years is put in place. What would happen regarding buildings that had been occupied temporarily for ten years or more? There is no element of retrospection in this provision. A building may have been inaccessible for over ten years, but under the Bill, an individual would have to wait for a further three years before lodging a complaint. That scenario would mean that a public body could occupy a building for 13 years without taking reasonable steps to make it more accessible. That is why we are anxious that there is a timeframe specified and that it is as short as possible.
I would agree to a maximum of two years.
I move amendment No. 237:
In page 26, subsection (4), line 37, to delete paragraph (a).
I understand that the Minister of State will propose amendments on this issue on Report Stage. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 239:
In page 26, subsection (4)(c), lines 42 and 43, to delete “and the frequency of use of the building by such persons”.
I move amendment No. 240:
In page 26, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) Before making an order under subsection (4), the Minister of the Government concerned shall consult with such other Ministers of the Government or such other persons as he or she considers appropriate.”.
Amendments Nos. 241 to 243, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 244:
In page 27, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Section 8(1) of the Act of 1999 is amended by the deletion of 'the Minister' and the substitution therefor of 'the Government, Ministers and public bodies', and by the deletion of 'keep him or her' and the substitution therefor of 'keep them'.".
This amendment seeks to ensure that the National Disability Authority would give advice on disability matters not only to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but also to the Government and public bodies. The amendment may appear to be narrow in focus but it represents an important change to the Bill. It does not involve a charge on the Exchequer. It is something the authority should be willing to do. It is a sensible step in that overall responsibility would lie with the authority in this respect, even though the ultimate responsibility is with the Minister. As other people will be involved, they should be notified and advised on particular issues. It would involve the authority in areas where it should be involved.
Is the Deputy mixing up the NDA with the Equality Authority?
No, I am referring to the National Disability Authority.
The NDA?
Yes.
The difficulty is that the amendment seeks to alter the primary function of the NDA to advise the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as set out in the establishing National Disability Authority Act 1999. The proposed amendment would require the NDA to advise the Government, Ministers and public bodies instead.
As well, not instead.
Okay. This is a substantial amendment in regard to the purpose of the National Disability Authority Act and would appear to be irrelevant to the section under discussion. Furthermore, an amendment of this nature has not been sought by the NDA. I suppose that in advising the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the NDA is advising the Government because the Minister, in turn, advises the Government and, indeed, other Ministers. Therefore, I do not consider that widening the remit of the NDA, as proposed, would make any significant difference. In essence, the present arrangement is such that the NDA, in advising the Minister is, in turn, advising the Government. For the purposes of the Bill, the Minister is the liaison Minister with the Government and each Department. The proposal would create a more fragmented approach which would not be in anybody's best interest.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure the issue of implementing access and services for people with disability will not be the sole responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. While I accept it is the lead ministry, as the sectoral plans demonstrate, responsibility is shared and, as such, this must be a cross-departmental issue. Virtually every Department will have responsibility and it is important, therefore, that they are advised on disability issues by the stated authority in this area, the National Disability Authority.
The National Disability Authority reports to the Government through the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Without the sponsorship of the Minister, the NDA would have no standing. As in the case of other Departments in other areas, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the co-ordinating ministry. The proposal has no advantages.
Will the Deputy withdraw the amendment?
No.
In the main, this is a good section and is welcome, despite the decision to rule out of order amendments proposing to delete phrases such as "where practicable" and "where appropriate". The Bill provides that the section will come into operation on 31 December 2005. Does this mean that each public body will have at least one officer appointed as an access officer by that date?
Yes.
Will access officers have no other duties other than those prescribed?
That will not necessarily be the case. It will depend on the size of the organisation.
Who determines the point at which an organisation is sufficiently large to permit access officers to perform no other function?
Again, given the spirit with which the legislation places obligations on public bodies, it will be the responsibility of public bodies to ensure its effective implementation. Clearly, one of the prerequisites for doing so will be to devote adequate manpower to the access officer position. The post could be full-time or part-time. We expect, in the spirit of the legislation, that each public body will put in place appropriate staffing arrangements and take a proactive approach to implementing this section from 1 January next.
Could an access officer and a liaison officer be the same person as they appear to have similar roles?
There is no reason the same person could not perform both roles.
Amendments Nos. 245 and 246 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 245:
In page 27, lines 25 to 31, to delete subsection (2).
A number of bodies recommended to us that this subsection be deleted. The IDD maintains that as a result of this subsection persons with a disability are placed in a second class relationship to all other recipients of the service. It also argues that it allows for a new set of grounds for non-compliance and undermines the Equal Status Acts.
The Irish Wheelchair Association maintains that the mainstreaming of services of products means these services and products should be accessible to people with disabilities and the general public as a matter of right. Section 25 runs contrary to this goal by allowing separate provision of access to services where it is not practicable, is too costly or will cause unreasonable delay in making the services available to others. The association maintains the term "practicable" is subjective and offers too much of an escape route.
NAMHI maintains that the section highlights the lack of mainstreaming in the Bill and takes an anti-mainstreaming stance in the statement that separate provision to access to services is acceptable where it is not practicable, is not justified on grounds of cost or would cause unreasonable delay in making the services unreasonable to others. NAMHI also maintains the subsection does not promote equality. For these reasons we propose to delete it.
I support amendment No. 245 and urge the Minister of State to listen to the views expressed by NAMHI on this issue. The deletion of the subsection would strengthen the Bill as regards the provision of services and rights to people with disabilities.
Again, the main issue in this regard is that the wording is open to interpretation. One Health Service Executive area or local authority may consider that the provision of a service presents no difficulties, while another may consider it impracticable to do so. The fact that one's interpretation of whether it is practicable to provide a service largely depends on the resources at one's disposal renders the section meaningless.
As Deputies have noted, section 25 requires public bodies to ensure services they buy are accessible to people with disabilities. Amendment No. 246 proposes to set a specific date by which the section will be required to come into operation and will bring section 25 in line with sections 24, 26, and 27. I welcome the support of Deputies for the amendment.
Subsection (2) allows public bodies to buy in services which are not accessible where it would be practicable, justifiable on cost grounds or cause unreasonable delay to do so. Amendment No. 245 proposes to remove the possibility of any such exception to the public procurement of either goods or services. If accepted, this amendment could detrimentally affect the delivery of public goods and services on a daily basis to everyone. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
This issue highlights the typical balance which must be achieved in the legislation. Section 25(1) places a positive duty on public bodies to ensure the services they procure are accessible to people with disabilities. This principle underpins the section and will have a number of positive effects. For example, the section will support the employment of people with disabilities in public bodies who will require accessible services. Given the scale of procurement, it will also give an impetus to the general supply and greater availability of goods and services.
On a more general point, when one is prescriptive in legislation one must also provide for issues which are impractical, unreasonable or cannot be justified. If we do not provide for them, we are leaving ourselves open to the thrust of the section being undermined. It is typical of the balance that we are trying to achieve in several aspects of the Bill. It is entirely necessary taking into account the positive duty on public bodies that has been provided for in section 25(1). There are lawyers whose only interest is to torpedo sections of the Bill. I must be cognisant of that and, consequently, of the need for balance in a section such as this.
I note there is a complaint mechanism that takes section 25 into account. Who decides what is not practicable, justified or would cause unreasonable delay? This leaves an escape route and we must ensure it is not easy to take. We all understand what the Minister of State is trying to achieve and agree with it but we must be certain that the concerns of people with disabilities are not just dismissed out of hand.
I agree with that point. Again, the fundamental principle of the Bill is that the out is never easy. The principal officer of the public body decides what is practicable, justifiable or reasonable. There is then an appeal mechanism to the complaints officer who can uphold the complaint and, finally, the Ombudsman can be contacted. There is a strong sanction on a positive measure. I have tried to explain this to some people in the disabilities sector but they do not appreciate it. The implementation of this section will cost the Exchequer a huge amount of money and rightly so; that is the reality. This section of the Bill, over the ten year period, will involve huge public investment. There is no out. If decisions are taken that protect an institution, the complaints and appeals mechanisms will highlight any unreasonable approach.
What benchmarks will be used by the public bodies when making decisions regarding what is practicable, justified or reasonable?
The NDA code of practice will be the key benchmark that will be used and general standards will be laid down.
Is there agreement on standards? There is a difficulty with getting agreement from the service providers.
We are not talking about the standards covered by Part 2, I am talking about the standards set out in the NDA code of practice.
Is there agreement on the other standards?
Section 28 deals with that. There are a number of codes of practice in this area and it is a question of bringing those together under a general code and filling the gaps that exist.
The Minister of State mentioned difficulties with the people in disability groups with this section. That may be because the section is written in the negative. If it was possible to turn it around and make it positive, it might be different. The wording could be changed to make it positive and include people instead of excluding them.
Unfortunately that is not possible.
I move amendment No. 246:
In page 27, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) This section shall come into operation on 31 December 2005.".
We should point out that the amendments that were ruled out of order would make this section of the Bill more user-friendly, practical, appropriate and subject to cost. While we are all pragmatists, there are elements of the section that have been rendered pointless by the phrasing.
Amendments 248 to 251, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 248:
In page 27, subsection (1)(b), line 41, after “requests,” to insert the following:
"or
(c) if the communication, either written or oral, is in simple clear language and the person or persons aforesaid has an intellectual disability and so requests,”.
Section 26 deals with access to information and I note the Minister of State also has an amendment addressing the issue. We saw earlier a section of the Bill that can only be described as gobbledygook.
Perhaps the Deputy could ask for an explanation of this. It could be very simple.
The Chairman might have understood the section but we should not need an explanation, we should understand it straight away. Communication, written or oral, should be in clear and simple language. The Minister of State has tabled an amendment where the head of a public body shall, as far as practicable, ensure that information published by the body that contains information relevant to persons with intellectual disabilities is in a form that is comprehensible to those persons. It is the same point. NAMHI made the point that the Bill makes little or no reference to communicating in simple language for people with an intellectual disability. All communication from Departments should be in as simple a format as possible with straightforward documents. There is a move towards that everywhere except in legislation, where it cannot be avoided.
This is a sensible amendment for those working with and asserting the rights of people with disabilities. Language, either in written or oral format, must be clear and simple. The Minister of State has taken this on board in amendment No. 251 but it still contains the phrase "shall as far is practicable", which occurs throughout the Bill. While I understand from where the Minister of State is coming, I take the opposite view. Official language regarding access and information for all sectors of society, not just for people with disabilities, must be clear, simple and user-friendly.
Section 26 places obligations on public bodies to make the contents of communications accessible to persons with hearing or visual impairments. Amendment No. 251 extends the provisions to ensure that certain publications are provided in a comprehensible form for people with intellectual disabilities. Such formats are commonly known as easy-to-read versions which present information in simple and clear language. In introducing this amendment, I am taking up a suggestion by the disability legislation consultation group, which I am happy to support.
This new subsection will also address the concerns that gave rise to amendments Nos. 248 and 250. The language in those amendments is more user-friendly and I like the idea of information being available on request. While moving this Government amendment, I will undertake an examination of the details of the other amendments. On Report Stage I hope to table an amendment which will fully reflect these concerns.
Section 26(2) requires electronic communications to be accessible to persons with visual impairments, using adaptive technology. The purpose of this is to ensure that public bodies, when designing websites, sending e-mails and other data, take account of the need to ensure they can be received by these devices. Amendment No. 249 seeks to generalise the requirements which may not effectively address the specific needs of the subsection. I am satisfied, therefore, that amendment No. 249 is unnecessary.
I am pleased the Minister of State has acknowledged the need for this service and is willing to improve his amendment by incorporating the thrust of our amendments.
I move amendment No. 251:
In page 28, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The head of a public body, shall as far as practicable, ensure that information that is published by the body which contains information relevant to persons with intellectual disabilities is published in a form that is comprehensible to those persons.".
I move amendment No. 252:
In page 28, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform shall, in consultation with—
(a) the National Disability Authority,
(b) the Equality Authority,
(c) consumer groups, and
(d) any other persons or bodies which he or she considers appropriate,
produce a handbook, which will be updated annually, containing information on responsibilities, procedures and practices, involved in the provision of rights for persons with disabilities to suitable services and supports, as referred to in this Act. The Minister shall cause the handbook to be published or otherwise made available to all members of the public, including those with disabilities and give notice to the public of the publication or availability.".
Knowledge is power. This amendment was suggested by the National Institute for the Study of Learning Difficulties to deal with the dissemination of information on services and supports for people with disabilities. For example, the Department of Social and Family Affairs produces a series of information handbooks and leaflets which are increasingly user-friendly and its website is also accessible. This amendment provides for information on procedures and responsibilities for people with disabilities to be communicated effectively to the public.
I support this excellent and common sense amendment. Its key element is that it provides for consultation with the National Disability Authority, the Equality Authority and consumer groups and other persons or bodies considered appropriate in producing information on services and supports as contained in the Bill. This handbook can then be given every year to all involved in assisting people with disabilities. The Minister of State must not oppose this amendment because it is about providing information on the rights, services and supports for people with disabilities, for which there is support on all sides.
