It seems to me that I should draw the attention of the House to the manner in which this matter of the treatment of the disabled is dealt with by the media of public communications. Yesterday we had here an exercise in futility. We had a convocation the day before of the Council of State in relation to an archaic provision which has not been implemented for several years, and which has little or no reference to or bearing on the ordinary lives of the people of the country. We had the Front Bench of Fine Gael filled last night, and we had the ears of certain Deputies strained in a discussion on a matter which I suggest could have been settled in three minutes, without taking up all the time it did, and which is outside and above the concern of the mass of the people.
Private Members' Business. - Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill, 1967: Second Stage (Resumed).
This is outside the scope of the Bill.
I merely want to make this point in talking about the disabled. This is a question of what we are going to do about the 30,000-odd people—that is my estimate of the number—who are affected by this Bill. This is far more important than considering to the extent which was done here yesterday what might happen to a few wealthy people who may be evading tax obligations.
I feel incensed at the manner in which this whole matter has been neglected so far as the public organs are concerned, and indeed by television. I listened to the news last night during an interval in the compulsive viewing of "Rush to Judgment." It is odd that it should be on at the same time as we had this performance in connection with income tax as a smokescreen. We heard of Suharto, Sukarno, Grenoble in France, singing in church, Vietnam and Signor Fanfani's views on it, pictures of people being killed in Vietnam, which we see almost every night, mention of the Common Market, the inevitable pictures of the Taoiseach and the farmers, our old friend U Thant, a household figure who is beloved of the Irish nation, the Fenians in the North which is topical, and Jimmy Hoffa.
We cannot travel over all that ground.
We wound up with the Reverend Adam Clayton Powell whose motto, I am sure, is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary: "Keep the Faith". I believe that the question of the disabled supersedes in importance any of these side issues.
This Bill, as I indicated at some length yesterday, seeks to do something for the disabled. It seeks to do a very small thing for the disabled. I hope I am not being repetitious, but there are some Members of the House here who were not here yesterday. The Bill seeks to provide by law that every substantial employer shall be required to take into employment suitable disabled people up to a limited percentage to be determined by the Minister in association with the voluntary organisations. The voluntary organisations which are now dealing with the disabled in such an excellent manner should form a national advisory council.
I do not yet know officially what the attitude of the Government will be. I have heard rumours about what their attitude may be, and they are not very encouraging. I presented this Bill in the most reasonable fashion which it is within my competence to achieve. I refrained from making the criticisms which would come trippingly to my tongue so far as the disabled are concerned, in the hope that reasonable men can be prevailed upon by argument to see their duty, and induced to do it. I am still not without hope that that may be the result of my efforts. At any rate, as the debate progresses we will see what the attitude of the Government is, and the attitude of the Government will determine the fate of the Bill.
For most of us it is true to say—for most people; not only for us but for everyone—that the brightest days are darkened by the sight of disabled people, and particularly handicapped children. Very few will pass quickly by the collection box without putting something in it on those days when collections are held. They buy a flag, or they contribute to pools, and so on. When they see someone who is handicapped, the thought comes into their minds of how badly the world is divided, to use the vernacular. That is all. It stops there. Interest after that largely ceases. Public interest ceases. It is all part of the great development of materialism in the world, selfishness and disregard for the plight of others, and all of us, I suppose, are victims of this trend. I am probably a greater sinner in that regard than most other people, but there does devolve upon the elected Members of Parliament a duty to devote some of their time to the most deprived of our society. It does not require much courage to enact a law which will make a very minor change in our social set-up and impose upon substantial employers the obligation to allot a percentage of their vacancies to the disabled.
Can there be any possible argument advanced as to why this cannot be done in the Civil Service? Yesterday I instanced a case of a man who had been in the Army, who had developed TB while a soldier. There was no escaping the fact that it was during his Army service that this disease struck him because he was 21 years in the Army and he was never in any other occupation. At the end of his 21 years, he was in St. Bricin's Hospital. Eventually he went to another hospital and had further very considerable ill-health. He got the opportunity of applying for a suitable light job in a Government Department and, in spite of his Army service and the fact that he had incurred this disease during that service, he did not get the job because he could not pass his doctor and was rejected on medical grounds.
