Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

A public body is defined in section 2(1) in line with the Bill's focus on the provision of access for specialist and mainstream public services. It covers a broad range of bodies in the public service.

As I stated last week, the Bill places significant obligations on those bodies under Part 3 in respect of accessible buildings and services and under Part 5 in respect of employment of people with disabilities. If the obligations were extended to voluntary and private bodies it would, for example, involve cinemas and shops being obliged to retrofit their premises over the next ten years. Sports centres would be obliged to present all their literature in an accessible form, irrespective of the cost and organisations such as the National Women's Council of Ireland, which is in receipt of State support, would be obliged to ensure that any service purchased was disability-accessible.

Part 5 of the Bill establishes a statutory basis for the 3% employment target. This would be broadened to include the whole economy, including employment by contractors in publicly-funded road or building projects. We had a significant discussion in this House on Committee Stage on the need to change attitudes and mindsets, particularly in the public service. I agree and this Bill will be a significant catalyst for such a change. However, it will also help establish our public service providers as models of good practice. Over time, this will be reflected in the services provided by the private sector.

I am satisfied that the definition of "public body" reflects the focus of the Bill and I do not propose to accept these amendments. I accept the spirit and thrust of the argument in favour of extension, but as Members on the Government side have noted, it would provide an onus which could be counterproductive. There is already an onus under the equality legislation on all organisations to provide accessibility to which there has been quite a good response. However, given that we will now place significant obligations on the public sector, it will act as a role model for the private sector and I assure the House that pressure will continue to be placed on the private sector to have the provision of disability accessibility in all respects at the top of its agenda. I re-examined this issue but felt it would be counterproductive to impose this obligation on private sector organisations which may not be able to carry the burden.