Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1978

Vol. 90 No. 2

Facilities for Physically Handicapped Persons: Motion.

Mr. Harte

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to launch a campaign in the interests of physically handicapped persons so that easy means of entry may be provided for them to shops, offices, churches, school buildings, hotels, restaurants, places of entertainment and public transport; and requests that the Government itself give the lead in this campaign by ensuring ease of entry for such persons to all State premises to which the public are entitled to have recourse.

The Chairman of the Irish Wheelchair Association, Mr. Liam Maguire, in making his address to the Union of Voluntary Organisations conference in Wexford on 14 to 16 October, 1977, covered a very wide range of problems affecting the physically handicapped. He dealt with them in regard to the implications for them and suggested remedies that might be needed. He said that until the legislators of the country can claim that they have done their duty towards the physically handicapped then his address was an accusation rather than a request.

He entitled his address "A fair deal for the handicapped". My colleagues and myself in the Labour Party are putting down this motion to try to get people to start moving along the lines advocated by the Chairman of the Irish Wheelchair Association in his address. That is to move towards giving the physically handicapped a fair deal in society.

When putting down the motion we were conscious of the fact that it is a long and winding road, but we believe that the way forward must begin somewhere. We also believe that the best means of making progress in this matter of a fair deal for the physically handicapped is to request the Government to give the lead on one aspect of the total question of the problems facing the physically handicapped.

We ask the Government to set an example by ensuring ease of entry for the physically disabled to all State premises to which the public are entitled to have recourse. It is interesting to note that since the motion was circulated a ramp has been fixed outside the main hall entrance to Leinster House. This may, or may not be, coincidental. I do not know but it is worth saying that if somebody in the public service sees the need for a ramp to provide easy access for the physically handicapped to the main hall of Leinster House then one is entitled to assume that the need is already recognised by responsible people in the public services. There is a need to provide this kind of easy access to all State-owned and public buildings on the part of the public service.

I should like to point out at this stage that I am reliably informed that the promise to put down this ramp was given approximately ten or 11 years ago. Neither the Fianna Fáil Government when in office nor the Coalition Government when they were in office gave effect to this. However, the ramp is there now and it will set an example to the other people concerned with the question of providing such facilities in State-owned and public buildings.

From that admission of the need we, in the Labour Party, would envisage that certain things will happen in this type of campaign. For example, we see no reason why a date should not be set by which all existing buildings and services occupied by Government Departments and local authorities should be made fully accessible to the physically handicapped. The national building code, when it finally arrives in its full state, should embody adequate provisions for accessibility for the physically handicapped. There would be nothing wrong with having punitive measures written into such provisions, for example, withholding grants where such were being provided. Those are a couple of examples of how the Government could start the campaign requested.

Arising out of that the question may be posed that if we remove the frustration of the wheelchair users who become frustrated by steps, narrow doors, tiny lifts, revolving doors, high kerbs and so on, are we doing this for the benefit of the one person in every thousand of the population who are the wheelchair users?

I have to refer to the speech by the Chairman of the Irish Wheelchair Association, and he gives the answer. He tells us that people pushing prams, pregnant women, people with heart or respiratory ailments, the elderly, people with sight defects, amputees, people propelling trolleys, furniture removers and people on crutches are all suffering from the frustrations public buildings represent to them from the point of view of easy access.

If you put the same frustrations experienced by the users of wheelchairs together with the frustrations experienced by the other categories I have mentioned, you are talking about a very substantial proportion of the population.

The figure I have to hand is that one in five members of our society can expect to be disabled at some stage in their lives and will be denied easy access to public buildings. We will all get old and doddery and I hope we will not be confined to the house. However, if this continues and the campaign is not put into action, then the one out of every five I have referred to, supported by their public representatives, will rightly level the accusation that if the Government fail or refuse to give a lead in this campaign, the rest of the nation is failing to work towards a fair deal for the handicapped, an obligation, which we feel, lies squarely on the shoulders of every Government.

On many aspects of the problems affecting wheelchair users it might not be a straightforward matter to introduce legislation. I submit this motion presents no such problem. The motion is clear cut in its intent. The emphasis is laid on the latter part of the motion in connection with the campaign requested. Let the Government take the lead, as the motion suggests. It will not be too difficult to deal with the offices, shops, churches, school buildings, hotels, restaurants and public transport once the example has been given. There will be difficulties but the example must be set and the campaign must be started. We will not solve the problems at once but at least we will make them less acute on the whole.

It astonishes me that architects, designers and planners go to no end of trouble in drawing up plans for elaborate buildings to make sure that those buildings are visually powerful, that they are attractive to visitors and have a selling point. They deal with all the factors which attract attention such as fire hazards, density, volume, height, and so on. Technologically, you could say they always look efficient. For some reason or other they ignore the need to make provision for easy access for wheelchair users, or if you want to put it another way, one out of every five members of society who will be physically handicapped. I fail to see, as do my colleagues in the Labour Party, that two-legged able-bodied people would be at a disadvantage if the architects, planners and designers tried to cater for all the people.

Does this mean that the architects are not conscious of the structure of the population? Does it mean they look upon handicapped people as a sub-group who comprise a distinct population and have not the same rights as the rest of us in this respect? Do the architects and designers limit this question of planning for accessibility to the building of old people's homes? If the answer to these questions is yes, then the architects are guilty of discrimination. But are they alone guilty? Are we to take it that the archiects are not conscious of the fact that accidents can make people physically handicapped temporarily and cripple people, and that disease can handicap people temporarily or cripple them? All those people, together with the other handicapped groups I referred to, are locked out of offices to which every other citizen has easy access? In other words, they are locked out of public buildings to which they are entitled to have easy access to conduct their business like any other member of the population and with the same dignity.

Even though I have spoken about architects and planners, the problem in regard to the question of planning and designing probably can be found at the educational level, the diploma and degree awarding bodies, and the general curricula and examination levels, because these may not have regard to accessibility for the physically handicapped. I do not know because I never had third level education. In fact, I have never been to the second-level, so I do not know. I suspect that as in many other cases the problem begins at the educational level. While this question of the curricula may not be relevant to the specific request at the end of the motion, it is quite reasonable to refer to it, because we are asking the Government to give a lead in this campaign and to start the campaign by providing ramps and easy access to all State and public buildings. That is emphasised in the motion. The point I made about the degree awarding bodies who give degrees to architects is relevant to the overall terms of the motion. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to refer it to the appropriate Minister as soon as it is practicable for him to do so.

As a priority, I ask the Minister when replying to this motion to make a statement of intent that all existing buildings occupied by Government Departments, local authorities and other State bodies will be made fully accessible to the physically handicapped as an example to the rest of the nation. If the Minister is not in a position to go that far, then I hope the tone of his contribution will give some indication of how far it is practicable or possible to co-operate in this campaign.

I have laid greater emphasis on wheelchair users than on other physically handicapped people. My own research is the cause of that. I spent some time perusing a book called "Design for the Disabled" by Selwyn Goldsmith and I discovered one very important thing. As he puts it, the wheelchair user is handicapped three times over. First, he has a disability that puts him in a wheelchair. Secondly, he is obliged to function at a lower level than standing people, and always at the same level, which is constraining both physically and psychologically. Thirdly, he has to roll around in a cumbersome, awkward way in a space consuming, distinctive, inelegant vehicle.