There is a wealth of publications existing in relation to the treatment of the disabled in many parts of the world and it often strikes me that if half the money that is spent upon the production of these publications were devoted directly to the relief of the problem, it might be a far better thing. This does not apply to the disabled alone but to most other governmental activities here and elsewhere. As all of us know, hardly a day goes by but some exotic publication or other arrives through the letterbox. I challenge any Member of this House to say that he has read every document that has gone through. I had them weighed on one occasion after a year, and they came to nearly a quarter of a ton, all kinds of things in relation to agriculture, social welfare and so on. There would not be enough hours in the day to read them. All this money is devoted to the publication of documents that are never read. That is an aside, but it applies in this case as well as in the others to which I have generally referred.
However, I have in my hand a document to which I want to refer. It is the Report of the Ninth World Congress of the International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled which was held in Copenhagen in 1963. In page 199, there occurs what is described as an intervention by Mr. A.A. Bennett of the Vocational Rehabilitation Section, Manpower Division, International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland, in a discussion on the disabled and the labour market. Amongst many other things he has this to say:—
One of the biggest obstacles to the employment of the disabled is still the pre-employment medical examination which many employers require as a first condition of engagement. This is particularly so in civil service jobs in many countries where the physical requirements for entry are laid down in great detail. Far too often medical examinations of this kind exclude otherwise suitable disabled persons because they cannot satisfy the rigid and artificially high physical standards imposed which usually have no relationship to the specific job requirements of the actual work in question.
Is that not true in regard to our Civil Service? I am sure the civil servants would be the first to admit that though they are often given sedentary jobs which do not require them to engage in any strenuous physical activities, they require a physical standard in passing the doctor more fitted to membership of Rugby Union teams. This seems to be ridiculous, but it is followed because it is precedent, and we know how sacrosanct precedent is in the Civil Service. If it has not been done before, it is impossible; if something has been done before, it does not matter if it is the greatest crime ever committed against humanity, it is a precedent and therefore justifiable. This is the kind of freedom we inherited from the British, I suppose under Article 10 or some such proviso.
While many of the peculiarities of the British Civil Service were admirable and, indeed, are admirable, this business of precedent and the business of medical examinations where they are manifestly unnecessary, particularly as applied to minor posts, cannot be justified. One hesitates to talk about the major posts that higher civil servants have to fill and the great burden of responsibility they have to discharge. One hesitates to enter that territory at all because of the possible consequences of one's comments, but dealing with minor forms of employment in the Civil Service, I cannot see any reason why the principle of this Bill should not be applied thereunto and to semi-State bodies.
The late William Norton was the first Minister to ensure that there were employed blind telephonists. Now there is a certain proportion of blind telephonists in the Civil Service and they give an excellent service. I can think of many. I can think of one not more than 50 yards from the entrance to this House, working in the National Library, an unquestionably good telephonist. There are many other instances which could be cited.
Think of the very considerable number of jobs which could be made available to those whose physical handicap is not of a major nature and who would be very glad to earn their own living and be of service to the community instead of being dependent upon the miserly few shillings they get by way of disability benefit. For those partially disabled as a result of accidents, in industry or elsewhere, or who suffer from some congenital deformity, there is no reason why a certain proportion of vacancies available should not be reserved. The employing agencies which come immediately to mind are the Civil Service, the local authorities, the State and semi-State bodies and other employing agencies supported in one way or another by State funds. There is no reason why this should not be extended further into commerce and industry generally.
The inhibiting factor is, of course, prejudice, fear on the part of employers that they may lose money or may not make as much money if they employ physically handicapped. That has proved to be a fallacy. I will not bore the House with long extracts from this booklet; mark you, it looks as if this subject does bore many Members of this House. In this booklet there are many affirmations of the fact that most disabled people have in them an urge to prove themselves, not alone as good as others, but, in many cases, better than others. That translates itself into making them excellent employees whom any employer would willingly employ if he knew on which side his bread was really buttered.
However, the inhibiting prejudice is there. It does not exist in all employers but there are certain organisations which have a prejudice against compulsion, a prejudice against compelling employers to take on certain people even to this very minor fractional extent suggested here. Such people belong in another age. Such people get, perhaps, a vicarious pleasure out of the exercise of what they choose to call charity. That particular kind of charity has not grown in warmth over the centuries. I am sure the House knows the kind of charity to which I refer. There are people who luxuriate in self-righteousness. I make no criticism at all of those worthy people who are doing great work, but there are elements in our community who regard themselves as having a vested interest in disablement or some kind of title to righteousness where the disabled are concerned. These are the people who argue that these things should be left to the free play of conditions and any action by the State is an interference with human liberty.
