Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996

SECTION 24.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 24, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) All employers who employ more than 30 persons shall, by the 31st day of December, 1999, ensure that three per cent of their workforce are persons with disabilities.".

Section 24 deals with positive action on equal opportunities. Subsection (1) states:

The provisions of this Act are without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities in the areas of access to employment, vocational training and promotion and working conditions.

We are dealing with an area of positive action on equal opportunities and we have reached the stage where people with disabilities make up 3 per cent of the workforce in the public service, particularly the Civil Service. It is time to apply that standard to the private sector. I believe it is achievable and will not cause the anticipated difficulties. By providing a reasonable period for full implementation in companies which employ 30 or more people, we can ensure the application of the 3 per cent quota. Three per cent of 30 is only one person so that would not be onerous as far as the employer is concerned. There are 350,000 people with reasonably serious disabilities but that is not the number who would come under the new definition in the Bill, it would be much greater than that. Taking the established situation where over 150,000 women have disabilities that is roughly 10 per cent of the population. We must address this situation and include these people in the private as well as the public sector workplace.

I tabled this amendment because we should pursue the 3 per cent quota. We must give these people the opportunity to participate in employment, call on the employers in the private sector to work towards that figure and follow the example of the public sector.

Ms Keogh

Positive action on equal opportunities is inadequately covered by the Bill. I am not sure whether the Minister believes that the provisions of this Bill are not appropriate for positive action.

There are a number of issues involved, first, the extension of the 3 per cent quota to the public sector and then to the private sector. There should be some way of implementing this provision. I have spoken to the disabled and their representatives and while they recognise the short-term difficulty in implementing such a proposal they believe the only way to break the logjam in relation to the disabled becoming employed is by putting the onus on employers to explain why they do not employ such people. From this point of view I support Deputy Woods's amendment.

In some EU countries a quota is imposed and if employers cannot meet that target, even if they have a good reason, they pay a fine which is put into services for the disabled. That is an interesting concept because it is perfectly reasonable to envisage that, if someone has a workforce of 30 people, one disabled person should be capable of being employed. If there are circumstances where this is impossible then that employer should pay a penalty towards improving services or training for the disabled.

One of our difficulties is that the disabled are locked into what seems to them to be lifelong training and they never get an opportunity to enter the workplace. The only reason we had equality legislation for women was that we were forced into it by Europe. I am beginning to wonder if the only way we will surmount this barrier for the disabled is by introducing a quota system with penalty clauses for employers who find it impossible, for whatever reason, to employ disabled people. This legislation will give us a wider definition of disability and make it easier for employers to take on the disabled.

Mr. Taylor

This amendment has no relevance to section 3 of the Bill which focuses on gender discrimination. If it were to be provided for in the Bill it would be associated with section 33 which facilitates positive action measures to integrate persons with a disability or any class or description of such persons into employment.

However, the Deputy's proposal introduces a statutory obligation and would require considerable development as regards policing, dispute resolution and so on before it could be brought into operation. I consider such a statutory measure inappropriate for this Bill.

Such a provision has the objective of promoting the employment of people with disabilities as distinct from protecting such persons from discrimination. It is an issue which is before the Government for consideration following the publication of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. I intend to address this area in that context.

In this Bill I wish to focus on addressing protection against discrimination. I readily acknowledge that the Bill is only a first step towards responding to the needs of persons with a disability as regards employment. Never before in the history of the State have we progressed as far as this Bill by introducing anti-discrimination measures for people with disabilities.

I will examine the commission's report so that an effective Government response can be developed. I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of that exercise by agreeing to this amendment.

Dr. Woods

I do not accept the views and reasons given by the Minister. There is never a time like the present to act. If the Minister wants to propose that the amendment goes into section 33 then I would be happy to wait until Report Stage so that the Minister or myself could table an amendment to section 3.

The Minister says he cannot accept the amendment because of difficulties in policing such a measure and resolving disputes arising from it. That is to assume that no one wants to do it and that is the prejudice we have to break down. This could be done voluntarily. I have suggested to the Minister in parliamentary questions that the grants given by the IDA, for instance, should be related to a Government policy on employment for the disabled. When people get a grant of £3 million to £10 million to start up a business, they should be requested to employ a number of people with disabilities.

In fairness, the Minister took this issue up with the IDA. He told me it would not be in favour of compulsion in this regard. Nobody wants to be compelled to do anything and that is the reason things do not happen. We need propulsion, not compulsion to propel people to do things which they should do if this is to be an inclusive society and if we are to give people with disabilities a reasonable share of the cake.

I accept that the Minister went to the IDA, which presumably had discussions with IBEC and its clients. I understand that, without being compelled, it would not have agreed to this measure, which is sad. Every business has a social obligation and, therefore, must watch the political scene. That is something which people studying business learn because a business person may invest in an area on the understanding they can do certain things only to find the social environment finds them unacceptable. Those involved in business, especially big business, must always be conscious of the social environment and move with it. Businesses do not need these problems; they want to be allowed to make profits. I was disappointed by the IDA's approach, although it said it would do something. I am afraid that is the response one gets from everyone.