When you look at the problem from this point of view, it demonstrates in a very positive way the need to have it brought home forcibly that those citizens are being discriminated against in the sense that all buildings have been geared to suit two-legged able-bodied people. This is a great indictment on any Government, whether they are a Coalition Government or a Fianna Fáil Government. It is discriminatory. Unless some start is made by way of the suggested campaign requested in the motion, there will be no change in this attitude in the future. If the Government give this request their blessing in a practical sense, many other things will follow and perhaps even the question of the curricula may take on some meaning.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted in Resolution 3447, a declaration on the rights of disabled persons in December 1975. Article 8 reads:

Disabled persons are entitled to have their special needs taken into consideration at all stages of economic and social planning.

If this lead were given by the Government, we could then reasonably expect them to move on to giving fuller effect to the terms of Article 8, Resolution 3447. There is a little more in it than the sentence I quoted for the benefit of the motion. We hear many complaints from people in new housing schemes about proposed developments being incomplete. Although the local authorities are statutorily obliged to provide a range of services to the community within their functional areas they cannot deal with unco-ordinated and contradictory proposals from private developers which fail to provide for wheelchair users. If this is the case, there is little hope of getting to grips with the idea of planning to create the socially just environment about which we so often speak. That means suffering for the handicapped.

I believe—and my colleagues agree with me—that if the Government agree with us and launch this campaign, the necessary legislation will follow. We would then no longer be paying lip service to the idea of a socially just environment but we would be putting it into practice. We have not spent much money on the problems of the physically handicapped in the area of making public buildings accessible to them. In 1975, the Dutch spent 25 million guilders—£5 million—to create an environment suitable to the needs of the physically handicapped without affecting the rights of two-legged able-bodied people. When you provide accessibility to public buildings for handicapped people you do not in any way inhibit or legislate against two-legged people. They are capable of using the same facilities.

Referring back to Selwyn Goldsmith's book "Design for the Disabled" to give emphasis to the point I made earlier, he also said that buildings always have been and always will be geared to suit two-legged able-bodied people and not people propped up on sticks or rolling about in wheelchairs. This is the reality. If we get a debate like this going, whether we get full agreement or full acquiescence is irrelevant. It would be equally important to get acquiescence in the areas where we cannot get agreement, and agreement where we can get agreement. In that sense there would be a beginning to the end of discrimination against wheelchair users. We can do this by tackling the curricula and by seeing that the diploma and degree awarding bodies make provision in their examinations for accessibility for the physically handicapped.

One in every five people will be handicapped at some stage of their lives. The campaign we request to be launched in our motion can be much more readily dealt with than the other questions posed, the question of the curricula, the examinations, and so on. Our request could well be given speedy attention in the areas where it is practicable rather than promising a crumb off the whole cake like the ramp provided outside Leinster House after 11 years. I would prefer the Minister to reject the motion on the basis that everything I said is impracticable rather offering a crumb. I do not think the Minister will say that, because the motion is not all impracticable, although it may be in certain areas.

To offer anything less than the full terms of the motion would not be satisfactory but at the same time if we could adopt most of the motion there would be some cause for satisfaction. It would be an insult to our fellow members of society if we said: "Now you have a ramp outside Leinster House, we will put another ramp outside another public office building and do nothing again for 11 years." We are not talking about the problems of mentally handicapped people. We are talking about giving the handicapped the same facilities to conduct their business as ordinary citizens have. My colleagues and I would have liked to put down a motion very much wider in its implication. For example, we could well have put down a motion to the effect that the entire physical environment should be designed to cater for all people indiscriminately. I do not have to tell anybody in this House how far-reaching that type of motion could be. Because I had to leave school at 12 years of age I can only do my sums one step at a time, so this is the way I decided to approach this matter, and my colleagues agreed with me. However, we chose this one aspect of the whole problem which is the easiest to give effect to, and we did so to avoid getting into an area which might militate against any speedy solution the Minister might be willing to consider.

We believe the motion will not bring the Minister into conflict with local authorities and other public bodies. It would be a brave public servant who would say that the one in every five in the population is to be discriminated against indefinitely. We do not see the cost factor as being very substantial relatively speaking and, in any case, the money must be found to do the job because the right of easy accessibility is a global right for all men. One member of the Government has launched a public campaign very successfully. This motion asks for the launching of a campaign to ensure that members of society who are physically handicapped get their rights in accordance with the Constitution. Let us avoid the major issue for the moment and let us see what we can do with this motion.

Mr. McAuliffe

I wish to second the motion and reserve my right to say something later on.

Lady Goulding

I was most interested to hear what Senator Harte said. In many ways I agree with what he said. I believe that really he is painting too dark a picture. That might come as a surprise to some Senators who know that I have worked with the physically handicapped for 27 years. Things have gradually become better over those 27 years. I say better, but we need best now. There is just one example. Several years ago the National Rehabilitation Board, which is a Government sponsored board, brought out a guide to Dublin for the handicapped and it shows where there are facilities for getting into libraries, theatres, cinemas, shops and churches of all denominations. It is a very useful little book indeed. That is only for Dublin. Maybe other cities and towns have them too.

Senator Harte mentioned one very important point but I would like to stress it again. I refer to the dignity of a person in a wheelchair. Unless you have sat in a wheelchair for a long time you do not realise that it is a terrible thing, because people always talk down to you. By talking down to you, they then think you are mentally handicapped as well. This is really not so in most cases. Let us all realise that people in wheelchairs and people on crutches are just the same as we are and they deserve everything we get and perhaps a little bit more. The handicapped person has as much right to work as an able-bodied person. It is also true to say that very often a handicapped person is a more thorough worker than many others, because it lifts him up to the stature of other people if he can work and take home at the end of a week a wage packet like his brothers and sisters. This is very important indeed.

The other important thing to remember is that, as Senator Harte said, people in wheelchairs—and I am in a wheelchair at the moment—want to get along the streets, to cross over at lights. This is very difficult in Dublin. I have just come back from New York, and there at every street corner where there are lights the sidewalks are levelled down and then levelled up on the other side so that people in wheelchairs can get from point A to point B.

This book is excellent. It tells you the places you can get into, but it does not tell you how you can get there unless somebody will either carry you or get you there by special car. I have a feeling that this Government are especially interested in the physically handicapped. They are trying to do more and more for the semi-voluntary groups who are interested in trying to help in a medical way people in wheelchairs, but also they realise very much, and the Minister realises, the necessity for getting from A to B.

About five years ago we had a very bright wheelchair boy of 15 years who was offered an excellent job with good wages but he could not keep it because he had to take a taxi every day and when he got there he had to climb up two flights of stairs of ten steps each. So he had no job. Yet he was bright enough to have one. The Government are not forgetting the handicapped. The Department as a whole are doing the best with the money they have. I do not think we can aspire to being like New York where they have every facility, because we have just not got the money. More thought should go into new buildings. Architects are gradually learning that there is a percentage of human beings who have to be in wheelchairs. The more this is discussed either here or outside the House the better.