Did anyone ever hear such nonsense? Imagine anyone interfering to the detriment of a badly disabled person or, indeed, any kind of disabled person. It is possible to drag in this hoary old excuse about the sacredness of the individual and human liberty and the inviolability, moryah, of his right to sell his labour in whatever market is available to him. How many times have we heard this nonsense? There is no market, and if such a person appears at the gate of a factory, looking for a job, his very appearance will condemn him. Yet there are people who push these nonsensical ideas. I refer to this in passing now; I shall refer to it in greater detail later. I trust those members of the Government who have been displaying recently a certain liberalism of thought will join me in condemning these attitudes.
I should like to refer again to Mr. Bennett dealing with the question of resettlement. At page 199, he says:
In the long run the ease or difficulty of resettling the disabled depends upon the state of the economy and the existence, or otherwise, of full employment. In a buoyant, expanding economy, where labour is hard to come by and workers are sought in all quarters, it is not difficult, often quite the reverse, to fit disabled persons into suitable job openings. But in a stagnant economy, in times of depression, or where there are problems of overpopulation, heavy unemployment or under-employment, which is unfortunately only too common in many parts of the world today, the situation is quite different. The placement of anybody is difficult. The disabled more so. We should be deceiving ourselves if we pretended otherwise.
I referred to that yesterday. We are in a condition of unemployment which appears to be, if anything, worsening. We have 6,000 more unemployed this year than we had this time last year. If things go on as they are, it does not appear as if the situation will rectify itself to the advantage of the national economy. In that situation, it is all the more necessary that we should have laws to protect the weakest and the weakest in our society are unquestionably the disabled.
To recapitulate what the Bill provides: the Bill provides that a register should be set up by the Minister for Labour in which any disabled person could apply to have his name entered as a disabled person; the Bill provides that there shall be placed on every substantial employer—I repeat, because it cannot be repeated too often, beginning with the Civil Service, the semi-State bodies, the local authorities and all other State or semi-State agencies, or employing agencies of any kind supported by State funds, and going down the line to substantial employers of all kinds—the obligation to provide out of any future vacancies a certain number of jobs suitable for disabled persons. The number will be determined by the Minister in consultation with a national advisory council which will have consultations with the provincial advisory councils.
It is reasonable to assume that the national advisory council will be composed of representatives of the Minister, the trade unions, the employers and of the various voluntary bodies who are so highly experienced in this field. The number of people to be employed by a substantial employer would be a matter for determination by the Minister in consultation with these interests. As I said, this legislation has been on the Statute Book in Britain for the past 24 years. It was brought in by a Labour man, Ernest Bevin, but welcomed, I notice in Hansard, by every Party in the House of Commons. So that everybody will have a clear idea of what the Bill entails, there is no attempt made by me to say how many workers an employer should be required to take on. Even if he were to take the English example of three per cent, is that not a very small number?
The Minister may have consultations with these other interests I have mentioned and may, if he thinks it desirable, designate certain forms of employment as being particularly suited to disabled people; for instance, forms of light work in the Civil Service of a semi-manual or partly clerical nature. We can all think of instances in industry and commerce where there are jobs for which partially disabled people would be suitable.
That, more or less, is what is in the Bill. It is a very modest proposal for the relief of a long-suffering section of the people. Inherent in it, of course, is the question of whether or not the Government are going to accept what one can describe as a socialist principle, that is, that the Government, the central authority, accept the responsibility of discharging a social obligation to protect the needy. This Bill, in its small way, can divide people, divide progressives from reactionaries. I was going to use another phrase, but I shall leave it on the shelf for future use. It can enable the Government to demonstrate what they have for so long claimed—a preponderance of concern for all the children of the nation. It can show where the Government truly stand—with the most helpless or with prejudice and reaction. That is the simple issue. But I am not pressing it in that sense. I am not endeavouring to give this very simple Bill any high titles or clothe it in glittering garments of righteousness. I am simply trying to help these people, and I ask the House very sincerely to bring to it their utmost attention—to bring to this problem the sympathy and concern which I am aware, knowing most Members of the House, they feel in their hearts.