This Bill will provide equality in employment and will include women and other groups which are excluded. It is appropriate to include quotas for those with disabilities. For the sake of tidiness, it might be better to introduce a Bill on disabilities at a later stage but the ball is at our feet and we can either kick it or step over it. In professional football, the ball is kicked very swiftly and there is no going back. People want action rather than promises. The Minister should grasp this opportunity — I will not say grasp the nettle because a distinguished politician once told me that he was stung by every nettle he grasped.

Mr. Taylor

I am learning that lesson.

Dr. Woods

We have an opportunity to do something worthwhile. I ask the Minister not to set his face against this amendment but to think about it and come back on Report Stage to further consider the matter. I proposed a fairly long period which would give people plenty of time to reach the quota. It took the Civil Service a long time to reach the quota voluntarily.

Mr. Taylor

Only when I got it to do so.

Dr. Woods

The Department of Social Welfare had reached 3 per cent before I left office.

Mr. Taylor

I was talking about the entire Civil Service.

Dr. Woods

The Civil Service has reached that figure——

Mr. Taylor

As a result of pressure from me.

Dr. Woods

Perhaps the Minister would apply the same pressure to encourage employers to give hope to people with disabilities. A wonderful document was produced by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, with many recommendations and I hope those recommendations will be implemented over the next few years. Let us kick start that process by introducing something which is feasible and which will be acceptable. Initially, people will be inclined to ask why they should bother but let us provide a reasonable timescale and perhaps give awards to those who achieve the quota in a short time.

Mr. Taylor

We have the equality awards.

Dr. Woods

I am talking about an award for those who reach this quota. I am getting down to brass tacks. Let us see real progress on this issue while we have the opportunity. The ball is at our feet so let us kick it towards the goal and score a point or two for the Oireachtas and the Government which could do with boosting its image because it is having a rough time these days. It would show that the Government is not an arrogant and secretive one hiding in the corridors of Government buildings, but one which listens to people and is prepared to take action. I encourage the Minister to further consider the matter before Report Stage to see if he can go along with us on this proposal.

Mr. Taylor

It is because this is an open Government that this major progressive legislation is before the House. This legislation deals with a subject which every previous Government in the history of the State chose to ignore. No Government moved on the question of people with disabilities. Deputy Woods spoke about doing this voluntarily or on a permissive basis. For any firm which wishes to do this on a permissive basis, grants are provided for in section 33(1)(b). Deputy Woods is to be complimented for tabling this amendment so it can be discussed in the House. It is an issue which will have to be addressed in the future.

As regards Deputy Woods's analogy of a football match, there is no point kicking the ball at this point because it is not yet at the foot of the centre forward, but it is moving that way. If this amendment does no more than send out a signal, with which I strongly agree, that we are reaching a time when private sector employees and the wider public sector will have to address this issue, it will have served its purpose. Deputy Woods's amendment is not worded in a detailed manner as I am sure he agrees. Nonetheless, its import and general thrust is something with which I have a huge deal of sympathy and understanding. The private and public sectors will have to take that on board if they do not make substantial progress in the area of employing people with disabilities at much higher levels than most have been doing until now. The question of some form of quota arrangement will have to be considered and thought through, possibly on the basis talked about by Deputy Keogh. I do not rule it out. The question has been considered and addressed in the recent report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Deputy Woods's amendment is important as it has given us an opportunity to discuss this issue. I will consider the matter of quotas at a later stage if I do not see progress.

This Bill introduces a concept and need and gives rights which have never before existed in Irish law. It is an anti-discrimination measure which prohibits discrimination in employment against a person with a disability. Compared to what we have had until now in this area — nothing — this will be a major step forward and people with disabilities acknowledge that.

I accept the thrust of Deputy Woods's remarks, that this is a start, and I do not put the measure forward on the basis of it being the end of the road. It is far from it. We want to get this anti-discrimination system up and running. I will monitor in the meantime what progress is being made in the employment of people with disabilities, especially in the private sector, and consider in consultation with the Council on the Status of People with Disabilities what and how further action could be taken at a later stage. I thank Deputy Woods for tabling this amendment. Regrettably I cannot accept it but it was a worthwhile exercise.

Dr. Woods

I thank the Minister for his comments. He will appreciate that when I tabled this amendment, I did not have the benefit of the report of the commission.

Ms Keogh

I did not receive a copy of the report.

Dr. Woods

I got a copy on Friday.

Mr. Taylor

I gave instructions that both Deputies were to be sent a copy. I do not know what happened. I apologise to Deputy Keogh.

Dr. Woods

In general, it is useful for Opposition spokespersons to have a copy at about the time when the press gets a copy because journalists always ask one's view on the document. One of the Minister's colleagues has been known to make reports available ahead of the occasion so that an Opposition spokesperson can know what is coming and be able to react when it happens.

Mr. Taylor

Point taken. I have no problem with that.

Dr. Woods

As I was saying, I tabled this amendment before the report came out. However, in view of the Minister's comments, I withdraw the amendment and we will consider the issue further on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 24 agreed to.