Senator Harte has highlighted many things that are very dear to me and to the people I and many others help to look after, but they do not want to be looked after. They want to look after themselves. This is most important. In order to look after themselves, they have to be able to get into buildings where they can work or where they can go for recreation. I know the Government will do what they can. I could go on for a long time telling the House about various different cases, but I will not bore Senators. Nowadays people are beginning to understand that people in wheelchairs are human beings like ourselves and should not be looked down upon, but should be treated as equals, and, as far as possible, given an equal chance to work and an equal chance to play.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. J. O'Leary)

May I say that neither I nor any other member of the Government would quarrel with the spirit, the thinking and the objectives behind this motion. It is right and proper that our citizens who suffer from physical handicaps should be encouraged and assisted, as far as is practicable, to live a full life as members of the community. For their part, their demands generally are not unreasonable. What facilitates the paraplegic to move readily around his home as one of the household and to circulate within his neighbourhood as a member of the community will equally assist the old and frail and persons who may not be confined to wheelchairs, but whose medical conditions make it difficult for them to climb steep steps and stairs, or who might appreciate special bath, toilet and other domestic facilities. I feel that amongst people generally we would find a consensus on this attitude.

Senators may justifiably question, therefore, why more positive public action has not been taken to help eliminate the barriers which have prevented physically handicapped persons from enjoying a fuller participation in the day-to-day life of their neighbourhood. This is a valid attitude, but I suggest that, to put the position into proper perspective, one must consider first the scale of the problem—only about 1 in 2,000 of our population is confined to a wheel-chair—then the degree of public awareness of and involvement in the amelioration of the problem, and also the cost and other implications of the remedial measures which would be involved, taken in conjunction with the many other urgent causes with competing claims on public resources.

Over the past decade or so there has been a growing awareness of the needs of physically handicapped persons and an increasing appreciation of the public responsibility to meet those needs adequately. Unfortunately, this acceptance of the public duty which rests on us all has developed rather slowly and the provision of services specially to assist physically handicapped persons has tended to grow in a rather haphazard fashion, usually prompted by the efforts of voluntary bodies concerned mainly with particular aspects of the overall problem.

While I would hope that the general question of public aids for physically handicapped persons would not be seen as a political issue, I must remind the House that practically all of the more significant developments in this regard have taken place under Fianna Fáil Administrations.

One of the most important developments of the Health Act, 1970, which the late President Childers, then Minister for Health, steered through the Oireachtas was the delegation of responsibility for the management and organisation of the health services to eight regional health boards. Within the new structure a separate programme was introduced to provide for people and needs which could be met within the community rather than in an institutional setting. Under this community care programme the aim was to develop services which would ensure and maintain a high level of care within the community, thereby reducing the necessity for people to go into institutions and reducing the length of stay for those who needed this form of care. Prior to the Act, resources in the field of physical handicap lacked proper co-ordination and were, to a considerable extent, institutionally based. That imaginative policy has been showing commendable results in relation to physically handicapped persons.

Housing presents perennial problems, not alone in Ireland, but in practically every country. For the physically handicapped person the problem is particularly complex; it is not just a question of adequate shelter but of housing which is suited to his special needs. As the motion states, it is desirable that a handicapped person should not be prevented by high steps or other obstacles from entering public buildings or places of resort. It is an even more fundamental need that he should be enabled to enter and leave his own home, to have door opes sufficiently wide to allow a wheelchair to circulate within the home, to have switches, taps, door locks and handles at a level accessible to the person in the wheelchair and have appropriate bath and toilet facilities available there.

Appreciating this fact, the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Molloy, introduced a scheme of housing grants in February 1972, specially intended to help households with one or more handicapped members, to adapt the dwellings so as to allow for ready circulation within the four walls and for the use of all the facilities there by a person in a wheelchair and to eliminate his possible isolation from participation in the social life of the community, within the limits of his disability and his own aspirations.

When introduced in 1972, the Department's grant was £400 and it was left to the county council or county borough corporation to match this with an equivalent amount, except in respect of a non-vested local authority dwelling when the authority could meet the full cost of the work. That grant remained unchanged until the Fianna Fáil Administration resumed office last year, when it was trebled—from £400 to £1,200—again with power for the local authority to meet all or part of the residual cost. Taken in conjunction with the greatly increased ordinary house improvement grants and the house improvement loans scheme which, I hope, will be validated by the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1977, which has been introduced in Dáil Éireann, this should provide a big incentive for families with physically handicapped members to carry out the necessary and desirable works to make the homes more convenient for the less fortunate members of the household.

Following that increase in grants, I had a circular issued to each city and county manager on 30 December last, drawing their attention to complaints which I had received from bodies representing the physically handicapped in regard to delays in processing applications and a lack of uniformity amongst local authorities in the administration of the scheme of grants. Having regard to the genuine individual need for the structural adaptations concerned, I urged the authorities to give prompt attention to the processing of applications and the payment of grants. I did not lay down precise guidelines for the local authorities in regard to the determination of eligibility and the works which might be approved; this I left to the discretion of the various authorities. However, I did enjoin them to examine their existing procedures with a view to eliminating any unnecessary delays or formalities.

In other fields of public activity the Government have given attention to measures which would help to integrate physically handicapped persons into the general community. For example, steps have been taken so that large comprehensive schools in Dublin and Cork will be physically accessible for handicapped children and special transport facilities are made available for such children attending these schools. On the wider front, I understand that the Department of Education encourages school managers to adopt an accommodating and flexible approach towards facilitating physically handicapped pupils to have access to, and within, their schools. Undoubtedly this must present problems in some cases, particularly in older schools, but regard is had to this factor in designing and building new schools.

In regard to the question of transport, the regional health boards operate a scheme of grants to assist physically handicapped individuals to purchase cars. The maximum grant was increased very recently from £500 to £1,000. This grants scheme, which should be of particular help to disabled persons who wish to go out and work, has opened up new possibilities generally in the field of mobility for these persons. As a further encouragement, the owners of such cars have been exempted from all road tax and get special concessions in relation to the purchase of petrol and to parking fees.

Finally, I come to the question of access by physically handicapped persons to shops, offices, churches, hotels, places of entertainment and public transport. If I have tended to digress from the basic theme of the motion, I would ask Senators to accept that my purpose has been to exemplify the fund of goodwill towards physically handicapped persons which has motivated the present and previous Governments and to suggest that, in so far as it may be practicable, our aim will be to see that, in the course of time, the objectives of the motion will be implemented.

Draft building regulations were prepared by my Department and made available for comment by interested bodies. These have been the subject of detailed and generally helpful submissions by many organisations. The draft regulations propose to make special provision to facilitate access to all public buildings by physically handicapped persons. Amongst the more important submissions made in relation to the draft has been a memorandum bearing particularly on this subject and presented on behalf of the National Rehabilitation Board and the Irish Wheelchair Association. I can assure the Seanad that in preparing the final draft of the regulations special consideration will be given to this submission.