I formally second the motion, Sir.
This is a well-intentioned Bill and it is at least entitled to the most careful consideration. I regret I have not gone into it in anything like sufficient detail to speak intelligently on it. Listening to Deputy Dunne for only a short time, I have got a rough idea of what he has in mind. As he says, the biggest factor operating at present against the employment of the disabled is the fact that we have in this country between 63,000 and 64,000 unemployed. It is a question of the survival of the fittest in a scramble for too few jobs.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask Deputy Dunne. Perhaps he dealt with them when I was absent. He referred to the fact that there has been legislation in Britain for the past 24 years in relation to compulsory employment of the disabled, but he did not tell us—not today at least—how well this legislation has worked there. I have heard considerable criticism of it. I have heard it said that it has worked very badly. I admit I am only saying what I heard about it and I have no sound reasons for believing whether that is true or not. But I would like to hear Deputy Dunne tell the House how well this legislation has worked.
Another thing I should like to hear from the Minister in the course of this debate is how well our efforts up to date have succeeded. How good is the placement service? How good is the general rehabilitation service? What, if any, improvements have we in mind in relation to the placement of disabled persons? I dislike compulsion because I feel the very word "compulsion" is something that does not appeal to our people here.
I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but I would like to ask him one question: Is not the entire body of law compulsion?
Perhaps I might agree to go a certain part of the way with the Deputy, but the point I am making is this. You are dealing with incapacitated or partly incapacitated people. You speak about manual or partially manual work. Manual work is often very suitable for a disabled person. If such a person is mentally disturbed, there is nothing at which he is more contented than partially manual work. Such people have a limited capacity for partially manual work, but unfortunately this is not recognised. The unions should consider that a partially disabled person would not be entitled to the same remuneration as a person capable of going out and taking his place in competitive employment. There is not much charity in industry and commerce today, either here or elsewhere, because industry has to compete and it can only compete without raising prices, if it gets the same output from the disabled person and gets that output at the same price as from the ordinary fit employee.
The voluntary organisations have done a good deal of work in this field and have got insufficient recognition and insufficient State assistance. An effort is being made at present—I do not know how good it is—to improve the placement service and give it financial assistance and, I suppose, the partial direction it needs. A voluntary agency has a far better chance of finding employment for the disabled or partly-disabled than has a State organisation. What voluntary agencies need are recognition and assistance and, from the experience I have—I have some experience in this field because we have partially disabled people in the institution to which I am attached—I have found a great measure of co-operation and sympathy in securing work for partially disabled people, but at the same time, the product of the disabled must be as good as that of ordinary workers simply because it must go to the same market and the job must be well done and done at the right price.
There may be need for the type of legislation Deputy Dunne proposes but I think we have not tried out sufficiently the machinery and organisation at present available to us. If it were given the assistance and encouragement it needs and also the publicity it is entitled to get from the State, and if we first appealed to the various employment agencies and industries either to employ disabled people directly or assist people who are trying to employ them, assist them by giving them suitable work to do, it would be a big step forward. In every industry there are jobs particularly suitable, I should say, for disabled people, but I think it is better to hand out that sort of work to an individual employment agency that is set up and is suitable for this type of people who require such close supervision in many cases.
I know many disabled persons do not require that sort of supervision and, as Deputy Dunne says, they are as fit to do certain jobs as any medically fit person. In some cases they may be even better but if proof can be produced that they are in fact so capable, I think there would not be any difficulty about getting an employer to take them on, in the first instance, on a short-term trial basis and either prove or disprove that they were able to fill the position satisfactorily.
The voluntary effort has not been sufficiently tried and those working in that field have not been State-assisted sufficiently and encouraged by the State Departments concerned up to the present. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister can tell us in relation to future plans for the employment of disabled persons and how far they expect to advance on the present situation. I should like to hear if we have any count of the present number of disabled or partially-disabled people and what percentage of them is already placed and in what type of employment, how much the State is doing in this regard and how much local authorities are doing and where the greatest response has been up to now. I believe that an agency that is not a State agency has done very successful work in the placement of disabled persons but has got insufficient assistance up to now.
I fear my contribution to this debate has been very scrappy but I want to support any effort that would have the best effect in finding employment for these unfortunate people and to that extent I think this Bill merits the closest examination. If it is found that it is not the most suitable type of legislation for this purpose, I should be very interested to hear what alternative the Minister has to offer and what he thinks of the facilities available for dealing with this problem up to now.