Every Department publishes information booklets on the services they provide. Several years ago, the Department of Foreign Affairs published a useful booklet for people emigrating to America which was distributed to senior cycle secondary students. It contained information on visas, currency and other matters. It is essential that an easy-to-read handbook is published for people with particular disabilities. However, I assume it will be read by everyone with a disability as it will outline the services available. For example, the son of a good friend of mine who is profoundly deaf finds it difficult to communicate with people outside his family. A booklet, as provided for in this amendment, would be vitally important to such individuals.
I agree but a handbook of this nature is already published annually by Comhairle. Given this, the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill provides for Comhairle to provide personalised advocacy functions. Comhairle should continue to produce this handbook and it would be more appropriate to administrative practice rather than statutory duty. This amendment would be more appropriate to the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill.
Where stands Irish sign language in the access to information provisions?
It shall continue to be used.
What supports and recognition will it get?
If the communication is an oral one, the person will be allowed an interpreter.
Will they be allowed an interpreter who uses Irish sign language?
Yes.
Whereas the interpreter should be available in any language, especially where the language is the national language, there is a lack of sign language interpreters, particularly in the Courts Service. The Minister of State needs to consider this aspect.
Amendments Nos. 254 and 257 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 254:
In page 28, subsection(2), line 43, after "with" to insert "the Authority, the Equality Authority, and with".
This relates to codes of practice. We suggest that the Equality Authority be involved. I stated that the Association for Higher Education, Access and Disability maintained that an interaction between the Disability Bill and equality legislation is missing and is required. I understand that the DLCG is also anxious that codes or practice be designed and developed by the NDA and the Equality Authority in consultation with each other.
This recommendation therefore came from two groups, one of them being the Minister's consultation group and the other being the Association for Higher Education, Access and Disability.
Amendment No. 254 seeks to specify one public organisation, the Equality Authority, with whom the NDA should consult when preparing such a draft code of practice. I am satisfied that section 28(2) as constructed is sufficiently broad to allow for consultation with relevant bodies such as the Equality Authority, where appropriate, so I do not propose to accept the amendment.
This is an important section because it deals with codes of practice which, we are told, are currently being drafted. We are told that a good deal of work has been done on them but we do not yet know when they will be published.
The regulations and codes of practice exist but must be pulled together, while there are also some gaps which must be addressed.
I know there will be a gap between Committee Stage and Report Stage in the Dáil, as there must be. Would it be possible for us to get that information in the interregnum?
On the codes of practice.
As much of those codes as are available. I know there are some new areas of the Bill for which the codes of practice will not yet be available. How advanced is the information regarding the regulations? What is currently available?
As I said, work has been done on the regulations and there is a significant amount of work continuing on behalf of the HSE. I will be able to supply more information following the meeting I have with the HSE today, which I have purposely organised to bring the committee up to date with the progress made. It is possible to access the codes of practice already there and it is now a matter for the NDA to bring them up to speed with the requirements of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 255:
In page 29, subsection (1), lines 13 to 21, to delete all words from and including "of" in line 13 down to and including "Employment," in line 21 and substitute "Minister of the Government".
We received many submissions on this matter. The DLCG maintains in its equal citizens document that the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness states: "each Government Department will ensure that reasonable steps are taken to make its services and those of agencies under its remit accessible to people with disabilities". The DLCG states that the disability legislation should build on this commitment by specifying provisions for accessibility to public buildings, public services, transport information and communications. It states that public bodies must be responsible for implementing access provisions and for drawing up plans and reporting on progress with regard to these plans.
The Irish Wheelchair Association maintains that the Bill limits the development of sectoral plans to six Departments. It maintains that a fully inclusive disability Bill would require every Department to produce these plans. The association states that in particular the omission of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism is very serious. The legislation assumes that people with disabilities have no interest in pursuing active cultural and sporting lives, a bizarre assumption given our hosting of the Special Olympics in 2003. I strongly agree with that.
The Irish Wheelchair Association goes on to state that the absence to date of a co-ordinated approach to progressing access issues within the Irish tourism industry would suggest a sectoral plan is particularly needed in this Department. It also maintains that the plans are too vague.
The National Federation of Voluntary Bodies stated that the Bill must provide a clear strategy duty for all Departments and public bodies to include people with disabilities in their plans and services, with appropriate monitoring and accountability. The Not for Profit Business Association maintains that the Bill should provide for a clear statutory duty for all Departments and public bodies to include people with disabilities in their planning and in the services they provide. This will ensure, it states, that a holistic view is taken of the needs of people with disabilities and that the related responsibilities in the Department and public bodies are clear. It states that this should be coupled with appropriate monitoring and accountability.
Only six Departments are asked to produce sectoral plans. The Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism is left out, as are the other eight Departments. This amendment is designed to include all Departments.
Amendment No. 256, which I have tabled, reads:
In page 29, subsection (1), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
(g) and other Ministers of the Government as shall be designated by regulations,".
I am trying to ensure that all Departments are more directly involved in sectoral plans, with no Department or public body excluded. Everyone has a responsibility to ensure that people with disabilities in all walks of life are included. We hear the word "inclusion" bandied about a lot in many debates within this House and outside it. My amendment provides an opportunity to ensure that inclusion becomes a real issue for people with disabilities.
As I noted in the past, there are examples of very progressive businesses, trade unions, Departments and public bodies which took the initiative to include people with disabilities. They did not wait for a disability Bill to be introduced. It is important that the content of amendments Nos. 255 and 256 be considered. They would strengthen the legislation in the interests of those with disabilities.
Up to now, though the situation has improved over the past few years, people with disabilities have lived and operated in a very confined world. They are confined in respect of transport, for example. I know that advances have been made in terms of accessible taxis, but the relevant regulation is so weak as to be useless. There is no obligation on the licence-holder to respond to a call from someone with a disability, though such licence-holders avail of substantial tax breaks for providing suitable taxis. That is incredible and I do not understand it. People with a disability live in a confined world and it is limited by us, not by them or their disability. It is limited by our structures and systems. Instead of opening up their world, we are limiting it further and putting that limitation into legislation.
There are 15 Cabinet posts in Government, although some people might wish there were 17 or 20. Why restrict the number to six? If people with disabilities are to participate fully in society, why limit the obligation to six Departments? If we accept what the Minister says at face value, this is ground-breaking legislation. Why enshrine in legislation a further limitation on people with disabilities? They are limited enough as a result of our action, or inaction, in the past. Why do it again? This is something we will have to revisit in years to come and that is my difficulty with it. I like to finish matters.
Sections 23 to 28 provide for the obligation of all Departments. The reason those six were chosen is that they are the areas where major action and expenditure take place. We could have decided not to include any Department plan, but the idea is that the plans will focus on key areas for people with disabilities. The implementation of these plans will involve major infrastructural change to make them disability accessible. One need only consider transport, public buildings, public places and so forth.
One could ask what matters Deputies would like to see in the sectoral plans of the other Departments besides the six mentioned. Frankly, there is not much. We wanted to focus on the key areas where there must be specific plans, implementation of those plans and a considerable amount of investment. I do not see any benefit in expanding it to all other Departments.
This Bill seeks to provide services for health and education, yet the Department of Education and Science is not required to provide a sectoral plan.
There is specific legislation.
Yes, but it only applies up to the age of 18 years. The Department also deals with people over 18 years of age. We mentioned the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, which brings to mind the Special Olympics. That Department has not been involved. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been mentioned, but the Courts Service and how people with disabilities are treated by the justice system, the gardaí and so forth are not included here. With regard to the Minister's question, it would have been challenging for each Department to examine their practices and services and to produce a plan. It would have shown how their work impinges on people with disabilities.
There is a vote in the Dáil. Does the Minister intend to widen the provision to include the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Department of Education and Science?
Section 24 covers those Departments and it will come into operation in December 2005. Bodies such as public libraries, Garda stations and the courts will come under the scope of the section. Galleries and museums are also covered. There is no need to extend it. The concept behind the six sectoral plans is that these are the big Departments which must put in place significant plans that will have short-term, medium-term and long-term implementation goals. That is the reason we selected those six. We identified them as the areas where the major planning and implementation must take place.
We will suspend the sitting and resume immediately after the vote.
I have considered some of the sectoral plans. Obviously, they are still quite vague and will need updating. However, they have the value of focusing the attention of the various Departments on the needs of people with disabilities. The plans refer to various bodies under the remit of the relevant Department. For example, the outline plan for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment states that the Department will establish a system for monitoring progress in the implementation of the sectoral plan and that each agency in the Department will submit an annual report on progress achieved.
The Minister makes the point that the six Departments referred to are the main Departments that will impinge on or work with people with disabilities in providing services and so forth — that is why they were selected. However, it could be argued that all Departments have some impact on people with disabilities. If a Department's impact is not significant, its sectoral plan would not be very demanding either. Therefore, it should not take an inordinate amount of time or effort to produce it. However, the time and effort required will not be known until a Department begins preparation of a plan.
The sectoral plans are the long-term plans and programmes for the major Departments. Other Departments are covered by section 24, which will come into operation next January. Therefore, there is no need for plans for those Departments because the Bill covers the immediate work that must be undertaken and implemented from 31 December next. The six sectoral plans exist only because they are long-term plans which will need more time and which will involve a short-term, medium-term and long-term implementation process.
It would not be a problem if it was simply a question of expanding this measure so that all Departments would have a plan, but that is not necessary. Section 24(3) states: "This section shall come into operation on 31 December 2005." That applies to the Departments which are not included in the sectoral plans and to every public body.
That does not address the reason the Departments of Education and Science, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Arts, Sport and Tourism and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs are not required to produce a sectoral plan for their areas of responsibility. Tourism is a huge issue in this regard as citizens and visitors to the State must interact with tourism bodies. The area covered by the Department of Education and Science is also significant. If one considers all the different bodies——
That is already in the Bill.
The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 deals with people up to the age of 18 only. I take the Minister's point that the Bill refers to the six main Departments but I do not see why the other Departments could not also be asked to produce sectoral plans. A plan might not be a huge body of work and might not cost a lot but it would at least focus the Department on the issue. If a lot of work was to be put into a plan, more time could be allowed to a Department to produce it, but why exclude these Departments for the sake of excluding them?
Disability groups state it would be best to include the other Departments. The National Federation of Voluntary Bodies, which is a serious organisation — I am not saying others are not — maintains that the Bill must provide for a clear statutory duty on all Departments and public bodies to include people with disabilities in their plans and services. The Not for Profit Business Association also calls for this to happen. The Minister should consider the matter. It may not need to happen straight away but at some stage in the coming years Departments will need to examine their procedures and assess how they are impacting on people with disabilities. All Departments have an impact. They should prepare plans, no matter how limited, to focus on the needs of and services required by people with disabilities.
I have nothing to add.
Obviously.
I move amendment No. 256:
In page 29, subsection (1), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(g) and other Ministers of the Government as shall be designated by regulations,”.
Amendments Nos. 258 and 259 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 258:
In page 30, subsection (4), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(f) appropriate information concerning services provided to or on behalf of people with disabilities,
(g) the criteria governing eligibility for such services,
(h) the criteria governing entitlement to such services,
(i) the target quantum of provision from the resources provided for the relevant year,
(j) details of any plans to change or improve the level of services provision for coming years,
(k) any planned changes to eligibility or entitlement to services,
(l) appropriate information concerning resources required to implement the sectoral plans.”.
I ask the Minister of State to consider the views in this amendment and urge all members of the committee to support it.
Amendment No. 259 refers to the sectoral plan and sets out what it should contain. It adds a number of items such as services provided for or on behalf of people with disabilities; criteria governing eligibility or entitlement to services, including any planned change to eligibility or entitlement; the target quantum of provision for the relevant year; details of any plan to change or improve services and resources required to implement the sectoral plan. The ICTU feels strongly on these issues and maintains that a number of them should be included in each Department's sectoral plan, including any the Minister of State considers appropriate.
Section 29(4) sets out the information that each sectoral plan must contain. Amendments Nos. 258 and 259 seek to add to this list of requirements without, in my view, taking account of their suitability for inclusion in every sectoral plan. Some of the criteria mentioned such as those relating to eligibility and entitlement are already covered in the sectoral plans where those factors are relevant such as the plans of the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. However, such criteria have no particular meaning in the context of passenger transport services or access to public places covered in the plans of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Other points proposed for inclusion in sectoral plans may be achievable in some cases but not in others. I do not propose to impose statutory duties on Ministers that cannot be achieved in practice.
I wish to press amendment No. 258.
One of the criticisms of the sectoral plans is that they are extremely vague. Perhaps they must be vague but we are trying to give them more bite. Among the items we seek to include are that Departments take into account the resources required to implement the sectoral plan, the target quantum of provision over the relevant year and details of any plan to change or improve services. Perhaps the Minister of State will examine what is included in the plans to ensure all that should be in it is included.