Meanwhile, the needs of the physically handicapped in so far as accessibility to public buildings such as offices, banks, shops, theatres, cinemas and so on have been brought by my Department to the attention of local authorities who, in their capacity as local planning authorities, can substantially influence the design of buildings to be newly erected or reconstructed. The authorities were advised that the special measures for which provision might be made include the provision of at least one level entrance or, if necessary, a ramp instead of steps and the provision of sufficient and suitable handrails. Within the buildings, ramps and handrails might also be necessary, doors and lifts should be wide enough for a wheelchair to pass through, and the lift controls and door handles should be positioned at a height suitable for a person in a wheelchair. Where parking facilities are to be made available, the needs of disabled persons should be catered for in the provision of means of access from the car park to the building.

It has been emphasised to the local authorities that I am anxious that they should give a lead in this matter and that not only should these provisions be made in any new public buildings but they should also consider measures to make their existing buildings more easily accessible to handicapped people where this can be done at a reasonable cost. The fact that local authorities are planning authorities has been emphasised in order that they will avail of the opportunity to bring these matters to the notice of developers and architects and, if necessary, to impose suitable conditions when granting permission.

Local authorities have also been specifically advised by my Department of the necessity to provide for the needs of handicapped persons in the case of swimming pools, and the appropriate arrangements were indicated in a guideline specification circulated to them.

The motion requests that the Government take the lead in this campaign by ensuring ease of entry to all State premises to which the public are entitled to have recourse. I am sure that the Office of Public Works, whose responsibility it is to provide and maintain State buildings, will have regard to the requirements of the physically handicapped in so far as new buildings or existing buildings being renovated are concerned. For example, as Senators may be aware, ramps for wheelchairs have been provided at the Kildare Street and Leinster Lawn entrances of Leinster House, as was mentioned by Senator Harte, and the lifts in the office block are adequate to take wheelchairs.

Before I make way for further contributions by Senators, I must pay a tribute to the personnel of the voluntary bodies—especially, and without being invidious, the National Rehabilitation Board, the Irish Wheelchair Association, the National Federation of Social Service Councils and the faculty of social services in UCD—which have done so much to stimulate public awareness of the special circumstances and needs of physically handicapped persons, and to press central and local authorities to provide for those needs, not on an ad hoc basis, but in a co-ordinated way.

I would like to express also my appreciation of the sterling work of Access, which includes in its membership a number of very prominent architects and engineers and which provides advice on the subject of access to, and circulation within, buildings by disabled persons. This subject was also the theme of a useful seminar in Dublin last spring, under the auspices of the Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped, which established that, in many cases, the necessary structural works and other adaptations could be effected for a relatively light expenditure.

Finally, different public Departments and various local authorities are concerned with the problems which this motion raises, but the dedicated individuals who comprise the voluntary bodies have done a great deal and will, I am sure, continue to do much to secure a comprehensive public approach to the problems of the physically handicapped.

Mr. Cooney

We must all be grateful to Senators Harte and McAuliffe for tabling this motion and drawing our attention to the problems in it. The figures given by the Minister show that the numbers to whom the motion applies are comparatively small in relation to the total population and, as a result, may not be high in our public consciousness. Having regard to the undramatic but, nevertheless, graphic way in which Senators Harte and Goulding described the predicament of these people, the motion is useful in highlighting their high level of need and the need for the rest of us to be aware of their predicament. Having heard what they had to say about the psychological disability that follows the physical disablement, it is incumbent on the rest of the community to assist these people to the maximum degree possible. The motion calls on the Government to launch a campaign in the interests of these people and requests they give the lead in the campaign by ensuring ease of entry for such persons to all State premises to which the public are entitled to have recourse.

One must be somewhat disappointed at the Minister's speech having regard to the specific terms of the motion. The motion is asking for a lead from the Government. The Minister in his speech indicated plenty of sympathy and, in what I would see as an unfortunate lapse of taste, has tried to assume a certain political bouquet for himself and his administration in regard to their past dealings with this problem. In his speech, the Minister indicates a general sympathy with the problem but did not show the sense of urgency which the problem deserves in its own right and having regard to the picture painted by the mover of the motion.

The comparatively small numbers involved have tended to prevent this problem from being high in the public consciousness. It would be a pity if that aspect were to be the cause of the Government or any of us long-fingering the problem. I suspect this is what may happen. We will all be unanimous on the merits of the motion but nothing of significance will be done following its acceptance by this House.

At the moment the responsibility for improving the lot of the handicapped with regard to public places mainly depends on private initiative, to a lesser extent in regard to premises in control of the local authorities and what they might do, and, unfortunately, very little on the part of the Government with regard to buildings under their control. Hopefully, the planners of new buildings, encouraged by the requirements of the planning authorities, will incorporate into them the necessary means of access. The encouragement of the Minister's Department in that regard is important.

The Minister says that it has been emphasised to local authorities that they should give a lead in this matter. I hope that that emphasis is continually repeated to local authorities and that their activities are monitored on a continuing basis to see if they are paying proper attention to this element and to ensure that the problem arising from the small number of people and the perspective that this may cause us to have on the matter does not become unduly large in the consciousness of the local authority. Even if the number is small the problem is essentially great.

That is in so far as the problem relates to new buildings, but the motion is directed mainly to existing buildings. There is opportunity here for the Government to give a specific lead. It can be given in very practical terms by initiating the physical works required in the alterations to existing buildings. The commitment of the Government and the measure of their concern, as representing the entire community, can be gauged by the financial and personnel resources that they are prepared to make available to start, from the next financial year, the alteration of existing public buildings.

It is pathetic that the only example that could be given to the House was that of the ramps in this building. Probably there are more that I am not aware of but the Minister did not provide further examples. Casual observation in this city and, certainly when one moves outside the city, will show that it is very difficult to get further examples. I am depressed by the phrasing in the Minister's speech when he said:

I am sure that the Office of Public Works whose responsibility it is to provide and maintain State buildings will have regard to the requirements of the physically handicapped in so far as new buildings or existing buildings being renovated are concerned.

We all know the demands on the Office of Public Works are myriad but the rate of achievement and traditional approach of that Office, while thorough and having workmanship of a high standard, is something that gives rise to apprehension and dissatisfaction from time to time. This is not the place to go into the reasons for that, but it is a fact. All the Minister can say to this House is: "I am sure that the Office of Public Works ...will have regard...." I am certain that the Office of Public Works will have regard to these problems. I suggest to the Minister, and through him to the Government, that that is not enough for dealing with the problem which has been described so graphically by Senators Harte and Goulding. There is no sign of a commitment to ensure that the Office of Public Works, which has the control of the buildings of the State, will lift its little finger to make any changes in any public building. There is not even a commitment to ensure that in new buildings the provisions sought in the motion will be provided, because all the Minister can say is that he is sure that they will have regard to the requirements of the physically handicapped with regard to new buildings. There is a greater level of commitment required from the Minister and the Government than was displayed in his speech notwithstanding his pointing to the past record of Fianna Fáil Administrations in this regard.

