Deputy Dunne introduced this Bill because down through the years nobody seemed to worry very much about the people referred to in the Bill. We have in the country many people who in one way or another are disabled. Those who are only slightly disabled very often find it impossible to get any kind of work, not to talk about work that would enable them to sustain themselves and their families.
I had experience some time ago of talking to a person who had been involved in an accident. The accident was of the type for which there was no compensation forthcoming. The unfortunate person recovered reasonably well because of modern medicine but he was unable to return to the job which he had held before the accident. When I asked him how he was getting on, he said: "Very well. Between prayer and the assistance of the expert medical people who dealt with me, I am as good as I can be, but the one thing which is worrying me is that I cannot get a job. I would hate to be useless for the rest of my life. Other people who may not be as gifted in many ways are working but I cannot get a job". I said that surely there were a number of organisations through which he could be rehabilitated and eventually be re-employed. He said: "The unfortunate thing about those organisations is that they seem to have a long waiting list and they do not seem to be able to find room for somebody who has just come on to the field". I checked on this and I found that while there are quite a number of voluntary organisations with really dedicated people doing their level best to beg or borrow the money which they need to carry on their excellent work, it is only a grain of sand on the seashore compared with all the people who require some type of assistance.
Apart entirely from those who meet with an accident, apart from those who through no fault of their own fall into bad health and are unable to continue with the job they had and have to seek another job, there are those who are never able to work because they have no special training and who do not appear to have very much future in store for them. It is a terrible thing to go into the house of a family in which there is somebody in that category and who is sitting around the house all day. Even when some of these people do get a little training, the employers have a suspicion that they are not as good as they should be, and they do not want to employ them.
I have had experience of people coming to me as their parliamentary representative and pointing out that even those who were trained — girls have been trained as shorthand typists or as book-keepers — and could do an excellent job, could not get a job because they were not the same as a normal person. There is no use in saying that employers will go out on the streets and look for them. We want to give a chance to deformed people and people who are not in full possession of their faculties. We want to give these people a chance, and we want them to get a reasonable rate of wages. Usually we find that if these people are employed, they are paid less than other people.
Deputy Dunne's Bill specifically sets out that if these people are employed in any job, they must be paid the rate for the job. We have the name of being a Christian country. A clergyman said to me recently that Ireland was a great Catholic country but he added: "Is it not a pity that there are not more Christians in it?" Our outlook on things like this is not what it should be. It does not seem to matter to most people that in their own neighbourhood there are people who have not got very much of this world's goods, people who through no fault of their own are left short of food, clothing and the normal comforts of life. The fact that there are people who cannot get a job because there is something wrong with their health seems to be accepted.
I heard Deputy de Valera yesterday evening and again this evening saying this was the wrong way to tackle the job. He did not tell us what he considers to be the right way to tackle it. In view of some of the comments made by the Government Party spokesmen, I feel sure the Government intend to dump this Bill. I have no doubt that it will be after Easter that this will be done. Whether I am right or wrong, if the Government will not allow this Bill to be passed, the onus is on the Minister to say what he thinks should be done. It is not enough to say they do not think this is the right approach. It is not enough to say that there are too many loopholes in the Bill. Of course, there may be loopholes in the Bill, and things which would not operate in the way in which we would hope they would, but this is an attempt to give a new deal to the people referred to in the Bill, an attempt to give them a status which they have not got.
When the Bill was introduced, Deputy Ryan referred to the fact that in this country we employ a smaller percentage of disabled persons than any other country in Western Europe. He made what I consider to be a very good point when he said that we have not got the high percentage of disabled people who can be found in other countries which were ravaged by wars. But we still cannot make provision even for the relatively small number of such people in this country.
I made some inquiries from my own local authority a few weeks ago. I wanted them to tell me the number of what are known as permanently disabled persons in the county, the number of those who had been trained or offered training over a period of years. Of course, I was told that there were a number of people who if offered training would not take it. Eventually I got the answer. I was told that over a period of five years about 60 people had been trained or sent for training and that eight of those had obtained employment subsequent to that training. If it is not possible under the existing regulations to get employment for those who have got some little training, what hope is there for those who have received no training.