We cannot provide for the issue of resources.
No but what about a detailed account and costings of what would be required to implement the sectoral plan?
The sectoral plans will set out what exactly it is proposed to do in each Department and they will be subject to consultation. As the Deputy is aware, a public consultation process is ongoing throughout the country. The plans will be subject to continual updating and take account of work to be done and the resources made available each year to do that work. To start with, they might be vague but I intend that they will be the implementation plans of Departments as we move through the ten year period.
I am glad the Minister of State agrees they are vague. The aim seems to be that they will be firmed up as time passes and become more focused. As there is no point in pushing the issue, I will withdraw amendment No. 259.
I move amendment No. 260:
In page 30, subsection (5), lines 13 to 16, to delete all words from and including "building" in line 13 down to and including "or" in line 16 and substitute the following:
"transport service is required by a sectoral plan to be provided by a specified date ("the specified date") and the specified date is later than the date which would otherwise apply by virtue of sections 23 to 27, the”.
In moving this amendment I am addressing a concern highlighted by the disability legislation consultation group. I am satisfied that this wording is a more clear and tightly framed provision which strikes a reasonable balance between a guaranteed end date for achieving a built environment that is accessible to all and the specific challenges faced by the transportation sector in this regard. I will review the text of the amendment with a view to tabling a further amendment on Report Stage to refer to buildings and infrastructure, as appropriate.
What effect will the amendment have in practice?
It means any Department can narrow its sectoral plan to include buildings. This plan narrows it to only transport.
Is the Minister of State saying that buildings are excluded?
All buildings are excluded except transport infrastructure.
Buildings are included in the other section.
Are buildings included or excluded?
This section allows for a longer timeframe than that provided for in section 23 in the case of transport where significant infrastructural changes may be required which may take a longer timeframe. It is intended to recognise the particular difficulties at railway stations, platforms and so on.
It tightens up what is required in regard to buildings and other services.
Yes.
That is fine. I thank the Minister of State.
I move amendment No. 261:
In page 30, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) In drawing up a statement of strategy as required under the Public Service Management Act 1997, government departments shall include the provision of services to people with disabilities as a headed item.".
Section 29 outlines the principles of the sectoral plan and its contents in general terms. Ministers of the Government are required to prepare and publish a plan. All public service providers, including all Departments, must make their service accessible in accordance with sections 23 to 27 of the Bill. Strategy statements are high level policy statements which only generally mention mainstream policy approaches in gender, disability or other policy fields.
Under section 5 of the Public Service Management Act 1997, the statements must be prepared in a form and manner as per Government decisions. Last October such direction issued requiring Departments to ensure the statements are consistent with the national disability strategy and the sectoral plans as key Government initiatives. This provides a more practical approach for Departments with specific programmes and services and ensures that mainstream programmes take cognisance of Government priorities. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to give statutory backing to the description of detailed services provision for people with disabilities. It is also the case that all Departments provide services for people with disabilities. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Section 29(6) reads:
When a sectoral plan is prepared by a Minister of the Government it shall be laid before Dáil Éireann as soon as may be but in the case of the first such plan not later than one year after the commencement of this section and the plan shall not have effect until a resolution approving of the plan has been passed by Dáil Éireann.
If, as the Minister of State continues to point out, the sectoral plans and the regulations will give effect to the Bill, is one year afterwards not a very long lead-in time? I assume that is when it will be done.
I think it means not later than one year. It would probably be just months.
If the Chair were to ask me to prepare a report by 29 September, he can be sure I would not start working on it until 1 September. The lead-in time is too long. We know the timeframe of the Bill and the Dáil will have to pass a resolution for that plan to be put into operation. If they begin to draw up the sectoral plan now and they have a year to do so and assuming the Bill will be completed by 1 June, it will be the following June before we see any movement. Is that the timeframe?
The purpose of stating that the plan shall be laid before Dáil Éireann not later than one year is that there is a requirement for a significant amount of consultation both with the sector involved and the disability lobby group. If the right spirit is in the Departments concerned, every effort will be made to do it within the year. From the point of view of the sectoral plans the process for their implementation should start immediately. People do not have to wait until the Bill is enacted to start the process of implementing some aspects of the plans.
With whom will they consult? My understanding as of last week and this week is that the only people still engaging in the process are the service providers and that after two years of discussion, the Bill as published does not go anywhere near what they want. Will they only consult the service providers?
There are some good ideas in section 29 and there are also some positive amendments, all of which deal with basic services for people with disabilities. In the past few minutes I have received a letter from a constituent whose son has Angelman's syndrome. This family who had respite for the past 12 months has had the respite cut off. That is amazing in such a case. CASA, which provides services at weekends to assist families of people with severe intellectual disabilities, is closing one of its houses in Malahide because it cannot get the necessary funding, yet the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, said extra money would be provided for services and, during the week, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, announced a great package dealing with education. There appears to be a gap between what members of the Cabinet are announcing and the services available locally.
I do not accept that this lady must suffer a cutback in respite services when we are in the middle of a debate on legislation dealing with disabilities. I am appalled that the respite service available to that family has been cut back. She has now asked me to lobby for more respite service. I will support the lady as a constituent but it is the responsibility of the Government to look after the needs of this young person with this severe syndrome. I urge the Minister and all Deputies when dealing with legislation such as this to remind themselves there is a real world and there appears to be a gap between the announcement of money and the provision of services for the people in need.
On that point there is an acknowledgement that there are some short-term difficulties caused by the value for money cuts which the Health Service Executive must impose arising from the value for money exercise of the past year or two. That issue was discussed last Friday. There is an acknowledgement in the Department of Health and Children that the issue must be addressed. Should the consultation process continue, I have undertaken to arrange for some of the people in the intellectual disability sector to meet the Minister for Finance. There is an acknowledged difficulty regarding some service provision and cutbacks being made while at the same time some payments are being increased. That issue will be addressed.
What was the other point made?
That was my main point.
My point related to the length of time this process will take.
Regarding the length of time it will take for the sectoral plans to be put in place, the consultation process and so on, I detect from each of the six Departments that, in a spirit of co-operation, they are preparing their plans as quickly as possible. It will not be a question of being obliged to wait until the eleventh hour for them. They must be returned and passed by Dáil Éireann.
The consultation process has gone well to date. In that context, a meeting has already been held in Dublin but another meeting had to be cancelled. The meeting in Dublin was attended by a number of service users and service providers who made useful inputs. The points raised will be worked into those plans. If there is no further consultation, which we hope will not be the case, I would hope to continue to consult those interested in this process in terms of the drawing up and implementation of the sectoral plans and in respect of the regulations, standards and the other matters we discussed earlier. It is not in anybody's interest to walk away from the table in terms of the implementation process, which is continuing.
The section states that when a sectoral plan is prepared by a Minister, it should be laid before the Dáil and so forth. It does not indicate when the plans are required to be finalised. We are talking about outline sectoral plans. The Minister of State said that consultations will take place. However, the section does not specify when these plans will be required to be completed. Is it intended to set a date by which they will be required to be prepared? Deputy Lynch proposed that they should be laid before the Dáil within a year of their being completed. However, the section does not indicate the period within which they must be prepared. Is the Minister of State aware when these plans will be prepared, the stage to which they have progressed and how long the consultation process will take?
The outlines have been prepared.
They are only outline plans. I am referring to the final sectoral plans.
They must be laid before the Dáil within a year and the consultation process is taking place.
Are these sectoral plans the final documents?
No.
When will the final documents that will be laid before the Dáil be ready?
We have not set down a timescale other than to specify that they must be laid before the Dáil within a year.
When does the Minister of State expect those final documents to be ready?
I do not know. In the spirit of implementing the provisions of this Bill, I expect that the Departments will move as quickly as possible to get those plans ready in order to ensure that they can be laid before the Dáil. I will urge the Departments to do so as quickly as possible.
Amendment No. 263 is an alternative to amendment No. 262, while amendments Nos. 265 to 267, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 267 is an alternative to amendment No. 266. All the aforementioned amendments may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 262:
In page 30, subsection (1)(c), line 30, to delete “and” and substitute the following:
"(d) arrangements for cooperation by the Executive with housing authorities in relation to the development and coordination of the services provided by housing authorities for persons with disabilities, and”.
Government amendments Nos. 262 and 265 respond to concerns of the DLCG that the sectoral planning parameters did not adequately address the housing and accommodation needs of people with disabilities. The amendments will ensure that housing needs and services are properly considered together with relevant co-operation between the HSE and local authorities for this purpose. These amendments broaden the scope of the sectoral plans of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Health and Children.
I will move amendment No. 266 to clarify that the sectoral plan of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government will include measures to ensure accessibility of the entire built environment, including roads, public places and elements of the built environment not covered under other accessibility regulations. In moving this amendment, I am responding to concerns brought to my attention in some of the submissions on the Bill, which I am happy to address.
Amendment No. 263 has two elements. The first requires that the sectoral plan of the Department of Health and Children will contain information regarding the introduction and monitoring of national standards for disability. A new independent body, the health information and quality authority, HIQA, will deal with standards in health and disability services. Section 9 provides that this will also include standards for assessments.
The Department's sectoral plan already provides that it will contain information concerning proposed arrangements to implement Part 2 of the Bill and any other matters that the Minister considers appropriate. I consider that the Department's sectoral plan is not the place for that proposal.
The second element of the proposed amendment deals with the mainstream health service needs of people with disabilities. I consider that the Bill, as drafted, would allow consideration of the issue in the context of the Minister for Health and Children's sectoral plan if the Minister considered it necessary to include it. I do not propose to provide for it specifically in the way proposed in the amendment.
Amendment No. 267 would require the sectoral plan of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to outline measures to be taken to ensure the housing and accommodation needs of people with disabilities are considered when developing or revising housing policy. A Government amendment already requires that the plan deal with housing and accommodation for persons with disabilities.
As I mentioned earlier in the debate, Departments have been advised that their strategy statements take cognisance of the national disability strategy and sectoral plans. I am satisfied that these initiatives along with the provisions of the plan will guide the development and revision of housing policy. The fact that the plan will be advanced in consultation with relevant stakeholders will also ensure that such matters are taken into account. I do not propose to accept this amendment.
In fairness, we must acknowledge that the Minister of State's amendments have gone some way towards meeting our concerns, especially with regard to the housing needs of people with disabilities. We all received submissions from people who were concerned about housing needs. That point deals with amendment No. 267.
Amendment No. 263 arose from concerns of the DFI and NAMHI which referred to the introduction of national standards for disability services and the statutory inspection of such services. In its submission on 9 November 2004, the DFI said that the sectoral plans of the six Departments included in the Bill do not in any way reflect an intention to have the needs of people with disabilities factored into the everyday thinking, planning and functioning of the Departments.
Section 29(1)(f) states that the sectoral plans relate to the programme of measures proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the Minister of the Government concerned or in relation to those matters as they relate to the provision of services for people with disabilities. NAMHI maintains that the sectoral plans are too vague and general. We discussed this point earlier and the Minister of State admitted that, at this stage, the plans are vague and general. My impression is that they will be tightened up as the discussions continue.
NAMHI also maintains that the sectoral plan for the Department of Health and Children does not refer to the introduction of national standards for disability services or to plans for the statutory inspection of those services. A new agency, the HIQA, is to be established to work on these standards, although it has not yet been established. It is still being put together so these developments are happening in a state of flux. Until the HIQA is established, we will all be working in the dark to some extent. While the Minister of State also said the Minister for Health and Children may decide that the consideration of the primary care needs of people with disabilities when developing a new model of primary care might be included in the sectoral plan for her Department, he also said he did not want to make it mandatory in order that the Minister would be free to include it later. On that basis, I am willing not to press the amendment.
I move amendment No. 264:
In page 31, paragraph (c), line 29, to delete “and” and substitute the following:
"(d) guidelines for best practice, in relation to facilitating access by persons with disabilities, for private companies offering public transport services, and”.
I seek the inclusion of guidelines on best practice for private companies offering public transport services to facilitate access by persons with disabilities. There is yet another overlap in this instance between the private and public sectors where the private sector provides a service on behalf of the public sector. The Irish Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus states that, while great improvements have been made by Irish Rail, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus in the provision of accessible transport services, the private sector, a growing force within the transport industry, is let off the hook in terms of providing accessible transport services for people with disabilities. The association maintains this is not recognised meaningfully in the legislation and the failure to underpin transport provision will only serve to widen the urban-rural divide for people with disabilities. Those who live in rural Ireland are at a serious disadvantage in regard to public transport. The association's point is well made and it believes the sectoral plan of the Department of Transport should include guidelines on best practice by private companies offering public transport services to facilitate access by persons with disabilities .