Senator Goulding was pessimistic, because of financial constraints, of progress being made, an honest pessimism if I may say so. If we are to be serious about our appreciation of the problem it becomes a question of priorities. How high are the handicapped to be in the priorities of a caring Government elected by a caring community? I will not bore the House—lest they might think I was descending into mere politics—by going through the list of commitments to which public funds have been committed for which people say they should not have committed. Here is a cause to which we are unanimous there should be a commitment, and a financial commitment would, having regard to the size of the public budget, be comparatively small. If the Government accept this motion there should be a commitment in next year's budget to ensure that the spirit of the motion is implemented in a visible way, not just in Dublin city but throughout the country. While the problem is small in terms of numbers it is gigantic in terms of humanity. The motion deserves and will get the full verbal support of the House. What we really want is a financial and personnel commitment from the Government that will honour their verbal acceptance of the motion.

Mícheál Cranitch

Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún seo agus thaitin an méid cainte a chuala mé go mór liom le linn na díospóireachta. Thaitin i slí faoi leith óráid an Aire féin. Is duine fior-chineálta é agus tá fhios agam go ndéanfaidh seisean, pé scéal é, a sheacht ndícheall teacht i gcabhair ar na daoine a bhfuil cabhair uathu.

I welcome this motion as every right-minded person in the House welcomes it. The handicapped, like the poor, we will always have with us. They, too, are made to the image and likeness of God, and we who have the use of our limbs should do everything possible to ease the burden of our handicapped brethren. Somehow these things have gone unnoticed for quite a long time but, thanks to the work of voluntary organisations and kind hearted people, a certain amount of alleviation has taken place in recent years. One thinks of the work of such organisations as the Wheelchair Association, Central Remedial Clinic, National Association for Celebral Palsy and Cork Polio and General After-Care Association. They have done tremendous work and brought tremendous joy and succour to so many thousands of our handicapped.

On the matter of handicapped people in public places, I could not help thinking this morning as I was boarding a train at a well known railway junction in a town in Munster, that, far from being a handicapped person, one would want to be an athlete in great condition to get on the train and, certainly, one would want to be a super athlete to get off the same train with the floor at least 2' 6" to 3' over the platform level. How much more, then, is it necessary to have facilities for our handicapped people?

I would make a particular plea on behalf of handicapped children many of whom attend special schools. They have to travel in special buses or mini-buses and I would ask the Minister to take particular note of that to see, as far as lies within his power, that every facility be provided on these buses for the safety of these people. Some time ago one of these organisations I mentioned wrote to the head office at Heuston Station in connection with the matters I have referred to. He mentioned such things as seat belts, appropriate markings on school buses, fire extinguishers, escorts for children who require them going to and coming from school and then the question of unreasonably long journeys. These matters are very important so far as small children are concerned; small handicapped children do not have the same control over their limbs or bodies as children who have the full use of their limbs. I would ask him to pay particular attention to these points, and with that I commend him for his statement. He certainly gives hopes and we give hope to the various organisations I have mentioned. I have no doubt that his Department will do everything possible to come to the aid, financially and otherwise, of those who most need it.

Mrs. Hussey

I welcome the words of the Minister which were very far ranging but I do not think they really add up to a commitment to the handicapped. I do not think there has been any commitment to the handicapped down through the years. We are all unanimous in our approval of organisations which help the various handicapped people. Many of us are members of these organisations and some of us, like Senator Goulding, give a great deal of time to organisations like these.

Politicians generally pay a great deal of lip-service to this. At the end of this month the Taoiseach will indicate the admiration of politicians for these people by presenting the people-of-the-year awards which are organised by the National Rehabilitation Institute. A lot of these people are usually workers with the handicapped but it should not end there. Having regard to the enormous power politicians have for the planning of society and to the control they have over money which is handed out for planning purposes, it is extremely important that we devote ourselves very seriously to this question.

In the past planning has been left to the professional planner. No more than us, the professional planner is not all-seeing, and it is because of that human capacity of planners that years after the event we find that housing estates, for example, are found to be unsuitable for the people who live in them, namely families; likewise, the needs of the handicapped. A large minority of the population, not a tiny minority because we must widen the definition of handicapped, have been ignored by non-handicapped planners. We must address ourselves to the undoing of the damage. Some things have been mentioned here like steps, narrow doors, tiny lifts, revolving doors and high footpaths. They are very frustrating elements not only for wheelchair users but I would mention also such people as pram pushers, people with heart trouble, the elderly and the very young. Access is difficult for some and absolutely impossible for others to very many public buildings, offices, factories, theatres, schools, telephones, polling booths and public toilets.

Something which is rarely mentioned but which constitutes a handicapped element is the situation of mothers of small children. How dare we allow supermarkets, or large shops to put up signs reading "no prams allowed"? They should have to provide a pram-parking area which is safe and visible to the shoppers. Hospitals, too, should have to provide facilities for the young children of mothers who might wait for hours at outpatients departments. You expect hospitals to do this and to provide facilities for the mothers of very young hospitalised patients who are immensely handicapped because they cannot speak for themselves. Indeed, the other day it came as a great shock to me that in 1978 a hospital I persuaded to accommodate the mother of an 18-month-old baby girl had never heard of such an arrangement.

As it happened when they were persuaded to accommodate the mother they found it worked very well and they were absolutely delighted with the whole idea. How they never heard of it, is beyond me. We might just briefly remind ourselves that other countries occasionally find the will and the commitment to do something about these problems. For example, in 1975 the Dutch Government allocated £5 million for the adaptation of existing public buildings, in particular libraries, post offices, railyway and municipal offices. This money was used in 18 months from the time the Dutch Government allocated it.

I might mention the employment potential of such a large programme in a time of a great difficulty with the employment figures. Indeed it is very strange that we can hand the present of car tax to able-bodied car owners without enabling those who cannot move about freely to do so more easily. Public transport is an area which we must look at. In December 1976, 25,000 people were in receipt of disabled persons' allowance. We must ask how did they get about or if they get about at all. They certainly do not get about on CIE buses. As Senator Cranitch remarked, most public transport is designed for the young able-bodied adult who has a good grip and one hand free. That is a fairly restricted number of people. I would suggest that that is a substantial minority of people in this country.

I understand that the technology to adapt bus designs to make them suitable for the handicapped and for wheelchairs is available and is not staggering in terms of expense. I would very much like to know what CIE are doing about it. Senator Cranitch mentioned children. It is very important that physically-handicapped children who have normal intelligence should be educated with their able-bodied peers and should not be put in special schools, whereby there is a widening of the gulf which already exists and which cuts them off from society. This also ensures as a side effect that the able-bodied child goes through life unaware of how a great many people have to cope with their lives.

It is a tragedy that we compartmentalise the handicapped so easily. We compartmentalise children far too easily in schools, not only in terms of handicap but in terms of sex, religion, financial status and so on. It is a pity that we should include physical ability also. Another figure which should give us cause for thought is that AnCO, with millions of pounds of European Social Fund money available to them, in 1977 trained 150 handicapped people out of a total of 12,837 people. This is a very small proportion and it is also a very small number out of the 25,000 who are getting the disabled persons' allowances.