I agree in principle with Deputy Dunne's proposal but I feel that those who have any close contact with disabled people would conclude that his proposal is not the answer to their problem. First, I do not think any disabled person would like to go into employment in the circumstances envisaged. They are a very proud people. Before going further, I want to pay tribute to two organisations in Cork city, the Cork Polio Association and the Spastic Clinic which are doing tremendous work in this field.
One must first assess the whole position as regards the people seeking employment and try to find out what kind of employment is most suitable. Many of them have taken up employment in Cork industries and some, we hear, are doing excellent work and any of their employers will give them excellent references. There are others who prefer sheltered employment, such as when industries send work to their homes so that they can work at home. I do not think we should talk about telling an employer to employ physically handicapped persons. The Minister should direct his attention to the many organisations catering for such people and with the co-operation of such organisations as I have mentioned and the unions and the employers, I believe some definite policy could be implemented for the employment of the disabled.
I have pretty close contact with the physically handicapped and on many occasions on which we discussed this, it was found that in the case of about 90 per cent, employment on their own merits rather than by compelling anybody either to give out work to them at home or take them into a factory, was what was required. I really appreciate what Deputy Dunne has said but I do not think this is the answer to this problem. I would rather see the Minister, as I have said, directing all his energies towards the many organisations who are providing shelter employment, who are trying to build factories for the physically handicapped, to the many industries throughout the country who are distributing their work to these people and to the trade unions who, to my mind, are more sympathetic in this direction.
First of all, all this must be assessed and then we should see how best we can tackle this whole problem. I feel there is something like a "for God's sake" attitude about this whole matter. It is like going to a physically handicapped person, who is a very proud person, and saying to him: "Look, it is hopeless; we cannot find employment for you; we will just have to compel an employer to employ you." I feel it would defeat the whole attitude and principle of those voluntary organisations who are working for the disabled. I would ask Deputy Dunne to consider that aspect of it and have second thoughts on moving to compel employers to employ the physically handicapped.
Many of these people are quite capable of employment and have proved that but I think it would be very wrong to compel anybody, either the employer to employ, or the person concerned to take up employment in a particular industry. I had no intention of speaking on this until I came into the House but, as one who has some contact with the physically handicapped, I feel this Bill would defeat the whole attitude and principle of the many voluntary organisations working in our city of Cork and throughout the country in their efforts to try to provide the necessary employment, the shelter of employment for the physically handicapped.
I rise to support this Bill introduced by Deputy Dunne and the Parliamentary Labour Party. I feel confident that Deputy Dunne, in particular, has already won the commendation of all our people for his tact, wisdom and foresight in putting forward this measure. Any measure which has as its aim the alleviation of human suffering and misery deserves the full support of this House and the Irish people. It is a simple measure but its repercussions will be far-reaching in that, for the first time, it will give hope anew to a section of our people who, up to now, have had no real hope in life, no real opportunity in life.
I was very disappointed by the comments of Deputy Wyse and I sincerely hope the sentiments he expressed do not represent the views of his Party and the Government who, to all intents and purposes, have accepted this Bill in principle; they at least have allowed it to be printed and come in here for Second Reading. I heard the Deputy say he spoke having come into the House only within the past hour and I excuse him in very large measure for what he said on those grounds. It is clear to us that Deputy Wyse did not have a true understanding of the intentions of this measure and it was quite incorrect of him to imply that there is any element of compulsion in this measure directed to the disabled persons. There is compulsion in respect of disabled persons to come in here for Second Reading. I and there always has been, because they have been condemned to exist at a subsistence level, condemned to a position about which no one seemingly cares.
Despite the great work of the voluntary organisations, the State, up to now has failed miserably to tackle the problem of the mentally and physically retarded, and the disabled generally. We all have evidence of that as members of our local health authorities where we know there are mentally and physically retarded children, as well as some adults—waiting interminably for proper institutional treatment, waiting five, six, seven or eight years to find a home where they can be suitably trained and their aptitudes developed. Therefore, until the advent of the voluntary organisations in very recent years, nothing was done to help the disabled in this country and we want to pay a tribute to those voluntary organisations who have done very commendable work in the setting up of establishments where these people are trained. This is very laudable work and it is quite evident now that these voluntary organisations could not, and cannot, be expected to take on the full brunt of this responsibility. Clearly they do not have the financial resources to cope effectively with this gigantic problem. They are depending, in the main, on fund-raising efforts of a voluntary kind, on what is commonly known as the non-stop draw means of raising money.