This section provides for the sectoral plan of the Department of Transport. Transport is a vitally important link for people with disabilities and is usually provided by others, whether it involves private or public transport. It is beyond me that a system should be introduced by the Department of Transport and sanctioned by the Department of Finance to allow taxi drivers to purchase vehicles, a significant percentage of the cost of which can be claimed in tax, to provide accessible public transport for people confined to wheelchairs without making it obligatory that they should attend when such persons telephone for a cab or taxi. The drivers concerned claim tax relief on a significant percentage of the purchase prices of the vehicles in question.
Various excuses are made for not picking up people who are wheelchair bound, including the lack of sufficient business in the sector to earn a living, with which I agree. Servicing this group of people does not prevent them from running their vehicles in the normal way. People with mobility problems do not decide at 8.50 a.m. that they will travel to the shop to 9 a.m. They usually make such decisions the day before and order taxis well in advance, yet the booking is not guaranteed. A taxi can usually only carry the wheelchair user and one other person, whereas when such vehicles are used normally, five or six people can be taken, which is a more lucrative proposition.
The Minister of State must insist that, when sufficient notice is given by wheelchair users, vehicles purchased with the aid of the State must be available for the use of those they were licensed to serve. This should be provided for in the legislation. If not, the Minister of State should give a guarantee it will be included in the sectoral plan.
I support this important amendment. A rump within the private sector needs to wake up in regard to services and access for people with disabilities. There is an onus on transport providers to adopt best practice and provide quality services. The bottom line is that if hotels can recruit people with disabilities, on which they have an excellent record and for which they have won awards, there is absolutely no reason private transport companies should fail to do likewise. At the same time, I acknowledge private transport providers are creative and progressive in the provision of services for people with disabilities.
People with disabilities comprise 8% of the population and are, therefore, a niche market for commercial operators. People with disabilities together with their families use taxis and buses on a regular basis. Many disability service providers such as St. Michael's House use smaller companies to provide transport for people with intellectual disabilities. While some within the private sector have taken a lead in this regard, there is also a rump which does not want to wake up to that reality.
The provisions in amendment No. 264 are contained in section 32(a) and require the Minister to specify measures taken to improve access to transport services, including those that will apply to persons or bodies licensed or regulated by the Minister such as those mentioned by the Deputies. As a result, ministerial policies taken or proposed to be taken on public transport provision, including taxi and other private transport services, come within the scope of the sectoral plan. While I agree with the sentiments expressed, the amendment is superfluous and it is not necessary to include it.
While section 32(a) is welcome, it is broad. Will the Department of Transport only calculate how many drivers have licences to provide a service without introducing regulations to ensure the service is delivered properly? We know how many licences have been taken up but they are not delivering the service for which they were licensed.
Section 32(a) states:
"A sectoral plan of the Minister for Transport ("the Minister") shall contain information concerning—
(a) a programme of projected measures for the provision of access to persons with disabilities to passenger transport services for the general public provided by the Minister or by a public body in relation to which he or she performs functions or by a person or body licensed or regulated by the Minister,”.”
This could mean that private companies offering a public transport service must be licensed or regulated by the Minister. Is the Minister saying that private bus companies operating a service between Cork and Dublin must be licensed and regulated?
Yes.
If that is the case, the proposal in my amendment is included. Therefore, I will withdraw it.
I assume public transport means buses, trains, aeroplanes, taxis——
Not aeroplanes.
——and ships. What about passenger ferries?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 265:
In page 32, paragraph (b), line 11, to delete “and”.
I move amendment No. 266:
In page 32, paragraph (c), line 15, to delete “road.” and substitute the following:
"road, and
(d) housing and accommodation for persons with disabilities,
(e) proposed arrangements for cooperation by housing authorities with the Executive in relation to the development and coordination of the services provided by housing authorities for persons with disabilities, and
(f) any other matters which the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) In this section ‘public places' includes—
(a) street furniture, pavements and pedestrian zones,
(b) signage,
(c) public parks and open spaces owned or maintained by a local authority,
(d) harbours, bus and light rail stops for which a local authority is responsible,
but does not include a public building under section 23 or a service to which section 24 or 25 applies.”.
This section deals with vocational training and employment support services, which is an important area. There is an issue about people in these areas not receiving the proper wages. I wonder whether a sectoral plan will take into account payment, remuneration and wages of people who work while taking part in vocational training. Employers say that an element of their remuneration is covered by the training element. This arose recently in the Oireachtas when people working here allegedly did not receive their proper wages. I recall visiting a workshop recently where some trainees were not on the minimum wage even though they worked there. Can the Minister of State enlighten us as to whether the sectoral plan will cover this element?
All employees are governed by the employment legislation and entitled to the minimum wage. There is no exception in the case of people with disabilities. Therefore, any breaches of the legislation in that regard can be dealt with through the employment legislation.
When one is dealing with people with disabilities, one is talking about a very vulnerable group. I understand the point the Minister of State is making on employment legislation. However, if we were not talking about a vulnerable group of people, we would not be seeking separate legislation. There must be further efforts to protect these people.
It is a matter of enforcement. If people with disabilities do not receive their rights or are discriminated against in their employment through their proper wages not being paid, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the appropriate authorities. There is adequate protection at present and it is not necessary to improve it.
Will the Minister of State ask the Minister to carry out a review of the industries which continue to employ disabled people who are not on the minimum wage? There is not just once incidence of this; it has happened on a number of occasions. Employees in a workshop in my area are not on the minimum wage. Last week, a newspaper covered an incident in this facility where people were not on the minimum wage. The response of the employer was that these people were in work preparation. For how long does work preparation continue? Some of the individuals concerned have been in the job as long as I have been a Member of this House. We are concerned about this aspect of the regulations. Perhaps the Minister of State will ask the Minister to carry out an investigation to see if there are breaches of the minimum wage regulations so that we do not have to force people who are disabled to take cases themselves. Many of these people would not have the facilities to do so and some of them would be afraid to do so in case they might upset their employer and lose the little work they have.
This is a very important section which deals with sectoral plans of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. When one is dealing with the employment of people with disabilities, there is a perceived problem with the disability sector. This concerns me because there are many quality people within the disability sector. We all meet them regularly, whether on lobby groups or whatever. Yesterday, a reporter from RTE, who was blind, interviewed a member of the Independent group. There are people with fantastic brains and minds who may have a physical disability. Then there are people with intellectual disability who have other skills. These people should always be treated with respect and dignity. It is a cause for concern that in some places they get just 65 cent an hour for labour and so on. These claims should be investigated.
There is another aspect of the intellectual disability sector, namely, those with Down's syndrome. I speak from experience on this issue. Teenagers and young adults with Down's syndrome have an amazing love of education. I always find it strange that they must finish their education at 18. There should be some sort of creative and radical third level education for them. I call on third level colleges and institutions to come up with new and constructive ideas in this regard. People with Down's syndrome, in particular, have a yearning to learn. Their relationships with their teachers are top class. My daughter skips out of the house each morning. Her attitude towards school and teachers is amazing. Why should this end? Life-long education should be available to people with intellectual disability because one will get the maximum out of them and it would be a very progressive thing to do. I would like to see cross-party and cross-Department co-operation within the State being broadened to find new ideas and new opportunities for these people. This would mean that all of society would win, including young adults with intellectual disability. We should never forget that there are very talented people among those with disabilities. It is not acceptable to have these people in situations for seven hours a day and not involve them in broader society.
Individuals have a responsibility in this regard. It is all very well to blame Governments and Departments, but society and we as individuals must examine our attitude to these people. How many of us go for a pint with a person with a disability or how many of us meet regularly with people with disabilities? There is a section of people who constantly feel excluded. This Bill should be about including them in mainstream society. There are several ideas in the section and we should be much more radical and creative.
I agree with Deputy McGrath. There is no question that we would all like to see further opportunity for people to progress through third level education. There are some good examples of opportunities being granted by third level colleges for people with disabilities. I am aware of the amazing and inspiring case of a young lady in Galway who is studying law. The practical difficulty she faces is that her education support for her personal assistant runs out at the end of the term. She wants to do postgraduate work in the college during the summer, but cannot do it because there is no provision for her to keep her personal assistant. These are the kinds of difficulties and gaps that must be addressed. There is a desire on the part of the universities to open up more opportunities through the access programme. I concur with the sentiments expressed in that respect.
On the other issues raised, if Deputy Ó Snodaigh has examples to bring to my attention, I will raise them with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In general, those issues should be raised with that Minister. I know from previous experience in that Department that the inspectorate in the labour section is anxious to pursue any employers who do not give their full rights to employees, disabled or otherwise. Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned a range of cases. If he gives me the details, I will take the matter up with my colleague.
Amendment No. 268 has been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 270:
In page 33, line 31, after "officer" to insert "of the Office of the Ombudsman".
We still have not got clarification from the Minister of State on the full role of the Ombudsman. We will probably have to wait until Report Stage for that clarification, which is unsatisfactory.
This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 187.
Will the Deputy withdraw his amendment?
No.
Is the amendment being pressed?
When was it discussed?
It was discussed with amendment No. 187.
We are not sure what we are doing with the Ombudsman, whether he or she is coming or going or is included. We are working in the dark. I will press the amendment.
Under this section there is no change to the role of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is as in Part 3 of the Bill.
It is not quite the same.
It is.
One depends on the other. I will withdraw the amendment.
When we leave this section we move into a new area, away from the sectoral plans. The Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, has been in contact with us. I received correspondence from it today on this section, as I presume did the Minister of State. The federation makes several proposals. It proposes that the Bill be amended to legislate comprehensively for the inclusion of people with a disability in the policy, planning and services of all Departments.
The aim of its proposed amendments is to make each Department accountable for how it intends to include people with disabilities actively in its policies, planning and services. It wants a disability-proofing statement. It proposes that on an annual basis each Department and public body should produce a disability proofing statement of its policies and services. This would show annually each Department's level of progress on opening its services to people with disabilities.
The federation also proposes the establishment of what it calls a "disability commissioner". This is a novel idea which the Minister of State may have come across. The federation says the Government has recognised that the Irish language, although enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann, needs legislative supports to ensure its status is promoted and protected within public administration. The DFI seeks similar promotion and protection for people with disabilities in public administration.
The Official Languages Act legislated for the role of the Coimisinéar Teanga. The commissioner is obliged to be independent in the performance of his duties. His principal responsibilities are to monitor the manner in which public bodies comply with the provisions of the Official Languages Act 2003 and to take all necessary measures to ensure that public bodies fulfil their duties under the Act. The commissioner is also charged with investigating complaints where there are grounds to believe that a public body may have failed its obligations under the Official Languages Act or any other enactment which deals with the status and use of Irish.
The establishment of a disability commissioner with the same status as the language commissioner would be a proactive, legislative measure that would greatly enhance the status of people with disabilities and would assist in protecting their rights to equality in public services. Such an office would give the Oireachtas and the disability sector a strong basis for ongoing engagements with Departments.
The DFI has proposed a new section 38 to include the functions and powers of the commissioner and the establishment of the office. If I do not raise this matter now, I will not be able to do so on Report Stage. The DFI is an umbrella body which represents many organisations for people with disabilities and which is highly respected. It has invested a great deal of work and thought in its submission. Has the Minister of State received the submission and, if so, what are his views on it?
I made a suggestion during the discussion on Part 2 of the Bill. I will be tabling an amendment to strike it out. I suggest that we adopt the practice in the Six Counties involving the section 75 provision, which is a statutory duty. Rather than just the limited number of Departments which are involved in sectoral plans, the concept used in the Official Languages Act should, at the very least, be mirrored in this legislation. The list in the Official Languages Act covers every public body with specific duties under that legislation. It is not beyond the ability of this committee to replicate that provision.
The novel aspect of the Official Languages Act is that those public bodies which are currently in receipt of public funds but which may become private companies in the future must still abide by its provisions and the duty to do so follows with them. I suggest that the committee give further consideration to this matter. Every organisation in this country should undertake these duties but only a certain number of them are under legislative control. The full list provided in the Official Languages Act, which includes Departments, companies, State boards, local and regional authorities, hospitals, etc., runs to ten pages.
The idea that this Bill will make a significant change in areas beyond the six Departments currently listed would give heart to those who are disabled and also to those who work with them. The committee needs to know if the Minister of State has this in mind. If not, I will proceed with the amendments which cover the range of access and statutory duties. They will ensure that organisations will be proactive in the delivery of services.
I support the insertion of a new section. The Departments and public bodies should produce a disability-proofing statement of their overall remit on the basis that people with disabilities are equally part of the public to be served. I also ask them to provide such a statement to the disability commissioner. They should consult representatives of the disability movement. These are the views of the Disability Federation of Ireland. I support the federation in its efforts. I will raise the matter on Report Stage.
A disability-proofing exercise is already in progress on an administrative basis under NAPS and it is working quite well. Disability-proofing statements are included in every item of legislation that goes before the Cabinet. I invited the DLCG to make a submission for my consideration but I did not make any commitment to change the provisions of the Bill. However, I promised to consider its submission. I have a copy of the proposal to which Deputy Stanton referred and I am prepared to consider it. I cannot say at this stage whether I would be prepared to make any significant changes. I am certainly not prepared accede to the suggestion to appoint, in a move similar to what was done under the language legislation, a commissioner. Provision is already made for an ombudsman, whose powers are much stronger than those of a commissioner. There is no need to consider appointing both. I am examining the submission and will report back on Report Stage.