Information on this question of how many handicapped people there are and of the kind of handicap they have is quite limited. This makes it very difficult to approach the whole question in an organised manner. I would like to suggest that this should be included in the next census which I hope will come up when it is supposed to come up and not be postponed as it was before. I cannot see why that cannot be included as a requirement in a census form.

Finally, I congratulate the Senators who put down this motion. I look forward to a genuine response by the Government to this very desperate cry for help.

Mr. Brennan

Very briefly, there is not much that may be added to what most Senators have said here today. This motion is very much more important than what we understand it to be; probably even more important than the Senators who put it down understood when they tabled the motion. It is important because the definition of handicapped persons is a definition which we are taking too narrowly and a definition which perhaps we are taking too lightly. The Robbins Report estimated that there are about 100,000 handicapped people in the Republic. The 1971 census showed that there were some 330,000 persons in the Republic over the age of 65. Allowing for some overlapping and a broader definition of the handicapped to include the aged and the ageing, we are talking about 10 per cent of the population. We have under-estimated somewhat, even in this debate, the extent to which this is an issue and a problem in this country and throughout the world. If you want to work out some more figures on this—and a number of Senators have put this forward—you could certainly reach a fairly staggering figure of the number of people who require assistance in this area.

Senator Harte mentioned expectant mothers. If you include also some 300,000 or 350,000 fairly young children, you are reaching a realisation of the large number, perhaps as many as 600,000 or 700,000 who are not in themselves handicapped by any definition but are certainly handicapped by the design of our public transport and our public buildings. If a four-year-old has trouble getting on a bus, then so far as he is concerned he is handicapped by the design of that bus. If an old person has trouble getting into the post office he is handicapped by virtue of the fact that he cannot get into the building.

If we broaden the debate and not just look at the people in the wheelchairs as it were, but at the broader community who are handicapped by the thoughtlessness that has gone into design for a long number of years, we might begin to grasp that this is a problem of some proportions and not one we can take lightly.

Some Senators dwelt on the question of public transport. They are correct in this because if you cannot travel—if you cannot get there—then the other problem becomes a secondary one, that is the problem of getting into the building. Today CIE have been asked by this House, and I reiterate this request, to take a long hard look at their plans for the future in this whole area. We hear talk of a complete new transport system for Dublin in the future, rapid rail and so on, but I hope that the long-term planners in this area are giving adequate thought to design because I believe, and I am sure most of the Senators share my belief, that it should not be any more expensive to put some thought into designing buses, buildings and so on than it is to have bad design. In the cases of houses that are badly designed—very straight long stairs, switches which are out of reach, slippery floors and so on—it would not be any more expensive when designing them to give some thought to the number of people who will use them. If a lot more thought was put in at design stage in all of this we could achieve great strides at much the same expense.

I hope that this debate is reported fully and I hope that in being reported fully it will help to stir the national consciousness in regard to this type of difficulty. I do not accept that it is fairly isolated. I feel that it is a fairly widespread difficulty and one which future generations will not thank us for if we do not put some thought and expertise into it now. It is not simply a matter of money.

Senator Hussey mentioned something with which I agree. She pointed out that the technology is there. There is no doubt about that. We are in the generation when men can walk on the moon. We have the technology to tackle a problem which, compared to that problem of walking on the moon, is relatively simple. In Sweden, for example, a considerable number of bus stops are raised so that when the bus pulls in the actual footpath is at the same level as the edge of the entrance to the bus. That just required a bit more thought and it is something we should look at. In the United States, for example, there are now what are known as kneeling buses which I am sure a number of you have seen in rather expensive cars in this country. It is an air suspension business which allows the bus or the train when it pulls up to the platform to sit down as it were and be reinsulated. It just takes three or four seconds to do that. It is becoming fairly common now and again it is something which, in the long term, need not necessarily be any more expensive than are very heavy buses with built-up platforms and so on. There was reference, too, to the problem of escalators. That is something which has to be looked at because some old people in particular who are not in wheelchairs are genuinely frightened of escalators, of trying to get on them and trying to get off them. This is literally a nightmare, not only for the handicapped but particularly for old people. Our stores, shops and modern supermarkets that have this modern equipment should give some thought to the people who are going to use them. Despite the pronouncements of this party we are not all out jogging and totally fit, and able to jump on escalators. It can be a difficult business and a nightmare for old people. In general, a new approach is needed to design.

Overall a new attitude is needed to the whole question of designing public buildings and public transport with an eye to the fact that it is not just a few thousand people who are in wheelchairs who must be considered but that it is a broader and bigger question.

I should like to suggest—and I am trying to be helpful—that as a very specific measure some of the environmental scheme money which is being allocated by the Department of the Environment should be spent in this area. I hope this debate receives some coverage because the public want to tackle this problem; they are concerned about it. It would be a pity if it were just seen to be another motion which was debated in the second House of the Oireachtas. It is much more important than that and I thank the Senators for putting it down and the Minister for State for his enlightened contribution.

Mrs. Robinson

I, too, welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and I commend my two Labour colleagues for putting this motion on the Order Paper. The importance of it is appreciated. Certainly it was given priority over some other Labour motions, it being the turn of the Labour Party to have a motion discussed on this monthly-rota basis.

I agree very much with the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House and in particular with those Senators, like Senator Hussey and Senator Brennan, who want the matter to be examined in the broader context of what we mean by handicapped. I would very much endorse that. We mean, also, those who are aged, those who are very young, those who have not the kind of major physical handicap that requires very particular treatment, such as being confined to a wheelchair. They, of course, are people who deserve and must have particular sympathy. We mean the whole range of people and I certainly agree with Senator Brennan that the implications of this are very far-reaching, that we have to consider our planning and approach in putting people first and not putting economic considerations or cold planning considerations which are not concerned with the types of people and the types of user that these buildings and facilities will accommodate. Of course, if we adopt that approach then we have to re-examine our whole approach to housing estates and to amenities for people so that we no longer merely think of the bald economic cost of building a certain number of houses without thinking of the type of facilities which would be essential.

My own contribution is going to be brief because I share so deeply and basically the sentiments which have been expressed by other Senators. One of the values of having the debate in the Seanad is that the Minister has been prepared to come into the House and make his contribution to it and that his advisers are present to hear the views expressed by Senators. In the course of his contribution to the debate, the Minister referred to the draft building regulations which were prepared by his Department and on which he has detailed submissions. Could I ask him if he is prepared to say to the House when these building regulations will be passed? It would be helpful to have that on the record.

Mr. J. O'Leary

Hopefully next year.

Mrs. Robinson

There is another matter which I do not think the Minister can respond to because it is a rather broad issue, but which I think is relevant here. In his contribution he laid emphasis on the part that can be played by local authorities in this matter, for example, the contributions towards grants for adaptation of a house and the support that can be given at local government level. I think that that may be changing in a negative way because of the Bill before the other House which will remove a great deal of the possibility of financing at local authority level. Also, because of the abolition of rates there will be much less financial autonomy at local authority level. We will have an opportunity, in this House, of debating the consequences of that legislation for local democracy, local initiative and local authority approaches to a problem like adapting buildings for the physically handicapped and of trying to take special measures at local level. But the fact that this is going to be a development and the fact that there is going to be much less possibility of any financial initiative at local level makes it all the more imperative that the Government does take a much more committed and practical lead than was evident from the Minister's contribution to this debate.