Alarm was rightly expressed in the papers in recent days by reason of the suggestion that the Irish Hospitals Trust might depart from their present method of fund raising and enter into this field of the non-stop draw, thereby destroying the hopes of many of those voluntary bodies and charitable organisations of continuing in this fund-raising effort. Certainly, if such a gigantic organisation as the Hospitals Trust were to enter this field of financial endeavour, they would make things, to say the least, very difficult for the Rehabilitation Institute and such bodies who are doing very commendable work. That is not to reflect in any way on the outstanding work of the Hospitals Trust, but many believe they would be better disposed by continuing to raise their moneys in the traditional way by means of sweeps, which one might say have an international character, rather than by making inroads in the manner I have referred to.
Deputy Wyse will appreciate that there is no hope that these people will ever get reasonable jobs if the State does not come to their rescue. Clearly, normal persuasion has failed to convince employers and the State of their obligation to come to the aid of the disabled by placing them in employment. That being so, it is only fair to suggest that some element of compulsion should be applied and that this House should be asked to enact legislation making it obligatory on employers and the State to provide a minimal number of jobs for these persons.
The number of jobs is not stated in the Bill. Something like three per cent of the labour content in any worthwhile enterprise could hardly be objected to. I anticipated that there would be opposition to this measure because I can understand the difficulty of enforcing such a measure in a country scourged with unemployment and under-employment. It is easy to bring a measure of this kind before the House and insist that an employer, according to his capacity, should employ a number of disabled persons but it becomes a difficult thing in a situation of a surplus in the labour market at all times.
Clearly, employers want the very best, the most effective, the most intelligent, the most energetic workers. It can be understood, therefore, that there will be ingrained reluctance to employ people of lesser capability. Employers may feel that it would increase costs and reduce production, but in a Christian society such as this, it is only fair to recall that many employers have realised the need and have engaged a number of these disabled people and put them to productive work. Many of these employers pay glowing tributes to the work of these persons. When properly trained and put to suitable occupations they can be very effective and cannot be regarded as a burden on the employers concerned.
We are also aware there may be reluctance on the part of trade unions to agree to the employment of such persons. Again, where there is a constant surplus of labour, it is understandable that many unions might embark on a closed shop policy in order to maintain the security of their members, but I feel sure that this measure sponsored by the Labour Party will receive the enthusiastic support of the many trade unions in the country. We believe that despite the fear that exists of under-employment and unemployment, the trade union movement, because of its social philosophy and its conscience and its desire to help the under-privileged, will support this measure as far as they possibly can.
Deputy Clinton rightly adverted to the conceivable objections of employers and unions to a measure of this kind. He said an employer could hardly be expected to pay the same rate of wages to a man or woman so handicapped as he would to a normal, energetic employee. I do not think an issue should be made of this. It is usual and customary to negotiate for benefits at this level and it has never, to my knowledge, been a problem. Wage rates have been agreed on and increases granted on the basis of suitability and ability and there never has been any real problem in this respect.
Deputy Dunne has outlined the problem of the medical examination which is a prerequisite to securing employment in this country. It is normal practice, on the recruitment of new labour, to have a medical test applied and this is a real barrier to progression as far as handicapped people are concerned. The medical test is a rigid one and if there are any signs of impairment of sight, of limb or of mental retardation, a person is unlikely to get a job. Here again it is desirable that the State should help.
What we are asking in this measure will not prove to be a great imposition or a hardship on anyone. We feel that all Christian-minded people who are aware of the problem will react spontaneously and enthusiastically to this measure and help to implement it. It is a hopeful sign that the Government have seen fit to have the Bill circulated and at least put through the House for a Second Reading. We hope it will commend itself to everyone in the House and the country. It has been demonstrated practically and effectively in Britain during a number of years and they have a very high percentage of disabled persons as a result of the various wars in which they have been engaged. Therefore, I think the State should face up to its responsibility and not leave such a formidable task to the already heavilyburdened voluntary organisations. They are grappling with it as well as they can but obviously they are incapable of making any real impression on this serious situation. The Government are now being afforded an opportunity of making a very practical contribution to the welfare of all the disabled in the country in ensuring that those people are put to suitable work.