My reading is that this provision for a disability commissioner would possibly take the place of the Ombudsman and would have both a proactive and reactive role. My understanding is that the Ombudsman can only react to complaints made, whereas a commissioner would be empowered to instigate investigations. This might be worth considering, particularly if the Minister of State is examining the roles of the appeals officer and the Ombudsman. This would be a further step but a disability commissioner would be independent and would be focused solely on disability and the rights of people with disabilities. His or her office would be a final one-stop-shop. This proposal may have some merit in that it would be proactive as well as reactive.
The Ombudsman is very proactive and does not need any urging to expand on issues that are a cause of concern. The current Ombudsman is doing a very good job in that respect. I do not accept that the replacement of the Ombudsman by a commissioner would be in the best interests of a good independent appeals process. I am considering the submission and I am prepared to consider the issues.
My understanding is that the Ombudsman can only react to complaints made and cannot initiate investigations.
The Ombudsman's reports are based on generalities and are very proactive.
They are only based on complaints made — that is, cases brought to the Ombudsman's attention by citizens — whereas a commissioner could investigate.
If citizens make complaints, there will hardly be any need to react.
I can see Report Stage amendments in the offing.
When will the Minister of State make a determination? Report Stage is scheduled for next week. Is he considering making substantial changes?
I am not considering making any substantial changes.
He is considering the submission and he may or may not be considering making substantial changes.
I made no promises. I stated, without any commitment, that I would look at the proposals. I spent considerable time on Friday explaining the comprehensive nature of the Bill in this respect, the very onerous obligations placed on public bodies and the very worthwhile independent appeals mechanism to ensure those obligations are carried out. I have promised to consider some elements that were brought to my attention, which were quite different to the submission received. I am not prepared to make any commitment other than to say it will be studied and we will respond to it on Report Stage.
I ask the Minister of State to do it quickly so that we have time to evaluate any Government Report Stage amendments and table our own amendments if required.
Is the Minister of State's door open?
It is always open.
Part 4 relates to genetic testing. I do not believe it is appropriate to deal with genetic testing in this Bill. I suggest that Part 4 be deleted and introduced as separate legislation by a more appropriate Department.
Given that the number of pages of amendments exceeds the number of pages in the Bill, it is clear we are not happy with the Bill. As the Minister of State knows, the Opposition is rarely happy with what Government proposes. It seems incredible that this part relating to genetic testing should be so well framed and well drafted. Why it is contained in this Bill is beyond me. While it is necessary and long overdue, it should not be in the Bill. I remember approximately ten years ago hearing a report from a BBC documentary which referred to insurance companies at an international conference seeking access to genetic testing. At that stage genetic testing was in its infancy. The issue related to loading premiums for people who, because of their genes, might have a predisposition to heart problems or other inherited diseases. At the time I felt we should do something about it and now it is contained in this Bill. I do not know why genetic testing and the centre for excellence in universal design are contained in the Bill.
Anyone who knows anything about disability knows that very little disability arises for genetic reasons. Clearly some disabilities occur as a result of genetics. However, most disabilities arise following accidents at birth and during life, strokes etc. While Part 4 represents excellent legislation in itself, it should not be in this Bill. It deals with inherited diseases and Huntington's Disease is the one that springs to mind. I believe this Part was drafted by a different person from the one who drafted the other Parts of the Bill.
I have some concerns about the provisions relating to genetic testing and my amendments Nos. 273 and 274 relate to the issue of consent. Those two amendments provide for the express consent of the person following which consent is freely given, it may be withdrawn at any stage. Neither of these represents a charge on the Exchequer. Clearly nobody would undergo such tests without good reason and given the invasiveness and the way they can display the possibility for a person's health, they must take place with the freely given express consent of the individual and, if necessary, that consent can be withdrawn. Those are the two safeguards I seek in this part. However, I still do not understand why this Part is contained in the Bill.
We are dealing with the interpretation of this Part.
We know this Part is in the Bill for reasons relating to insurance. One paragraph in section 39 states that "genetic data" means data relating to a living person derived from genetic testing of the person. I understand that genetic data can also be obtained from people who are dead, which may also need to be taken into account.
Members of the Oireachtas probably need to consider the area of genetics in general and introduce comprehensive legislation dealing with it. This part of the Bill relates to insurance protection and seems to have been inserted specifically for that purpose. There may also be a question over its constitutionality. However, the area needs to be addressed. I am sure the Minister of State will have received advice on this aspect. Property rights in particular may represent an area of concern. The protection of property rights in the guise of moneys owned by insurance companies might be impacted by this Part of the Bill. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. It has been brought to my attention that if an insurance concern has property owned by a company in the form of money and if information is available which would show that a person would be a higher risk because of having a predisposition to a disease but that information is not allowed to be used to protect the private property of the company or individual concerned, it is unclear how the Constitution deals with the matter. I would like to know whether the Minister of State has a view on this matter.
We are dealing with the interpretation, which is section 39, and will deal with the remaining sections in Part 4 shortly. The section refers to deoxyribonucleic acid. Should this not be dioxyribonucleic acid? Does the Minister of State have any general comments to make?
I appreciate the great welcome given to this Part.
By the Labour Party. The Minister of State will note the Independents did not say anything.
This section has been included because some good officials recognised, when the case was made to them, that people with certain forms of disability might find it difficult to obtain life assurance——
I agree.
——or that it might be much more expensive for them to do so. I assure the Deputy that the insurance industry has made a cogent case for the deletion of this part of the legislation. While we have noted the industry's views, we feel that some protections are needed because of technological developments in areas such as genetic testing. My officials are to be complimented on this good section of the Bill. They also drafted the rest of this very good legislation, about which Deputy Lynch was sceptical.
I take it that they were under pressure that day.
Some people may encounter difficulties when they try to obtain insurance cover or mortgages on foot of predictive genetic tests, which are usually performed for medical reasons.
Yes.
It is important that the Bill protects such people and limits the scope for information being used in that manner. I have been informed that there is no question of this element of the Bill being unconstitutional, so I do not understand what Deputy Stanton is getting at. If the Deputy can provide some further detail in that regard, I will be happy to investigate the matter.
Amendments Nos. 273 and 274 relate to the issue of consent for the use of genetic data. Section 40(1)(b) provides that such consent must be obtained in accordance with the Data Protection Acts. As genetic data is regarded as sensitive personal data under the terms of the Data Protection Acts, it is required that explicit consent be given. Section 40(1)(b) adequately meets the demands of Deputy Lynch’s amendment No. 273.
Yes.
The Data Protection Acts provides that expressions used in EU Directive 95/46/EC, which relates to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, have the same meaning in the Acts. Article 2(h) of the directive states that the data subject’s consent means “any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes”. The phrasing of the directive constitutes a strong safeguard that will apply to the use of genetic data under section 40 of this legislation. As I have largely dealt with the issues raised in Deputy Lynch’s amendment No. 274 by assuring the committee that Part 4 of the Bill has been aligned with the operation of the Data Protection Acts, I do not propose to accept it. It is preferable to rely on the provisions of the Data Protection Acts.
I accept the Minister of State's comments. I agree that section 40 is good. This is a new area for all of us. I encountered this issue for the first time approximately ten years ago, when an insurance industry conference suggested that people who had been the subject of genetic tests should be compelled to make the results of such tests available to insurance companies. They cannot do that because it is clearly wrong. Health insurance is about a shared risk and not about loading premiums. This is a very good section. I accept the Minister of State's assurances about safeguards and consent. In particular, the withdrawal of consent is vital because people's circumstances may change after tests. I accept what the Minister of State has said.
I would like to expand on my previous remarks. Insurance is a matter of risk measurement. More and more diseases are being identified as occurring for genetic reasons. To an increasing degree, genetic testing can indicate one's susceptibility to certain diseases. One's history is taken when one tries to secure life assurance cover. For example, one is asked whether one is a drinker or a smoker. If one is a smoker, it is obvious that one's health risks increase and that one's health insurance premiums increase accordingly. The same provisions apply if one has a history of medical conditions such as heart disease.
People who know, on the basis of genetic testing, that they are susceptible to a condition or disease that might shorten their life can withhold such information from their insurance company. I would not like that to happen but I mention it to help the committee to tease out the position. The provisions of section 40 mean that information of the type to which I refer does not have to be revealed. In such circumstances the insurance company adopts a risk about which it does not know, even though the person being insured knows about it.
I am concerned about the moneys held in the accounts of insurance companies. I am not trying to defend anyone, I merely wish to tease out the legalities of this matter. Such moneys are private property. They belong to the subscribers to the insurance companies, etc. The risk to that money may increase if certain information is wilfully withheld. I wonder whether the right to the protection of private property, under the Constitution, overrules the rights of individuals in such cases.
I know what the Deputy is saying.
I do not wish to consider the merits or demerits of each set of rights, I wish to tease out the constitutionality of this section. The concerns I am raising also apply to the mortgaging of properties. I do not wish to fly the flag for the banking sector. If a person who knows of his or her susceptibility to a disease that will shorten his or her life takes out life assurance and goes to a bank to obtain a mortgage, the insurance company will have to cover the mortgage when that person dies early. We need to consider serious matters of this nature because genetic testing, as it becomes more prevalent, will probably uncover the susceptibility of more people to more health problems, such as various forms of cancer.
It could be challenged.
It is possible that this part of the Bill will be challenged. I assume that the Minister of State has received high-level advice from the Office of the Attorney General and that the legality of this section has been determined.
It has been forensically examined by the Office of the Attorney General. The business of insurance is all about accepting risk. The insurance industry always took risks about which it did not know in the past. This section has been introduced because it is not considered that the fact that technology is providing better information should militate against people when they are trying to access insurance cover. A young person who is trying to secure a mortgage and who may have had a genetic test for medical reasons should not have to provide the kind of information we have mentioned. At present, insurance companies are allowed to adjust one's insurance premium when the symptoms of a condition become apparent. This section of the Bill provides that such an approach should be continued. The Government is satisfied that it is on solid legal and constitutional ground. The section affords added protection to people.
This information would be like gold dust if it were made available to insurance companies because it would enable them to be predictive as regards an individual's lifespan. Insurance companies always make rough guesses about how long a person will live and what will be the cause of his or her death. This is based on factors such as where an individual lives, his or her occupation, family history and so forth. If a scientific calculation of this nature were thrown into the mix, it would be like gold dust. That is the reason the section is so important. While I hope the Minister of State is correct, I also understand Deputy Stanton's point that it could be considered a threat to private property. As matters stand, I do not believe the Supreme Court would share his view. However, I am not in the insurance business and I do not know what it will do in the future.
I move amendment No. 275
In page 37, subsection (1), line 11, to delete "section 2B(1)(xi)" and substitute section 2B(1)(b)(xi)”.
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error and insert the full reference to a provision in the Data Protection Acts which allows for the making of regulations.
Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 277:
In page 37, subsection (2), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
"(d) people with disabilities and their family members.”.
Amendment No. 278 proposes to insert the same phrase elsewhere in subsection (2). The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that people with disabilities and their families are part of the consultation process and the insertion of the proposed subsection (2)(d) would require the Minister to consult them. The purported ethos of the Bill is to support and listen to people with disabilities and their family members. The amendments are a significant advance in this regard and I urge the Minister of State to accept them.
Section 41(2) allows the Minister to make regulations with regard to the use of family history information for insurance purposes. Subsection (2) provides that the Minister must consult other specified Ministers and statutory bodies before making any such regulations and subsection (3) provides that the Minister may also consult other bodies or persons. Similarly, section 42 outlines the consultations which must take place as part of a future review of Part 4. The wording, as it stands, will allow the Minister to consult the appropriate groups in making the regulations or reviewing the provisions of Part 4.
Amendments No. 277 and 278, while proposing entirely appropriate consultations with people with disabilities, take no account of the range of other bodies such as banks, insurance companies and medical specialists which also have a legitimate interest. It is better to confine the specified obligations to statutory authorities because it is not possible to identify all relevant bodies in advance. The provision is appropriate as it stands and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments.
I will press the amendment.
This section deals with information on the family history of an applicant for insurance and comes under Part 4, Genetic Testing. What precisely does the term "family history" mean in this context? Does it include all health issues?
It refers to questions currently asked about family history.
As such, it goes beyond genetic testing and incorporates all aspects of family history. This is a major change as it relates to issues other than genetic testing, even though it falls under Part 4 which is entitled Genetic Testing. Will the Minister of State be more specific in terms of the meaning of the term "family history"? Will he provide examples?
An example would be whether one's father died of a heart attack.
Yes. Will this type of question be asked? One could interpret the term "family history" broadly. The section refers to regulations the Minister will make under the Data Protection Act.