The motion calls for a campaign to be launched by the Government in the interests of physically-handicapped persons and in the interests of people generally in regard to their access to public buildings and to their own homes, shops, offices and places of recreational facilities. There is going to be a greater onus on the Government at central government level to launch this initiative in a financial sense as well as expressing sympathy and issuing Departmental circulars about the matter. In this context also the Minister has paid tribute, and I think rightly, to the voluntary work which has been done and to the voluntary organisations involved in this area. The voluntary organisations would be greatly assisted by some State assistance, whether it be by way of subvention of salaries for the full-time workers or otherwise but certainly concrete measures which would help them in the immense initiative and continuity of work and support which they give to physically-handicapped people. This is another area where it should be possible to give practical assistance.

Regarding the possibility of using the special category of assistance available under the Social Fund, once again, as a country with limited resources, with a limited base from which to make these kinds of changes, we should use to the full the potential of the Social Fund in terms of the possibility of training the physically handicapped and use it in a more creative way through the resources of AnCO and even outside the direct structure of AnCO training courses. These are practical responses that we can make. I think the debate itself is useful. I agree with Senator Brennan and I believe the approach is right. It is an approach to planning of our environment which places people first. Once we start thinking in those terms we have a very long way to go.

Mr. Jago

I only wish to make one comment and it is in the form of a question although I do not expect to get an answer. Listening to some of the contributions made this afternoon, especially that made by Senator Goulding, when she said that a person who had a job failed to be able to take the job because of the means to get to the job, what would be the position, say of a person whose mobility was a wheelchair and who was elected to Seanad Éireann? Whose legal liability would it be to get him into this Chamber? Would it be the responsibility of the authorities here or of the Office of Public Works?

Mr. Lyons

I merely wish to add my voice to that of the other Senators in supporting the motion before the House. I agree with what several of the Senators have said today about our public transport. Many of us have become handicapped temporarily at some time through involvement in motor accidents and we know that to attempt to get into a train or a bus in any kind of a handicapped condition and while using a crutch or a stick is certainly a feat and not one that somebody at the post-athletic age like myself could easily achieve. The technology to deal with this question is there but the money to deal with it is not. When I refer to handicapped people I do not mean wheelchair people alone although the emphasis has been on people in wheelchairs. I was glad that Senator Brennan widened the debate to take in handicapped people of all types. However, I would not go so far as to take in able-bodied children because they are far from being handicapped when it comes to getting into public service vehicles or to climbing an apple tree. Our public buildings, our county council offices, our Government buildings and so on should have easy access facilities. One would need to be quite active to get into the Department of the Public Service, for instance. This is the type of thing that I think the debate should bring home to the Department of the Environment particularly. It should go out to all local authorities throughout the country from the Department of the Environment that in the planning of any public building or in the planning permission being given for a cinema, a dance hall or any place of entertainment that planning permission will not be given unless a ramp or some facility is in that building to allow handicapped people to get in. This is something that should start now, and the lead should be given by the Government. The planning authority have the power to refuse permission for any building or house. At local authority level in Mayo where houses for old people are being built they are being specially designed and built. In a certain number of the houses openings are larger than usual to enable people who use wheelchairs to get in. This is a simple case of the planners having the idea beforehand and telling the local authority, telling the architect and the contractor that this is what they have to do to ensure that handicapped people will be able to get in and out of the building. There is no insurmountable problem here. The Government must take the message that goes out from the Seanad here today. It is time that something concrete was done and done as soon as possible. There are many and varied means of doing this but they have it at their fingers' ends in being able to control things at planning level.

We want to give due credit to all the organisations that have widened and opened the social conscience of this country. Without the organisations that have been doing this the social conscience that we have particularly shown today might not have flowered as it did. These people did it at their own expense. I know people who have dedicated their lives over the past 20 years to doing something for the handicapped. Little by little they have broken through that psychological wall which resulted in such neglect. Let us face the fact that handicap in any family in the past was something that was hidden. It was something that was shoved under the carpet. Nobody was proud of it, particularly psychiatric handicap but also physical. It is only in the last ten or 12 years that the social conscience of this country has been awakened to its responsibilities. I hope this social conscience is going to be awakened more and more and that in the future we will not have the need for such an excellent motion as was put down here today.

Mrs. Honan

I am not involved with the physically handicapped but I have served with the mentally handicapped field for the past 17 years and I agree with what Senator Lyons has just said. It would be a good thing if we took a look at the amount of work that has been done. I support the motion entirely. It is a very good motion. I am not involved in the field of the physically handicapped but I would like to say how much has been done in the mentally handicapped field. It would be a good thing to recognise what we have achieved in the last 20 years and to ask for the future planning to help us.

I attended a seminar of the United Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped last Friday night and I was amazed when a lawyer stood up and said that he had got an appointment with a State outfit and when he underwent his final medical check he was knocked out of the running because he had a particular handicap. That really shook me as a Member of this House and as somebody very committed to the mentally handicapped. It is, of course, something that I will look into. I have not the answer. I do not know why it happened. We are very conscious of what has to be done. I fully support this motion. It was excellent of my two colleagues to bring it into the House today and I thank them.

Professor Murphy

I also want to be associated with the motion. It is too easy for most of us to ignore the plight of our less fortunate brethren in this respect until we see them en masse in wheelchairs on some organised outing and it is brought home to us how great are the problems of logistics in that situation or until we see how well they are provided for in other countries or until we reflect how almost perversely designed many of our public buildings are.

I had a brief look at the book which Lady Goulding mentioned, the guide for the handicapped in Dublin City. Whilst one praises the intention behind the book it is also a rather sad book because so much of the information consists of forewarning the handicapped as to how many steps there are in the National Library or in various other public buildings.

The motion mentions the word "campaign" and, while the Minister's statement is full of sympathy with the terms of the motion, I do not think that it conveys the precise and vigorous response to the actual motion. There is not a suggestion in it of accepting the principle that a campaign is needed. It seems that, since the campaign of the Minister for Health has been so successful and has impinged so much on the public consciousness, the Government might devise some way of having a campaign which would be a corollary to that, raising public consciousness among those who are so fortunate as to be healthy to keep it in the forefront of their minds to make it a matter of public and continuing and constant concern the needs of their less fortunate brethren.

I compliment the humanitarian spirit and public mindedness of Senators Harte and McAuliffe in bringing this matter before the House.

Mr. McAuliffe

Both Senator Harte and I are very pleased with the standard of debate here in connection with this matter. We are very glad that we brought it before the Seanad. It has been greatly enlightening to sit and listen to the contributions that were made by the various Senators.