When he was concluding, Deputy de Valera said to Deputy Dunne that if everyone who was not in the clerical class was excluded from the Bill, he was sure Deputy Dunne would not approve of the Bill. Deputy Dunne said that of course that was so. The plain fact is that Deputy de Valera was saying that the people who are generally referred to as the labouring class would be more difficult to deal with under a Bill of this sort than anyone else. Of course, unfortunately, that is only too true, because whether we like it or not, the heavy work in this country is done by the lowest paid people, by those who are referred to generally as being in the labouring class. Their work is hard and backbreaking. Deputy de Valera was trying to put across the idea — and he was right — that it would be extremely difficult to find a job which a man or woman — and particularly a man — not in full possession of his faculties would be able to carry out. This of course is a special problem. It is a big problem. If the situation is so serious, as we believe it is, what do the Government think should be done about it? Do they believe that giving what has become generally known as a DPA — a disabled person's allowance — which can range from 10/- a week to £2 7 6 is a better way to deal with this problem?
Is the Minister aware that a person who has less than 156 insurance stamps on his card for one reason or another — either because he is selfemployed or because he is young, and was unable to have that number of stamps before he became ill or was injured — can draw social welfare benefits for 52 weeks, and at the end of 52 weeks, is left in a position in which he must go on home assistance, or depend on his relatives, or if he is lucky, get DPA?
I have in my constituency — and I am sure that other Deputies if they go to the trouble of checking will find in their constituencies — people who worked hard all their lives but because of the fact that they have not got the minimum requirement of stamps now find themselves in absolute poverty. There is no use in asking why they did not stamp their cards for a longer period. As I said, age might have precluded them, or they might have been self-employed. It is too bad that those people — proud people, people who were very independent and who gloried in the fact that they could earn their own living without reference to anyone else — have to come to a public representative and say: "I am sorry to bother you, but myself and my family are hungry. Is there anything you can do about it?" This does not really strike home to the ordinary people of the country until such time as a situation like that arises.
I know that Deputies may, from time to time, contact these people. I also know that, like everybody else, they feel that these are things which cannot happen to them or to any member of their family: they happen to other people. Some people have children who are unable to get employment. Some people have brothers or sisters who get injured or become ill and are unable to continue work. I think that if Deputies just stop to think, they will realise that, in this life, what happens to somebody else can happen to anybody. They will realise that it is only a matter of God's providence that it does not happen to themselves or to some member of their family. If it did, I am quite sure they would have a different outlook on this matter.
It is all right to be smug about this. It is all right to say, in effect: "Oh, it is not necessary to have this Bill which was introduced by Deputy Seán Dunne: it does not do what is required or what the Labour Party would require. We will do it the other way." What has been done about it so far? Since its formation, the State has not done anything about it. In my opinion, the year 2,000 will come in and the State will not have done anything about this matter unless it is forcibly brought to their notice, as in this Bill.
We are far too anxious to try to pass off our responsibility on somebody else and to say: "Oh, it will turn out all right. If we do not look at it, it is bound to be all right. Nobody need worry." I am quite sure that, even in this city, the State itself and many semi-State bodies could help considerably in this problem. I believe there must be literally hundreds, even thousands, of jobs which can be done by those who are partially disabled, by those who are not able to do hard manual work, and so on, but who can in fact do certain types of work. From time to time, those of us who go abroad, particularly to Britain, note that it is quite common to find somebody working in a factory sitting at a machine in a wheelchair.
I was interested to hear Deputy de Valera talk about the jobs which the blind could not do. Of course the blind should not be put operating machines where their hands could get caught. Of course the blind should not be asked to climb ladders. Of course the lame should not be asked to go up ladders or to jump across holes in the ground or something like that. We all know that. Let us look for the jobs they can do rather than dwell on the jobs they cannot do. There are many jobs they can do and do well and conscientiously. The blind telephonists who have been trained are able to carry out their jobs conscientiously and efficiently as anybody who takes the trouble to find out will discover. If they get to know the way the exchange works, they are as good as any type of person who can see. In many factories in Britain, we can find machinists who are not alone partially disabled but some of whom are gravely disabled. They are doing their job and doing it well and they are being paid a decent rate for it.