The questions would be those asked in the normal course of events. We are trying to draw up regulations to ensure that the questions asked remain within these parameters and do not fall outside normal practice, particularly when small premia or sums are concerned.
The section states that the Minister will make regulations under section 2B(1)(xi) of the Data Protection Act 1998, as inserted by the Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003. It appears to be about data protection and how the information is to be used. What will be the purpose of the new regulations made under the Acts? Will they protect information about family history?
It is difficult to understand the section, which brings us back to the question of clarity and how the Bill reads. Although I believe I know what the Minister of State means, the Bill needs to be much clearer.
The purpose of the section is purely to try to protect people in the context of the current circumstances in which questions on family history are asked. It seeks to impose some restrictions on the use of family history for insurance protection and places the use of family history information firmly in the context of the Data Protection Act.
Is the Minister of State saying it is okay for the insurer to ask the client about his or her family history but that the insurer must treat the information as protected data which cannot be passed on to anyone else?
We are clarifying that family history data constitutes sensitive information under the Data Protection Acts and that its use may be controlled by regulation.
Does the Minister of State understand what I said? How does the information come into the domain of data protection? For that to happen I would have to write something down and it would have to be passed on to someone. Everything that is in my head will not be protected under data protection legislation. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that sensitive information is protected?
The Deputy will be aware that the insurance industry has a significant intelligence system. This is to ensure that the insurance industry does not use sensitive personal data.
So I am right. The insurer must treat information received as protected data.
Yes.
Such information cannot be sold or passed on, other than to the client.
It will ensure that the Minister could deal with any issues that relate to reasonable access to insurance for people with disabilities if that were considered necessary.
In other words, if I were refused insurance or if my insurance policy were heavily loaded, the Minister could demand access to the file to examine its contents.
The data protection officer would have that role.
It appears that this section goes beyond people with disabilities. No explicit reference is made to people with disabilities. It appears to refer to the family history of any applicant for insurance purposes and states that such information shall be processed in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Minister under section 41(2)(b).
My understanding is that currently if a person applies for insurance he or she must give information about personal medical conditions or state if his or her parents had died from heart attacks at an early age. Is it the case that this kind of family medical history would in future be denied to an insurance company? Are we saying that is private information to which the insurance company should not have the right of access? What kind of regulations will the Minister make and what impact will they have?
In the first instance, the insurance company is in a position to look for sensitive personal data. The purpose of this provision is to ensure such information is not treated in any way other than the purpose stated. The Deputy is correct in saying that it applies to everybody but everybody must be protected in order to ensure people with disabilities are protected as they would be more prone to being discriminated against if this provision were not made.
So it is an additional protection regarding the information that insurance companies now have.
Yes.
Are insurance companies entitled to get the information?
They are entitled to look for it.
But are they entitled to get it, and if they get it will there be restrictions on how they use the information to calculate premiums?
They are entitled to get it. People must answer the questions honestly on insurance application forms. This section relates to how insurance companies can use the information. This provision prevents them from selling it or making it more widely available.
So it is nothing to do with the loading that can be put on a premium or a decision a company can make as to whether to provide insurance cover to a person?
Why would a company not put on a loading? Is not the essence of insurance that where the risk is increased a loading is added?
These regulations are not about that; they relate to how insurance companies deal with sensitive information.
Yes. How they deal with sensitive information does not prevent them from loading one's policy. Is the Minister of State saying that apart from heart attack, stroke, diabetes and so on, that an insurance company is not allowed to act on the suspicion that a particular disability is genetic, and that a data protection officer can examine a file to determine if that was the case? Insurance companies must treat everybody equally. They cannot discriminate on the basis of a suspicion of a genetically inherited disability.
They can only use information relating to the particular person who applies for a policy or a mortgage. They cannot use information relating to other members of the family.
For a daughter or a son.
A question on many insurance forms is whether one has ever been refused cover by another insurance company and if so, why. In answering that question, one would have to give uberrimae fides, all the information in regard to that.
Will the applicant be able to get all the information held on him or her by an insurance company?
That is irrelevant here. That is covered by data protection legislation.
Will this interfere with that in any way?
No.
Surely under the Data Protection Act a person would be entitled to it.
I move amendment: No. 278:
In page 37, subsection (2), line 39, after "Authority" to insert ", people with disabilities, their family members".
There is a reference in the section to getting data from a living person. Does it also cover data from people who are deceased?
What does the Deputy mean?
If somebody dies, it might be possible to use the data from the dead person to make a judgment regarding somebody who is living.
It is defined as data relating to a living person. One cannot change the definition.
Can it be changed to state that data means data relating to a living person derived from the genetic testing of the person?
That applies at present. We are only speaking about people who are living.
I know that but it might be possible on the death of a person for genetic data from the dead person to be used to make judgments relating to somebody who is alive.
Yes, but there is no change from the existing situation whereby data from somebody who is dead could be used or otherwise.
Can one person's data be used in respect of another?
No.
I can see the point the Deputy is making.
He has made very good points all day.
I move amendment No. 279:
In page 38, subsection (2)(b), line 20, to delete “a health board” and substitute “the Executive”.
I move amendment No. 280:
In page 38, subsection (2)(c), line 23, to delete “2001” and substitute “2003”.
I move amendment No. 281:
In page 38, subsection (2)(d), line 35, to delete “2001” and substitute “2003”.
I move amendment 282:
In page 38, subsection (3), line 42, after "to" to insert "active members of".
This amendment was proposed by ICTU. It states people with disabilities are currently employed in non-active roles in the Garda and Defence Forces and as prison officers with non-active roles. It claims the legislation should be amended to acknowledge this because, as it stands, there is a blanket exclusion. Subsection (3) should state: "This Part does not apply to active members of the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána or prison officers of a prison." If what ICTU is saying is true, we need to reconsider the legislation.
We must consider the position of a person with an illness or some form of injury due to an accident, but who is still employed in a non-active role by the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána or still working as a prison officer. I am not sure whether the wording proposed by ICTU is the best possible wording.
Section 44(3) provides that Part 5 will not apply to the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána and prison officers. Amendment No. 282 seeks to limit this exclusion to "active members" in this regard. However, the exclusion already applies to the existing administrative arrangements for the 3% target. The exclusion is based on the fact that all members of the services are liable to active duty, and the vast majority of them undertake duties that require full physical fitness on a daily basis. There may be a very small number of jobs that are not of this kind but these allow some flexibility by way of personnel management where members of these forces are incapacitated through temporary ill-health or injury. There are, of course, large numbers of civilian employees who undertake non-military work for the Defence Forces and civil servants who do clerical work in the Garda stations. Such posts are liable to the 3% target.
The great Offaly footballer, Matt Connor, serves as an example of the point I am making. He continues to be a very active member of the Garda despite the fact that he has a disability. Deputy Stanton's amendment is not necessary.
If members of the Army or Garda with a disability hold a full-time job and are able to participate in an active social life, such as going to the pub or a concert or engaging in a cultural activity, would they be considered disabled under this Bill? Would they be covered by the legislation?
Of course, yes.
Would they be regarded as sufficiently restricted?
They would still have a "substantial restriction", to use the definition in the Bill. Is the Deputy trying to trip me up at this hour of the evening?
Is Deputy Stanton prepared to withdraw the amendment?
I take the Minister's point that all staff must be available for duty. I came across a case recently in which a garda diagnosed with diabetes wondered whether he would be kept on in the force. According to ICTU, it appears there are people with disabilities currently employed in non-active roles in the Garda and Defence Forces or Prison Service.
Perhaps the Minister of State will re-examine this issue because section 45 states a public body shall, in so far as practicable, "take all reasonable measures to promote and support the employment by it of persons with disabilities". However, the members of the Defence Forces, Garda Síochána and prison officers are excluded. I know their case is a special one and I appreciate the Minister's point that they must be available for active service and that one cannot have special cases as a consequence. This is a tricky issue. If a member of the Defence Forces or Garda Síochána or a prison officer develops a restricting condition but is still able to carry out light duties or different forms of duties, but not all duties, it seems unfair that he or she should have to lose his or her job or livelihood.
The Defence Forces and Garda Síochána comprise a sector in which one might be dismissed because of a disability. However, one might be able to do work other than that associated with active service. As the Minister of State knows, for every one soldier in the field, there are five others doing back-up and administrative work.
At present, they would normally be considered for other work, provided there is other work available. That does not change.
Under this legislation, a public body will not be liable to take all reasonable measures to promote and support the employment by it of persons with disabilities. The Defence Forces and Garda will not really be encouraged to employ people with disabilities.
They will not be out looking for people with disabilities but they will consider candidates on a case-by-case basis.
What of members who become disabled?
The same will apply to them.
Amendments Nos. 283 to 285, inclusive, will be taken together with amendments Nos. 287 to 299, inclusive. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 283:
In page 38, after line 43, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Any private bodies will be deemed to be accountable to the Equality Authority for the purposes of this Part.".
This amendment was put forward by the Association of Higher Education Access and Disability, AHEAD. It maintains that while the buildings with the 3% quota are in the public sector this Bill fails to cover the private sector. While the State can meet the minimum requirement the private sector can refuse to employ people with disabilities. The Equality Authority provides the only route by which people with disabilities can take a case against those employers.
AHEAD repeatedly points out there is no interaction between the Disability Bill and the equality legislation. Employers in the private sector will continue to ignore their responsibilities to provide employment for those with disabilities unless a legal underpinning is put in place. One of the poorest presentations within the sectoral plans is the document provided by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is bereft of any new thinking on mainstreaming services and employment for people with disabilities.
Amendment No. 284 comes from NAMHI which maintains that public service employment quotas will be established for public bodies but not in the non-statutory sector. This section may be at variance with the Employment Equality Act which also takes a non-discriminatory approach to ensure employers must make reasonable accommodation for disabled people. Under this section public bodies must take reasonable measures only as far as is practicable.
The disability legislation consultation group proposed amendment No. 285 which requires the insertion of section 56 of the Employment Equality Act 1998. The group maintains that the provisions outlined in the Bill should be in accordance with, and supported by, any codes of practice in guidelines developed by the National Disability Authority and the Equality Authority.
Section 56 of the Employment Equality Act states:
The Authority may, or if requested to do so by the Minister shall, prepare for submission to the Minister draft codes of practice in furtherance of either or both of the following aims:
I will not read the entire section.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions put forward amendment No. 288 because it maintains there are no guidelines in the Bill which explain "good reasons", how they are determined, or on what basis. It says the language is too vague and recommends deletion of the phrase "unless there is good reason to the contrary for not doing so" and its replacement with "if it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case" which is the expression used in the Employment Equality Act 1998. The amendment aims to achieve the same end as the original paragraph but brings it into line with legislation already on the Statute Book.
The ICTU also proposed amendment No. 289, which recommends:
In page 39, subsection (3)(a), line 12, after "specify" to insert the following:", provided that no compliance target is set below 3 per cent,".
According to ICTU the Bill establishes for the first time the legal underpinning of the concept of targets for employment in the public service and monitoring mechanisms. This is an important provision and a development which ICTU has sought for many years. This part aligns a complex process including possible alternative target settings as the 3% target can be replaced by other targets as developed, determined by Ministers and decentralised monitoring reporting mechanisms in which unions will be involved. The provision that the Minister may decide to change the compliance targets could undermine the 3% employment target.
While general unemployment is running at less than 4.5%, estimates of unemployment among people with disabilities start at 60%. The 3% employment quota in the public service is essential to tackle this significant disproportion. Congress believes there should be no clause in the legislation to allow the public service employment quotas for people with disabilities to drop below this level.
Amendments Nos. 292 to 294, inclusive, make more or less the same point. Amendment No. 298 is similar to amendment No. 288 in making the point that the language of the Bill is too vague and should be replaced by the language in the Employment Equality Act 1998.
The disability legislation consultation group proposes amendment No. 299 which proposes that the Minister lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the possibility of increasing the public service employment quota for people with disabilities above 3%. The group believes the employment quota for the recruitment of people with disabilities in the public service should be strengthened with effective enforcement mechanisms and remedies. There should be a gradual increase in the quota in order to increase the number of people with disabilities recruited.
I have tabled three amendments to this section, amendments Nos. 287, 290 and 297. Amendment No. 287 proposes that the phrase "unless there is good reason for not doing so" be deleted from section 45(2) because it is vague. What exactly does the phrase mean? It is open to interpretation on the basis of opinion. A good reason for one person could be that it is raining, for another it might be an insurmountable obstacle.
Amendment No. 290 seeks to insert in section 45(3)(b) “being not less than 3%”, after the phrase “The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order specify compliance targets”. The Government set the target of 3%, and it is the very least for which we should aim because the rate of unemployment among people with disabilities is so high.
Amendment No. 297 is identical to amendment No. 289 but refers to section 45(4) which states:
If no compliance targets stand prescribed under subsection (3)in relation to a public body, the body shall ensure, unless there is good reason to the contrary for not doing so...