The people who design new buildings, architects, and so on, should take notice of what was said today. In my own county the planning authority is very much involved in all public buildings, schools, churches and so on. The first thing they try to eliminate are steps because it is impossible for a person in a wheelchair to negotiate steps. I have referred to people in wheelchairs but I really mean all disabled people.

There may be people who have MS and are not using a wheelchair; they may be using a walking aid or crutches or a stick; there are people who have Parkinson's disease or arthritis. These people seldom use wheelchairs; they stay out of them as long as they can because the last thing a person wants to do is to go into a wheelchair. He feels down and out the day he has to use a wheelchair. There are also people with spinal diseases, and these too are among the handicapped people.

We have the old people as well and the young married mothers with young children who have to be brought about in prams. Here is where the local authority should pay great attention to their footpaths. I was in a town a few days ago in the west and at every gateway the yards at the back were much lower than the street. There were three steps down to the gateway and three more up. People coming along with prams had to go out in the street, and the streets were narrow with cars parked all along and it was a hazard to go along these streets. It is surprising the number of towns where one finds steps on the public street.

We have our own House here; the new part was not in use when I came into this House. There was no consideration given there to the handicapped. One would want to be an acrobat to go from the front door to the restaurant. I would like to say that the staff here have been wonderful when any handicapped person has come into the House. They have played a great part in looking after them. But the extraordinary thing about the handicapped is that they really do not want to be helped. They resent it. If there was a ramp there, even if it was fairly steep, they would prefer to try that on their own sooner than be hoisted up a few steps. I have seen this. I have reason to know it. There are very few families who have not someone who is handicapped.

I do not think the figures the Minister gave us today are exact because if we include all the handicapped it would work out at one person in every five.

I was disappointed, too, with the regional colleges. They are all built in similar style, that is, a ground floor and a first floor. Nowadays more adults than third-level students attend regional colleges. I would estimate the proportion at two to one. There are handicapped people included in this number and the rooms in these colleges are about 12 feet high so that one must negotiate two flights of stairs in order to get to the first floor. In every such college or school there should be a lift and it was a grave omission not to include lifts. Quite a number of the buildings housing schools are being extended at present or are about to be extended and the Department would be well advised to ensure that lifts are installed in such extensions, as they can very easily be installed when a building is extended.

I do not wish to say any more except how pleased we are with the reception our motion got. I would also remind the Minister that this is a campaign and sympathy is not enough. I would like the Minister to ensure that enough money is made available for the improvement of facilities for the handicapped.

Mr. Governey

I will be very brief. I would first like to take this opportunity of thanking Senators Harte and McAuliffe for putting down this motion for discussion here in this House. It is a motion which deserves the support of every Member of the Seanad. It is not a political motion. I fully support their views.

Very recently at a meeting, not in this chamber but elsewhere, I made a statement that in anything that involves the health services or people's suffering as a result of any handicap I would never count the cost. I hope, and I gathered from the debate here, that the Members of Seanad Éireann are of the same view in this regard. I am glad to see that the Government have given a lead here by installing a ramp at the entrance to Leinster House recently in order to facilitate the physically handicapped.

Senator McAuliffe said, and rightly, that these are not people that ask anything from the community. Even though they have a disability they fight it and they like to be independent. I am sure that they do not want any sympathy from us as public representatives either at local level or here in the Houses of the Oireachtas but certainly my sympathies lie with them and anything that can be done should be done to help them in this regard.

In passing I would say—and I hope I am in order in saying it—that the motion mentions that there should be a campaign launched by the Government. Whilst not speaking politically—and I have covered that by referring to the fact that in anything to do with the health services we never count the cost—the Department of Health have successfully launched an anti-smoking campaign. Unfortunately I am one of the people who took no heed of it; I would probably be better able to stand behind the microphone and speak here if I did not smoke. But I would ask the Minister for the Environment to launch a very strong campaign in support of the resolution that was put down here today by the two Senators who have, I am sure, the best intentions in the world and every Member of the Seanad is behind them in their action. I would hope that the fact of our voices being raised here in the Seanad will be taken note of by the Minister for the Environment and that that campaign will be launched.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. J. O'Leary)

I ask the indulgence of the Members of the Seanad to be allowed to speak on the motion again.

Personally I was very impressed by the contributions from both sides of the House. It is my intention to bring to the notice of my colleague, the Minister of State in charge of the Office of Public Works, the case made by the Senators for proper access to all State offices and other public buildings. I intend also, as a result of the debate, to circularise again local authorities and request them to make their own offices, libraries and public buildings accessible to physically handicapped persons and to use their powers as planning authorities to see that the plans and designs of places of public resort are similarly accessible.

Mr. Harte

First of all I would like to thank Senator Eoin Ryan for his liberal allocation of time for the discussion of motions put down by the Opposition. It is a little bit more than a concession and it would be unfair of me if I did not say that this motion was received much more readily here than it was in the other House. I also want to thank all of the Senators who contributed.

Possibly when putting down the motion I was a little naive in trying to confine it to specifics. Possibly I was carried away by the fact that I treated it as though I were acting as chairman of a trade union meeting ready to rule somebody out of order if he went slightly astray. But I am delighted to have been wrong because it has given scope to the Seanad as a whole to broaden the issue and in some respects the Minister's reply facilitated this. It might well be that if we did not tie down the debate we might start taking issue with one another, but as it is I am delighted with the way the debate developed. It is a very healthy sign and there is no question but that things are going to happen from here and the latest statement from the Minister that he will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of State in charge of the Office of Public Works is very encouraging indeed. The Minister also referred to the draft regulations and made them available. He also, in reply to a question, said that he expected developments in this direction in 1979 and that is quite satisfactory from my point of view.

In view also of the general urgency in this debate I would ask the Minister if he could place more emphasis on the urgency of this matter, not in the sense of replying to it or making some statement today, but in the sense of bringing it to the attention of the Department and of conveying to the Department that there was no area of disagreement at all in regard to the principle of providing easy access to public buildings. If that were done we will have done a most satisfactory day's work here in this Seanad.

I think the Minister laid too much emphasis on dealing with the structure of new buildings. I would ask him to emphasise the urgency of doing something about the existing buildings rather than the planning of new structures.

This debate has been a very worthwhile exercise. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to thank Senator Goulding for her contribution even though I may not have seen eye to eye with her totally. The intent was completely correct and she was completely in sympathy with the motion except that she appeared to think I was saying that nothing was being done for the physically handicapped. I would like to assure her that I do realise and I take the Minister's word for this, that a great deal has been done, but in this area we could do a lot more and it should be done with a great deal of urgency.

Members of the House may wonder why I did not broaden the debate. If I had I might not have spoken only about the question of easy access to buildings; I might also have made a lot of comments about how physically handicapped people get out of a building if there is a fire. There are many areas that need to be covered, but I am very satisfied with progress to date.

I thank the Leader of the House for making available the time to discuss motions of this nature and I hope this plan continues. Since we are largely in agreement it would be superfluous of me to go over the whole ground again and delay the Seanad, and since it has been agreed to take the Report Stage of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill at 7 o'clock I would like to reciprocate the generosity of the Leader of the House by sitting down at this time.

Question put and agreed to.