I know that part of our trouble here is the fact that we have not got full employment. We are interested in finding work for people who are fully able to work and because we are not able to do that, we have a tendency to try to brush off those for whom we can excuse ourselves for not trying to find employment. That seems to be the general idea. If we have to wait until we have full employment, or until something like this is done, then people have not very much to look forward to.
I agree entirely with Deputy Seán Dunne that it would be no great harm that very many firms in this city who could employ a proportion of disabled people and who could thereby set a headline to solve this problem should do so. It is true that a small number of people with a Christian outlook have in fact given employment to disabled persons, in and around the city particularly, but it is also true that there are many others who could do likewise but will not do so unless there is compulsion. That is why I am opposed to the idea put forward by Deputy Kitt and Deputy Gibbons that they are opposed to compulsion. If we do not have compulsion, how do we do it? There is no use in appealing to their better natures. Somebody recently said that some of them have not got any.
There is one other thing which rather puzzles me, that is, that, while we have these voluntary organisations which do such excellent work, there is a tendency among some of the people who run the organisations to, shall I say, fight shy of legislation for the purpose of remedying their problems. This is their hobby. This is their aim in life — to look after the disabled — and, in their minds, nobody else — most certainly not the State — should come in. I know that people with the very best of intentions do tend to feel, when somebody else suggests helping out on something they are doing, that they are in fact trespassing on what they would themselves feel to be their particular field. It is rather a pity that this is so. I do not mean any disrespect to them when I draw the attention of the Minister to it but I think that fact must be drawn to his attention. I am sure that some of these people have said in effect: "We feel we are doing all right: we feel we are the people to do this: we do not want State intervention: we do not want compulsion." Might I point out that they are not the disabled people? They are not the people dependent on it.
The big point about this is that I honestly believe — and we in the Labour Party believe — that this is something which the disabled person should have by right, not by charity. It is one of these things which people in every country should have as of right, particularly in this country where so many people resent charity, even those who have to accept help. They resent the fact that it is a type of charity. Independent-minded people get it very hard to accept something which is given to them because people feel sorry for them, because it is given out of charity. They feel it in some way lowers their dignity. We know it must be done as things are at present. We know the organisations are doing a really excellent job.
I would ask those who feel that the State should not interfere to think again, to think of the people they are trying to help and to think of the many thousands in the country whom nobody so far has bothered to help and whom nobody has considered it their job to help. If they do that, then I am quite sure they will welcome a Bill of this kind. We were perhaps optimistic enough to feel that if the Minister was not prepared to accept the Bill as it at present stands, he might say he agrees with the principle of the Bill and that he would prefer if the Government would ask to have it withdrawn on the understanding that they would submit a measure which would cover the points which we are attempting to cover. That is why I was so anxious that the Minister should make his point of view known to the House. The fact that he has not done so, so far, would lead me to believe that, much as we dislike it, the Government intend to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. It is just too bad if they do because it is hitting back right in the face of those unfortunate people who when the Bill was first published had got the idea that, at last, somebody was trying to do something concrete for them, at last Parliament would give them a status to which they felt they were entitled.
Now it appears from the Minister's silence that that is not the situation. It appears that he feels it is quite sufficient to let the voluntary organisations deal with those whom they are aware of, give them whatever assistance they can and that those who have nobody to look after them can just do without any assistance. It is too bad because I felt the Minister was a reasonable sort of person who would appreciate this problem. From his profession I am sure that in the past he has met many of these people and as a politician he, like all of us, must have come in contact with many more than he realised existed. I would have thought that the Minister would be only too glad to give whatever help he could. However, it does appear that here again we have misjudged, here again we have expected too much of the Government. We felt that it was reasonable that they should be as interested as we are in dealing with the really underprivileged, as Deputy Dunne said, the people who have no privileges. We felt that these people would be entitled to get some hope. But, it now appears as if the old order will prevail, that they can muddle along any way they like and that those who have not got any hope or any help or who will not be able to be trained or to find employment themselves will have either to accept home assistance or the disabled person's allowance and for the rest of their lives live in semi-starvation and the type of misery in which many of them, unfortunately, have had to live.
