asked the Minister for Labour the proposals, if any, to amend legislation on the employment of handicapped workers; if he is aware of legislation in six of the nine EEC countries obliging employers to take on such handicapped workers and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In my area of responsibility there is no legislation in force in regard to the employment of handicapped workers, and accordingly the question of reform of legislation does not arise. However, the Government have established a non-statutory scheme for the employment of a quota of disabled persons in the public sector. The target set is a quota of 3 per cent to be achieved over a period of five years. The introduction of this scheme followed consideration over a number of years of proposals for legislation to require all employers, both public and private, to employ a quota of disabled persons. However there was general opposition, especially from the voluntary organisations working in this field, to the idea of a compulsory scheme.

I am aware that a number of EEC countries have legislation requiring employers to take on a proportion of certain categories of disabled persons. It is not clear, however, that there is general satisfaction with these compulsory schemes. For example, I am informed that the British authorities are not satisfied with the operation of their present quota scheme and that a complete review is at present in progress including an investigation of possible alternatives to a quota system.

May we then anticipate that the Department will vigorously pursue the employment of people who have suffered this kind of handicap, at least to the degree of 3 per cent? When will this be commenced and what sort of plans has the Minister in that regard?

The Deputy will remember that the target was set for a 3 per cent quota by 1983. I have no reason to believe that the target will not be met. I share the Deputy's concern, and I am looking at possible ways to encourage private industry to help out rather than to force them by legislation.

I would draw the Minister's attention to the need for access to buildings. The Minister for the Environment might make that a requirement in future planning.

That is a separate question.

I just want to draw the Minister's attention to it.

As it is a matter of some importance I would ask the Chair's permission to refer to it.

We cannot encourage this.

I agree entirely with the Deputy's point. As the Deputy is aware, certain steps have been taken in regard to all Government and semi-State buildings. We can encourage private industry and others to help out as well.

The Minister has started implementing the programmes in his Department?

The position is that we set a target of 3 per cent by 1983 and an inter-Departmental committee is at work in co-operation with the NRB who have reported to them.

Can I interpret that that as of today there need not necessarily be and probably is not one person in this category employed in any Department, because the Minister is waiting for the results of yet another study?

That is not true, people are employed.

Arising from the programme we are talking about?

No, this is an extension. The programme is the setting of a target by a specific date.

But what about implementing it?

The preparations are done. The Deputy should be more aware of what is happening here.

The Minister is playing a game of semantics.

The Deputy is not correct in thinking that.