Mr. Ger Deering:

There should definitely be some kind of individual mechanism. We should not forget that the vast majority of these people, by virtue of finding themselves in this situation, will be interacting with the medical system, and probably at a very sophisticated level. They will most likely be dealing with consultants and other people well capable of certifying their need in this respect. Whether that could reach to the GP level is another matter. An entirely different assessment system, however, is required to decide people's level of mobility. There are systems and trusted measures of people's mobility that can be deployed more successfully than what we have now.

Moving to the point about linking to employment, it is fantastic that people can be in meaningful employment and have transport. They need it for that context. Transport, though, should not be linked to employment, because people are entitled to participate fully in society, whether that entails visiting relatives, working, volunteering or going for medical appointments. The concept of there having to be almost some kind of economic benefit accruing from providing or assisting people with their mobility needs is an outdated one.

Turning to Senator Higgins's broader question on the human rights-based approach, the UNCRPD should, of course, look at the needs of the individual. We operate on a human rights-based approach in our office in respect of examining how people have been dealt with by public bodies. This is something we want to roll out more to public bodies. In turn, then, we want to be asking them if they have considered particular issues in light of the UNCRPD and whether they took a human rights-based approach to how they dealt with an individual and made a decision. I refer to this issue across the board and not just in the context of this scheme. The question to be asked is if an individual and human rights-based approach is being taken. I acknowledge that very often people in the public sector want or need rules surrounding everything. Officials can sometimes experience disadvantage or negative comment when they apply their discretion, and perhaps apply it in a humane way. Therefore, we must build into these schemes some level of discretion which officials can exercise when they are adhering to human rights-based principles and looking at individual's circumstances.

There is a little bit of competition or contention between the concept of looking at the individual and then designing some sort of universal scheme. I have heard people use the expression that "we like to have the harp on something" to make things easier. It is used to mean that people want something official and they want a document. If we take this scheme, one of the reasons it does not work is that it involves ticking boxes. That is no way to assess whether a person is mobile. Therefore, I very much agree that we need to take a human rights-based approach and an individual-based one. I acknowledge as well that there are challenges to be faced in doing that, but there are also methods by which people's mobility can be measured.

On the subject of electric cars, I agree. I do not know why this topic has not featured in this discussion. Sometimes I think the argument from an environmental point of view was made from the perspective that people should be using public transport. If other methods of transport are available to people that complement the environment, however, then we should be encouraging them. I am no expert on electric cars or cars and vehicles generally, but if the argument is that there are better vehicles than a standard petrol- or diesel-fuelled car, then that aspect can be taken into account in the context of any scheme and funding made available.