Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are related and amendment No. 76 is an alternative to amendment No. 75 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 35, before "customer" to insert "particular".
We received representations that the wording of the section is loose and could lead to unintended or unexpected outcomes. For example, a service provider might claim that a provision to a traveller customer might lead to disorderly conduct by other traveller customers seeking the same service. This issue has arisen round the country and we constantly encounter complaints about it from members of the travelling community. There are strong feelings about this and I presume the Minister received the same representations as Members. How does he intend to tackle it?
The amendments are not necessary and will not afford any added protection to the categories covered by the Bill. If the service provider's reason for refusal is based on a discriminatory ground, that is discrimination within the meaning of the Bill. Publicans and other service providers commonly find themselves having to make a quick judgment about a group of people. It would not be reasonable to expect them to justify a refusal of service to each individual in that group.
The wording of the amendments might give the impression that such an onerous requirement applied to refusals of service. I am satisfied the existing wording of the subsection will not provide a loophole for discrimination against any category of people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 19, before section 18, to insert the following new section:
"18.—Section 19(2) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, is hereby amended—
(a) by the insertion in paragraph (a) after subparagraph (iv) of—
‘(v) the needs of people with physical disabilities,' and
(b) by the insertion in paragraph (b) after subparagraph (iii) of—
‘(iv) the needs of people with physical disabilities.'.".
I referred to this matter on Second Stage. The amendment would make it mandatory for local authorities when drawing up their development plans to take into account the needs of people with physical disabilities. There is a recognition that this aspect must be covered in building regulations. This would be a positive step for people with disabilities and a positive recognition of their needs. This aspect should not be considered a grace or favour but recognised as a right in the plans including provisions for people with disabilities should not be a big deal, it should be part of the plans.
The amendment to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, would require planning authorities to include development objectives relating to the needs of people with physical difficulties in their development plans. While I appreciate the amendment is well motivated I do not consider it appropriate to the legislation. The statutory provisions relating to the content of such development plans are essentially a matter for the Minister for the Environment. I do not consider it appropriate for me in the context of this Bill to add a further development objective to those already provided for in the 1963 Act.
I question the appropriateness of including a specific reference to the needs of people with physical disabilities while remaining silent on the needs of other groups, such as travellers, elderly persons, families, etc. I also draw the Deputy's attention to the provisions of the new section 5 which was inserted by an earlier amendment. The provisions of this section will apply to local authorities as to other service providers. A refusal by the local authority to do what is reasonably necessary to allow a person with a disability to avail of its services and facilities will be considered discrimination. However, I will consult the Minister for the Environment about the possibility of making a change along the lines suggested by the amendment to the local government Act. It would be appropriate to that legislation rather than this Bill.
So much is couched in negative terms that it would be useful to have something positive in the legislation so that we could cater for people's needs. I would be open to amending the provision for people with physical disability. Will the Minister consult his colleague and indicate on Report Stage how willing he is to accommodate these provisions?
I do not know if it would be possible to do that within the time scale. Deputy Keogh criticised the Bill for being negative in its approach. If it was ever so, it is less so now as a result of the amendments incorporated in it providing for reasonable accommodation. That is a positive provision and is why it is such an improvement to the Bill. I will consult the Minister for the Environment about it but I cannot say it will be within the time frame requested. However, I will draw it and this amendment to his attention.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.