The phrase "unless there is good reason to the contrary for not doing so" is open to interpretation. Legislation should not be so vague as to allow for interpretation or opinion. I ask that the phrase be deleted.
Amendment No. 291 states that no compliance target shall be set below 3%. I strongly support amendment No. 299. The 3% base, while it is a target for objectives, is still low and the target should be higher for people with disabilities. Dublin City Council, for example, has 7,000 staff, of which 4.3% are people with disabilities. The council has a proactive group involved in inclusion and developing equality issues. If such a target is achievable, why not5%? The public service provides a great opportunity for people with disabilities to get a decent job and wage while enjoying the camaraderie of colleagues. I commend the various Departments involved in this issue. The Government must wake up to the high rates of unemployment among disabled people. These amendments will ensure disabled people are included in employment in the public service and given real jobs with real salaries and stability. This is a key factor in mainstreaming the disability issue and ensuring people with disabilities are included in every aspect of life.
Section 28(2) requires the National Disability Authority to consult with relevant Ministers and with such other bodies as it considers appropriate, or as directed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in the preparation of a draft code of practice for accessibility of public services, public procurement, information and heritage sites.
Section 44 is the interpretation section for Part 5 regarding public service employment. Amendment No. 283 is a consequential amendment on earlier amendments to expand the scope of the definition of public body to include the private sector. Employers in the private sector are covered by the Employment Equality Acts which provide protection against discrimination and allow for positive action for persons with disabilities. The Disability Bill places further obligations on public service employers to take action to achieve target levels of employment. I am satisfied that this approach will, in turn, set models of best practice which can be replicated in the private sector over time. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 283.
Section 45(1)(a) requires a public body, as far as is practicable, to take reasonable measures to promote and support the employment of persons with disabilities. As amendment No. 284 would delete this provision, I do not propose to accept it.
Section 45(1)(b) requires public service employers to have regard to relevant codes approved by sponsoring Ministers or by the National Disability Authority. Amendment No. 285 would add to any code of practice prepared by the Equality Authority under employment equality legislation. Such codes relate to anti-discrimination obligations which already apply to public and private employers under those Acts. The legislation also provides an effective framework for promoting compliance with its provisions and provides effective means of redress through the Equality Tribunal. It is not necessary or relevant to refer to those codes in the Disability Bill. I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Sections 45(2) and (4) require that a public body will comply with prescribed compliance targets unless there is good reason to the contrary. Amendments Nos. 287 and 297 seek to remove any provision for flexibility. It is important to recognise there are over 200 public service bodies, differing in terms of size and range of activities. It is reasonable to expect that it would be easier for some bodies to achieve a target level of employment within a reasonable timeframe. Section 45 is structured to recognise such diversity and other practicalities, such as the availability of suitably qualified persons with disabilities to take up particular posts. I do not propose to accept these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 288 and 298 seek to replace this provision with a saver clause of the type which applies in employment equality legislation, that is, "if it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case". This type of clause is relevant to individual cases rather than a general statutory duty placed on an organisation. The words inserted, although not specifically suited to the text, seem to impose a lighter obligation of reasonableness instead of the present text which calls for "good reason to the contrary". I do not propose to accept these amendments.
Section 45(3) is a general provision allowing a Minister to make an order setting compliance targets for the recruitment of persons with disabilities in public bodies. Amendments Nos. 289 to 294, inclusive, would require that the provision specifies that such compliance target levels will not be set below 3%, the target level for employment which applies to public sector employers as a positive action measure. The purpose of this subsection is to allow Ministers to set higher target levels for employment or alternative target levels for recruitment. Where no order is made, a 3% employment target will apply under section 45(4). Ministers may only change the target levels by order and the order will, under section 3(4), be placed before both Houses for approval. It will be a matter for the Oireachtas to decide on the issue.
The Minister of State said he hopes best practice in the public sector will be replicated in the private sector and, therefore, private bodies would not be deemed to be accountable to Equality Authority. In effect, this will be a process of osmosis. It is an interesting concept that best practice will be replicated. I am not sure how this will happen. However, I accept the Equality Acts and non-discrimination regulations apply to the private sector and work in a non-discriminatory way so the amendment is covered by legislation.
I move amendment No. 286:
In page 39, subsection(1)(b), line 6, to delete “1999 Act” and substitute “Act of 1999”.
I move amendment No. 287:
In page 39, subsection (2), lines 8 and 9, to delete all words from and including ",unless" in line 8 down to and including "so" in line 9.
I move amendment No. 288:
In page 39, subsection(3)(a), lines 8 and 9, to delete all words from and including “unless” in line 8 down to and including “so” in line 9 and substitute the following:
"if it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case".
The Minister made a good argument, so I will withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 289:
In page 39, subsection (3)(a), line 12, after “specify” to insert the following:
", provided that no compliance target is set below 3 per cent,".
My amendment is an interesting one.
I move amendment No. 290:
In page 39, subsection (3)(a), line 12, after “targets” to insert “(being not less than 3 per cent)”.
I move amendment No. 291:
In page 39, subsection (3)(a), line 16, after “her” to insert the following:
"provided that no compliance target shall be set below 3 per cent".
I move amendment No. 292:
In page 39, subsection (3)(b), line 18, after “specify” to insert the following:
", provided that no compliance target is set below 3 per cent,".
I move amendment No. 293:
In page 39, subsection (3)(c), line 23, after “specify” to insert the following:
", provided that no compliance target is set below 3 per cent,".
I move amendment No. 294:
In page 39, subsection (3)(d), line 27, after “specify” to insert the following:
", provided that no compliance target is set below 3 per cent,".
I move amendment No. 295:
In page 39, subsection (3)(d)(ii), line 35, to delete “or” where it secondly occurs.
I move amendment No. 296:
In page 39, subsection (3)(d)(iii), line 38, to delete “appropriate.” and substitute the following:
"appropriate, (iv) that the public body concerned shall offer a specified number of work experience placements of specified duration to persons with disabilities each year.".
I move amendment No. 298:
In page 39, subsection (4), lines 40 and 41, to delete all words from and including "unless" in line 40 down to and including "so" in line 41 and substitute the following: "if it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case".
I move amendment No. 299:
In page 39, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The Minster shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the possibility of increasing the public service employment quota for people with disabilities above 3 per cent.".
I suggest that in sections 46(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) where there is reference to the Minister for Finance “may” or the Minister “may” or the Government “may”, the word “may” should be changed to “shall”.
Amendments Nos. 300 to 302, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 309 to 312, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 300:
In page 40, subsection (3), line 18, to delete "Authority, encourage" and substitute "Authority and the Equality Authority, ensure".
These amendments are endeavouring to include the Equality Authority. In page 40, subsection(3), lines 17 and 18, we are proposing to delete all words from and including "shall" and substitute the following: "shall monitor and, in consultation with the Authority and the Equality Authority, ensure".
The effect of this is that public service employment issues fall far more properly within the competence of the Equality Authority. That observation has been made by the Commission on Human Rights, which is why we have tabled this amendment. The subsection would then read: "A monitoring authority shall monitor and in consultation with the Equality Authority" and so on from there, to "ensure compliance with this part by the public bodies in respect of which it was established."
Amendment No. 301 is similar. No less an august body than the Commission on Human Rights has said that the part of the Bill which deals with public service employment raises issues that fall more properly within the competence of the Equality Authority. This part of the section would then read:
subject to subsection (7), not later than 30 June in each year, draw up a report in writing in relation to compliance with section 45 during the preceding year by the public body or bodies concerned and submit it to the Authority and the relevant Minister by whom it was established.
The intention is to try to include the Equality Authority. The same applies with regard to amendment No. 302 which seeks in page 40, subsection(6)(a), line 41, after “with” to insert “the Equality Authority and”. Amendment No. 309 is similar and reads, “In page 41, subsection(3)(f), line 49, after “information” to insert the following: “and training, in accordance with and supported by and codes of practice developed by the Authority and the Equality Authority,”.
The disability legislation consultation group was anxious that this be included. It maintains that all public bodies and private services and amenities open to the public should be required to provide disability awareness training to all their staff over an appropriate timeframe with provisions to ensure that public bodies and services provided to the public, including education and transport providers, employers, training agencies, community groups, media and entertainment industry, and so on, comply. The training, it says, should be in accordance with and supported by the codes of practice and guidelines for such training developed by the NDA and the Equality Authority, should be embedded in standards and be accredited, led by people with disabilities and co-ordinated and funded through Comhairle.
Amendment No. 310 has a similar aim in attempting to include the Equality Authority. The DLCG is anxious that this should happen. It maintains that provisions outlined in this part of the Bill should be in accordance with and supported by any codes of practice and guidelines developed by the NDA and the Equality Authority. Section 48 has to do with the Minister approving codes of practice prepared by the authority. In its Equal Citizens document, the DLCG suggests that the Equality Authority be also involved.
Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 involved the same arguments I have made for amendment No. 310.
Section 47 allows the NDA to request a public body to take specific measures to ensure compliance with Part 5 of the Act, including awareness training in certain circumstances.
Section 47(3)(f) specifies that such measures should include the provision of information to employees to increase awareness and understanding. Opposition amendment No. 309 would require that this include training in accordance with codes of practice developed by the NDA and the Equality Authority. Many public bodies already use codes of practice regarding the 3% target; for example, local authorities have been leaders in preparing a code of practice for the employment of people with disabilities. I am satisfied, therefore, that much expertise resides within the public sector in that regard. Many bodies have already been proactive by including disability awareness in training programmes. I am cognisant of the specific role of the NDA regarding Part 5. Section 48 will give it specific new powers to prepare codes of practice to guide public bodies on obligations under that part. The role of the Equality Authority is centred on anti-discrimination measures over a range of nine grounds so that its codes will have that specific focus. Public bodies are required to comply with those codes already under equality legislation. I believe the amendment is unnecessary for that reason, and I do not propose to accept it.
The other Opposition amendments Nos. 300, 301, 302, 310, 311 and 312, all seek to include the Equality Authority in specified consultations between relevant Ministers, the NDA and sectoral monitoring committees. I assume that the amendments arise from amendment No. 283, which proposed to make the private sector accountable to the Equality Authority under Part 5. Part 5 refers to the public sector, so the concept is clearly inappropriate. Therefore, I do not propose to accept those amendments.
The National Disability Authority has the primary statutory role to act as a national body to assist the Minister in co-ordinating and developing disability policy, to undertake research and develop statistical information for the planning, delivery and monitoring of programmes and services for people with disabilities, to advise the Minister on standards for programmes and service and proper codes of practice, and to monitor the implementation of such standards and codes of practice. The Equality Authority has a much wider brief in the anti-discrimination area, and I feel the NDA functions more than fulfil the requirements of the amendments.
I note what the Minister of State is saying regarding combatting discrimination. I have listened carefully to what he has said. Once again, I feel he has made a fair argument.
I move amendment No. 303:
In page 41, subsection (7), line 6, to delete "each" and substitute "such".
I move amendment No. 304:
In page 41, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) Where a public body is in breach of its obligations under this Part to meet an employment target, a disabled applicant for employment is entitled to bring this issue to the Authority, and if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Authority that it is reasonable to do so, the Authority may order that the public body hold a competition for future vacancies where the disabled person is entitled to be put on a panel. If, following a period on such panel, the person concerned can show to the satisfaction of the Equality Tribunal that the non-filling of vacancies is entirely or primarily due to the non-attainment of the employment target, then the person may be entitled to such redress as the Equality Tribunal may award.".
As members will see, this is a very detailed amendment. It is strong and effective, dealing with employment regarding people with disabilities. It represents an extra strategy to protect the rights of such people. It is a real positive-action measure.
Section 46 outlines monitoring arrangements for Part 5, which require Ministers to establish monitoring committees. Amendment No. 304 seeks to include an additional provision allowing an individual to complain to the NDA where a public body breaches its obligations under Part 5 so that the authority could order the body to hold a competition for future posts where that individual would be entitled to be put on a panel. It would also allow the individual, following a period on that panel, to seek redress through the Equality Tribunal if the non-filling of vacancies were due to non-attainment of the employment target.
There are no provisions for individual redress under Part 5; nor is it the intention to provide for such arrangements. Part 5 establishes duties for public bodies to achieve target levels of employment for persons with disabilities and allows measures to be directed in that regard. In any cases of discrimination, individuals are entitled to redress already through the Equality Tribunal under equality legislation. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I move amendment No. 305:
In page 41, subsection (1), lines 8 and 9, to delete "body, shall, at the request of the relevant Minister" and substitute "body shall, at the request of the Minister,".
This is a technical amendment to clarify the meaning of section 47(1).
I move amendment No. 306:
In page 41, subsection (2), line 22, after "may" to insert the following:
"make a report to the Oireachtas on the matter and may".
I do not think this is a major request.
The amendment would allow the NDA to make a report to the Oireachtas on non-compliance by a particular public body with the 3% target.