I have already mentioned the inadequacy of institutional treatment, the extreme difficulty in securing beds for the mentally and physically retarded, the difficulty of finding a place even with the rehabilitation institution for that kind and the difficulty of securing admission to the various training centres. Those people who cannot find admission to training of this kind are expected to live on what is termed a disabled person's maintenance allowance. This allowance stood at £1 per week for a great number of years. I believe it was Dr. Browne, the then Minister for Health, who first introduced the idea of the disabled person's maintenance allowances. He provided them at £1 a week and for a considerable number of years, despite the spiralling cost of living, these allowances remained static. Only in recent years were they increased to 25s and they now stand at 27s 6d per week.
There is the tendency not to apply a disabled person's maintenance allowance to anyone for whom there is a hope of being trained. There is, to my knowledge, as a public representative, a reluctance on the part of the authorities to grant a DP allowance, lest it might dissuade that person from taking up light work of some kind or other. Some people seem to think that the granting of a disabled person's allowance would act as a disincentive in the future. Consequently we have a large number of those people who have no income from any source at all. We are not merely asking for a minimal allowance of this kind from the local authorities; we are concerned about helping those people to pick up the threads of life, to achieve a sense of independence, of wellbeing, of standing on their own two feet and providing in some measure for their own livelihood.
Those who are afflicted with disablement of some kind suffer this great lack of independence. They have the feeling that they are a liability on their families, that no one cares for them and that they will never be able to provide a means of livelihood for themselves. This is the sorry situation which we have to remedy. This Bill very definitely gives new hope and new courage to all those disabled persons, in the clear knowledge that where moral, Christian persuasion has failed to make the Government do their job in respect of those people, this measure will at least provide that in every worthwhile undertaking, wherever there is substantial employment of labour, a minimum of those categories of unfortunate people shall be employed in the future.
It is not right that people should talk of compulsion in regard to this matter. There is no compulsion on disabled people to take a position if they do not want to take it. The element of compulsion in this Bill, as far as the employer is concerned, is very slight, if any at all. We have not specified the number of persons per 100 who should be employed. We have merely said that in Britain the number is some three per cent. If that is thought to be too high, let us reduce it but at least let us open this door of new opportunity for disabled persons. Let us not allow the Bill to fall by reason of a difference of opinion about percentages.
It is with those sentiments that I second this Bill and commend it to the House. I feel sure that Deputy Dunne has the blessing, the gratitude and the support of all right-thinking people in this country in relation to the measure he has introduced. I am sure also that if left to a free vote of this House, it will receive overwhelming support. We have not yet heard the views of any Government spokesmen, except those of Deputy Wyse, who was sceptical about the aspect of compulsion. I sincerely hope that his views are not the views of the Government on this matter. I would ask all my colleagues in this House, irrespective of Party, not to fail to avail of this unique opportunity to make rapid strides forward in a very practical way towards solving, or helping to solve, this problem of the most unfortunate and helpless section of our community, the disabled persons.
Mr. Barrett
If the bringing of this measure to the House helps to underline the magnitude of the problem with which we have to deal, it will have justified itself for that reason alone. I do not know, any more than the previous speaker, what the attitude of the Government to this measure will be. I think Deputy Treacy was not quite aware of the wonderful and very adequate work which is being done by certain voluntary organisations in the country. I, like Deputy Wyse, live in Cork county and I think I can claim, without being called chauvinistic, in respect of local pride, that Cork, in many ways, was the birthplace of any help for the unfortunate people to which this Bill applies.
The Cork Polio and After-Care Association has been very generously encouraged by the Minister. It has done an immense amount of work and it has employed many of the people referred to in this Bill on its own premises. The same can be said for the Cork Spastic Clinic and the Cork Rehabilitation Institution. They all do wonderful work. I do not know how things are in Deputy Treacy's part of the country or in the parts of the country where other Deputies come from, but if the same voluntary effort is put into attacking the problem in other parts of the country as has been put into it in Cork, I do not know if any necessity for this Bill arises.
