Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

The 3% employment quota has been in place on an administrative basis for many years. I would be the first to acknowledge that there has been considerable variation in the performance of various Departments and public bodies regarding the target. It has received specific attention in a number of the national wages agreements. Sustaining Progress captures the essential point in that it refers to the target as having a key role in creating employment opportunities for those with disabilities that might not otherwise be available.

In Part 5, careful attention was paid to the views of social partners and those in public bodies who have direct experience of operating the present arrangements. Amendment No. 28 would require the Minister to lay a report before the Oireachtas, as soon as may be after the passing of the Bill, on the possibility of increasing the public service target employment level above the current 3%.

I noted the concern Senators expressed on Committee Stage that there should be an impetus for continuing improvement beyond the 3% target. I shared this view. Senators may have overlooked some of the key provisions in this regard which were already contained in Part 5, specifically in sections 47, 49 and 50. Section 47(4) gives statutory effect to the 3% target on a baseline requirement, meaning the target must be at least 3%. This is not to say Departments cannot exceed it. They are encouraged to do so.

Section 47(3) allows the Minister to set compliance targets for recruitment as well as employment levels and related matters. The measures include special recruitment competitions and the filling of specialist categories of vacancies. Provision was also included by a Dáil amendment for work experience placements. I emphasise that the 3% target is a baseline. It will put the onus on Departments to give opportunities for training and work experience to people with disabilities. I was anxious to raise the 3% quota but recognised the practical difficulties associated with doing so and then agreed we should proceed on the basis of providing the extra training and work experience places.

Section 47 provides for a much broader range of measures than the existing target. Of particular importance is the emphasis on recruitment, which has been identified as a key element in demonstrating continued commitment by public bodies to employing people with disabilities. The approach is based on the existence of monitoring the present arrangements, including important input from the social partners. I note such a report is not a feature of the proposed amendment.

Section 49 refers to the enforcement of compliance targets. Each Minister, in co-operation with the NDA, will have responsibility for monitoring his or her sector of the public service. Public bodies will be specifically obliged to implement compliance measures specified by the NDA under section 49(2).

Section 50 covers the very important overall reporting procedures. These allow the NDA to report on all aspects of compliance, including the numbers employed. It will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in such a way that, if necessary, bodies that are not fulfilling their obligations can be publicly identified. The approach is similar to the Ombudsman procedures which operate so effectively in other areas.

The report by the NDA can cover all issues regarding the 3% target. It will be an annual report, therefore, monitoring the performance of various Departments will be constant. It is clear that Part 5 generally expands the range of measures to support employment of people with disabilities beyond the present 3% target arrangements. It is the product of experience and of the input of relevant stakeholders including the social partners. Overall monitoring through the NDA will facilitate ongoing review of progress and will allow for a much more comprehensive approach than that proposed in the amendment. That is the important point, that the Bill provides for an ongoing review procedure, whereas the amendment calls for a once-off report. It would considerably narrow the focus of Part 5 and reduce the impetus of future positive actions. Therefore I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I wish to refer to the question put by Senator O'Rourke on Committee Stage regarding the actual percentages. While there is a significant number of bodies which have not yet reached the 3% target——