Section 47(2) allows the NDA to engage with individual public bodies which are not complying with provisions and to ask them to put in place any or all of a range of measures specified in section 47(3). However, I am also providing in section 48(2) that, at the end of each year, the NDA will make a report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on compliance with the target, and that report will include an assessment of the extent to which each public body is compliant. That new obligation on the NDA is being imposed by way of an amendment to the National Disability Authority Act 1999, which requires the NDA to lay such a report before the Oireachtas.
Therefore I do not propose to accept this amendment.
I move amendment No. 307:
In page 41, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Authority shall be empowered to conduct an investigation in relation to employment of people with disabilities in any public body, and public bodies shall be obliged to produce any records relevant to such investigations.".
Amendment No. 307 would give powers of investigation to the NDA in respect of Part 5 and require public bodies to produce relevant records. Section 47(1) already allows the NDA to seek any information that it requires to determine if the body is in compliance with Part 5. A similar power rests with the relevant Minister under the subsection. In the circumstances, I do not envisage any difficulty in securing the information. Therefore, I believe the amendment is unnecessary, and I do not propose to accept it.
I move amendment No. 308:
In page 41, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Any person or body who fails or refuses to comply with sections 45 and 47 of this Part shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Equal Status Acts 2000 and 2004.”.
It appears this section contains no sanctions regarding those who will not comply. The DCLG maintains that a failure to comply with the provisions of the legislation should be construed as discrimination under the Equal Status Act and, therefore, comes under the remit of the Equality Authority and the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations. The functions and powers of the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations and the Equality Authority should be extended to support and provide redress under this particular legislation. The levels of redress that can be awarded by the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations should be raised to ensure that they are effective and proportionate.
In addition, Schizophrenia Ireland maintains that the Bill places the quota relating to the employment of people in the public sector on a statutory basis. However, compliance provisions for this section are weak because they state that the non-compliant body can be requested, not required, to comply.
According to section 47, "the Authority may, with the consent of the Minister, request the body to take such measures as it may specify to ensure such compliance and the public body shall comply with such request". However, it does not indicate what such measures will be. It would be useful if the Minister of State could tell the committee what those measures might be and what other powers the authority might have in order to make such compliance mandatory.
Amendment No. 308 would create offences under the Equal Status Act for failure to observe compliance targets under section 45 or to take measures specified by the NDA under section 47. The Bill is not an extension of the Equal Status Act but rather it is a positive action measure, focusing on the roles and actions of public bodies. There are dedicated monitoring and reporting procedures in this part, which will support compliance. The amendment, therefore, is not appropriate and I do not propose to accept it.
What action can the authority take if the request it makes is not complied with?
It will be making a report to the Oireachtas and obviously it cannot impose sanctions, as such. However, on an aggregate basis, we are already up to the level of 3%, so hopefully compliance will not be an issue.
There is more to it than that. There are a number of measures included, such as, for example, in section 47(3)(f) “the provision of information to employees of the body to increase their awareness and understanding of the contributions that persons with disabilities may make to the work of the body”. If any of these measures are not complied with and the public body decides it does not intend to comply, what can the authority do? Given that it will only be in a position to request that something be done, what powers will it have? If a body states that it does not want to comply, it cannot be ordered to do so. A request is different from compelling a body to do something. One may ask someone to do something but he or she can refuse to do it.
What can one do, fine those who do not comply?
I do not know. That is the point I am making.
There is nothing that can be done. It is a moral obligation. Even before the Bill has been passed, we are already reaching the aggregate levels required across the public service. This, in effect, puts the onus on public bodies. There is not much that can be done if they fail to deliver. I am, however, confident that they are delivering and will continue to do so. There is a further amendment to the Bill which seeks to go above the 3%. We will deal with that matter later.
As the Minister of State said, there is not much to be done if they fail to deliver.
The onus will be on the chief executive.
The initiative is based on a request. Perhaps the Minister of State might consider removing the term "request" and including something stronger on Report Stage in order that bodies may be compelled, in some way or other, or required to comply. It is not a major issue but there is no way they can be forced to do it. That, essentially, is what the Minister of State is saying.
The NDA is in a position to deal with the public body concerned. Having a report placed before the Oireachtas is significant sanction. The threat of having to appear before an Oireachtas committee should have the desired impact.
If the public bodies do not comply, the NDA may feel that this is a resigning matter. Moral pressure and enormous embarrassment are obviously involved.
That is correct.
Amendments Nos. 313 to 316, inclusive, are grouped and will be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 313:
In page 43, subsection 2(c), line 15, to delete “The” and substitute “Subject to paragraph (c), the”.
Section 48 allows the National Disability Authority to produce codes of practice as regards the employment of people with disabilities in the public service at the request of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 313 and 315 are technical in nature and amendment No. 314 requires that the authority could make a separate annual report to the Minister on Part 5 matters. I am satisfied that this is already addressed by way of Government amendment No. 316, and, therefore, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 314.
Amendment No. 316 arises out of consultations with the National Disability Authority, which was concerned that it might not be practicable to report, under Part 5 of the Bill, on the achievements of public bodies in its annual report. This amendment gives the authority the option to make a separate report about compliance with Part 5 and I am happy to accommodate the authority's request. I note that this matter is also raised in Deputy Finian McGrath's amendment No. 314.
I move amendment No. 315:
In page 43, line 23, to delete "A" and substitute "Subject to paragraph (d), a”.
I move amendment No. 316:
In page 43, between line 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(c) The Authority may, where it considers appropriate, prepare, and submit to the Minister not later than 30 November in each year, a report (other than a report under subsection (1)) setting out the particulars referred to in paragraph (a), and where it so does it shall be deemed to have complied with that paragraph.
(d) The Authority may, where it considers appropriate, prepare, and submit to the Minister not later than 30 November in each year, a report (other than a report under subsection (1)) containing—
(i) an assessment, and
(ii) if appropriate, a recommendation,
referred to in paragraph (b), and where it so does it shall be deemed to have complied with that paragraph.”.
Amendment No. 317 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 318 and 319 are alternatives, so they will be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 317:
In page 44, lines 27 and 28, to delete "physical or mental feature," and substitute "physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual".
This is a technical amendment to bring the definition of disability in Part 6 into line with Part 1. In moving this amendment I am following a suggestion by the NDA and I am pleased to see similar amendments have been tabled by Deputies Finian McGrath, Stanton and Murphy.
Amendment No. 320 is in the names of Deputies Stanton and Gerard Murphy. Amendment No. 321 is an alternative and amendment No. 322 is related. Amendment No. 323 is an alternative to amendment No. 322. Amendments Nos. 320 to 323, inclusive, will be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 320:
In page 45, lines 13 and 14, to delete "by contributing to" and substitute "through".
The role and responsibility of the centre is unclear in the Bill at times. This amendment would ensure that the role of the centre is in the development of standards and not just in contributing to the process.
My amendments deal with the same matter.
Amendment No. 323 also deals with the same matter.
The proposed new section 19(c) of the National Disability Authority Act outlines the functions of the centre for excellence in universal design. Subsection (1), as currently worded, takes note of the fact that significant contributions to the development of universal design standards have already been made both nationally and internationally and which the centre will take into account when discharging its brief. Such changes are dependent on a complex international environment, which, in turn, is dependent on industrial, voluntary and knowledge based networks.
Amendments Nos. 320 and 321 would charge the centre with developing standards which have already been developed or are in the process of being developed by bodies such as the European Committee for Standardisation, CEN, the British Standards Institute, BSI, the International Standards Organisation, ISO, and the World Wide Web Consortium, W3C. These are some of the internationally recognised bodies that are involved in development and certification of accepted worldwide standards.
The establishment of the centre for excellence partly arises from a commitment given in the e-Europe action plan of 2002 where it was envisaged that the centre should be involved in the promotion of standards in both the public and private sectors. While the development of standards is important, the amendment, as drafted, would charge the centre with assisting in this process by providing relevant knowledge and expertise, particularly within an Irish context. I do not, therefore, propose to accept these amendments.
Subsection (2) follows on from subsection (1) in recognising that the development of universal design, or design for all standards, is a significant international cross-sectoral collaborative effort. Paragraph (a) obliges the centre for excellence to liaise with appropriate national and international standards bodies and its role is consequently identified as one of support and assistance in standards development. Amendments Nos. 320 to 323, inclusive, would fundamentally change the role envisaged for the centre in supporting national and international efforts in development of standards. There are a number of international bodies working in this field which the centre, in addition to its role in publicising and encouraging the adoption of relevant standards, will support by providing relevant input from an Irish perspective. I do not, therefore, propose to accept these amendments.
I move amendment No. 321:
In page 45, line 14, to delete "contributing to".
I move amendment No. 322:
In page 45, line 18, to delete "support and assist in the development of" and substitute "develop and promulgate".
Amendment Nos. 325 and 326 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 325:
In page 46, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
"19E.—The Centre may, and shall if requested by the Minister, prepare for submission to the Minister draft codes of practice in respect of any matter relating to excellence in universal design.".
Section 10 of the National Disability Authority Act 1999 requires the NDA, at the request of the Minister, to develop codes of practice for the purpose of achieving the aim of good standards and quality in the provision of programmes and services provided, or to be provided, to persons with disabilities. The Bill also requires, under section 28, that the NDA will develop codes of practice on accessibility requirements for public building and information, communications and services provided by public bodies. By locating the centre for excellence in the National Disability Authority, it is envisaged that the standards in universal design will inform and be promulgated through those codes of practice. As such, this amendment is unnecessary and I do not propose to accept it.
Amendment No. 326 proposes to require the centre to make annual reports to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform which would subsequently be placed before the Oireachtas. The NDA is already required to submit reports to the Minister under section 15 and it is envisaged that reporting on the work of the centre will be incorporated into that reporting duty of the National Disability Authority, as generally required under existing provisions in the National Disability Authority Act. This amendment is, therefore, not necessary and I do not propose to accept it.
I move amendment No. 326:
In page 46, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
"19F.—(1) The Centre shall, not later than 30 September in each year, make a report to the Minister on the performance of its functions and on its activities during the preceding year.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
(3) The Centre may from time to time make such other reports to the Minister on the performance of its functions as it thinks fit.".
I apologise for my late arrival but Deputy Ó Snodaigh was not able to continue.
There is much business in the House at present, so that is perfectly understandable. The Deputy is very welcome.
I thank the Chairman. I oppose Part 6 on the basis that the separate centre for excellence for universal design is unnecessary if the National Disability Authority is doing its job. I am unable to table amendments because I am not a member of the committee. On Report Stage, however, I would like an amendment to be tabled which will replace the universal centre for excellence and design at the beginning of Part 6, in section 50, with a new section to "establish penalties for failure to comply with obligations within a reasonable timeframe and an explicit right of complaint and appeal to the Ombudsman, the Equality Tribunal and the courts". At this point, I must oppose section 50 as it currently stands.
Part 6 of the Bill establishes an important new centre of excellence in universal design within the National Disability Authority. It has been brought to my attention that some experts have a preference for the term "design for all" and indeed much valuable work has been done under either title. I am considering a possible Government amendment on Report Stage to ensure that the term "design for all" is also captured in Part 6.
I am afraid that Deputy Ó Caoláin is not entitled to oppose this section at this stage. He may, however, do so on Report Stage.
I wish to record my opposition.
Will the Minister of State explain his interpretation of the term "design for all"? I am sure he is aware of the existence of the Institute for Design and Disability. How does this section, establishing the centre for excellence, interact with the institute that is already in existence? Will there be a duplication of work? In other words, is there a need for the new centre if there is already a centre in the State doing the work that the new centre will do? What will be the difference between the two?
We held discussions with those involved. There will be a consultation process and an involvement with those who, as matters stand, are already doing good work. Their views will be taken into account. It is on the basis of those views that we have agreed to include the term "design for all" in Part 6. One of the major issues is that "centre for excellence in universal design" is an American term whereas "design for all" is more a European term. We are bringing the two terms together in the amendment being considered. The current good work is being taken into account in the context of the new centre for excellence, which will be part of the Bill.
The question is whether the two centres will do the same work. They are both involved in design. Will they be complementary? Will there be some way of dovetailing the two or will they be in competition?
They will not be doing the same work. The Bill provides, at section 19A, the definition of universal design. Much of the work of the new facility will involve information, technology sector and electronic based processes, which are not covered at present.
We will be proposing an amendment to this section on Report Stage in regard to covenants in leases.
This section deals with an important area. We have been discussing the Bill for almost three hours, having begun our deliberations at 9.30 a.m. Is it in order to suggest that we might adjourn until tomorrow morning, when we might better deal with this important section? There is not much left to discuss and we could conclude our deliberations in an hour in the morning rather than wearing ourselves out at this stage. I think everybody could do with a break. We can move quickly in the morning, when we will be fresh.
I have no difficulty with that.
Is it agreed to start tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. instead of 9.30 a.m? It will only take approximately one hour to complete our deliberations. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will resume in the morning on section 52.