I would like to say that the Department have generously aided those organisations. No doubt no matter how generous a Minister may be with any number of organisations, the organisations would feel that there is room for further generosity. I would prefer to see a generosity of the type experienced from the Minister already. I feel that once State interference comes in the door, voluntary effort goes out the window. I do not think anything could attack the problem as well as the type of voluntary effort which has been put into this matter in Cork city.
Deputy Treacy referred to something to which I referred on the Health Estimate last week. It is undoubtedly quite true that a great threat to the continuation of the type of effort I have been referring to here is that there should be a suggestion from the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes that they would engage in active competition with people like the Cork Polio After-Care Association who rely almost entirely on the proceeds of the weekly pools they run. If Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes are allowed to engage in this activity, I feel there will be an immediate need for some measure such as this, but if the close liaison which has been maintained between the Department and those organisations continues and if the availability of funds which is afforded to these organisations by their weekly pools continues, this will not be necessary.
If this Bill prompts the Department to popularise the formation in other parts of the country of voluntary organisations similar to the one to which Deputy Wyse and I refer, the Department would be doing a good day's work and would be certainly going some of the way without any element of compulsion towards absorbing these unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, cannot actively compete in the labour market.
I commend the spirit in which this Bill was profferred to the House. I do not know if any of its proposals are practicable. My objection would be that too much State interference where there is already voluntary effort is not a thing greatly to be desired. I hope the Minister will indicate that he has a benign attitude towards the efforts I refer to and that the Government generally are keeping in mind the problem which is presented to us, a Christian community, by those unfortunate people whom we find in our midst.
I indicated my interest in this problem last year when I spoke on the Estimate for the Department of Health. I mentioned that I thought the Government should make a start on employing disabled people and I suggested some of those people should be taken into the Civil Service. I then thought, and I still think, that there are many people rejected for various jobs in the Civil Service because of health conditions, particularly heart and chest conditions, which would not prevent them from working efficiently there. Deputy Dunne has taken this idea a step further. He proposes to pass this measure through the House as an Act. I think this is a laudable effort and we must all appreciate it.
One of the first things that strikes me about this is how you decide on those people who would be included in the register. One would want to know. Would it be necessary for them to have had some training? Would they have to have attended an institution for some time or would they have to be approved of by some rehabilitation society or organisation? It would be unfair to ask an employer to take on such people without the employer having some understanding as to what they were capable of doing.
Another thing that strikes me is this: when one thinks of the rural areas and some of those disabled people who have been employed, they have their difficulties. When they leave their home, it is essential that they have a patient and considerate landlady or else they must live in a hostel. I know that in some cases these people are not satisfied with that and they have returned home. They just seem to miss that satisfaction and contentment that Deputy Dunne hopes to provide for them.
The element in this Bill which makes it objectionable is the element of compulsion on employers. One feels that an employer must have the right to decide whom he employs and whom he retains, particularly if they are unsatisfactory. This is a right it would be difficult to take from him. The number of employers in my area is very limited but my experience of them is that particularly in the breadwinner section they have a fair share of disabled people in the upper age groups on their books and they keep them in employment because they have sympathy for them. Those people are breadwinners and they feel that to terminate their employment would mean that their families would suffer.
If we compel those employers to take in a certain number of people, three to six or whatever it may be, in the lower age group, I feel there will be a tendency to displace what I call the breadwinners the employers are now carrying. I feel that this, in the long run, would cause a bigger problem than the one Deputy Dunne is trying to cure. I propose to conclude with those remarks. I do not like to accept this compulsion end of it. I do not think it would work. It would be unsatisfactory. I think it was Deputy Clinton who suggested that we should still rely on voluntary effort and persuasion rather than anything else, and I agree with him.
Like the previous speakers, I wish to compliment Deputy Dunne on his initiative and on the way he has brought this measure before the House. I happen to be a member of two boards which deal with the type of person in whom he is interested and with whom this Bill deals. One is the National Organisation for Rehabilitation and the other is in my own constituency, the Toghermore Re-ablement and Training Centre and I can appreciate therefore the laudable sentiments of Deputy Dunne about finding employment for disabled persons, whether physically or mentally disabled.
One of the points which, like other Deputies who have spoken from this side of the House, I do not like in this Bill is this matter of compulsion. One volunteer is better than 100 conscripts at any time. When you compel people to do something which their hearts are not in, no matter what legislation is to govern that, you will not get the same result as if the action were voluntary.