Mr. Robbie Sinnott:

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus leis na comhaltaí as an gcuireadh a bheith anseo. I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to present today. I sent in a short statement but given my impairment it is not something I am going to be able to read out loud. All I can say is I will use my notes from my phone and try to riff on the themes.

Voice of Vision Impairment was founded in July 2019 to specifically be a DPO space because we had read in November 2018 of the possibility of there being a DPO. Many of us had been in the activist space prior to this and had achieved some notable victories. However, the idea the UN committee itself and the UNCRPD gave priority status to DPOs over the service providers, allied groups, etc., that had been jumping in and speaking for us all those years, put a duty on us to step into that space. We stepped up to the plate. We fulfilled our part of the bargain. We performed our civic duty to occupy that space not just because we were entitled to but because it is our gift to society to contribute to an equal society. It is not a selfish act. We are a collective. It is collective agency. In VVI we prioritise the experiences of those who are most disabled. I mean those who are least resourced, etc. For want of a better term, many of us use the phrase "lowest common denominator". We are looking at those with the least resources. Very often, those perspectives are lost when you are dealing with individual disabled advocates or dealing service providers, etc. It is about the voices members do not hear at the committee, or at their constituencies or in their constituency meetings in their offices. They are the ones who most need to be listened to and the ones we prioritise.

We have a disadvantage in that most of us have difficulty using social media and so we do not have much of a social media presence, unfortunately. We, therefore, rely mainly on visually-impaired network lists, etc., to spread the word and try to get as many visually-impaired people in the country to join us. You might look at it like a trade union. We are representative in the way a trade union is. People have the opportunity to join, it is open and all visually-impaired people are welcome and their voices are equal. We currently have 13 representatives throughout the country who have read our constitution and formulate our policies, etc. We punch above our weight in that there is much enthusiasm and excellent work done by our representatives who are all completely unpaid because it is all completely voluntary. All our members are blind or partially-sighted. We do it through strategic policy committees representing public participation networks, PPNs, for instance. We are also involved in local authority housing steering groups. It is hard for me to remember all the stuff off the top of my head but by going through each of our representatives I can say something. Last week we had a person join an Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, consultative committee for its research on disability. We have people engaged with the HSE on very specialised committees on screening, etc. We are also on disability user groups. We have a very strong presence on public transport providers, etc. This is all done by unpaid representatives. We report back to our representatives as a core and update our members regularly as to what is going on. Everybody has an opportunity to input.

I will move on to my next point. Our core issues are travel and information. By information, I mean that most State documents and even most stuff up on gov.ie are not accessible to visually-impaired people who use screen readers. On travel, we need real input into the absolutely disablist long-term travel plans for most local authorities, which appear to be endorsed by the State. It is more costly if we have to stay at home because it is just too dangerous to step outside. On DPOs and the UNCRPD, Article 4.3, say states parties:".... shall closely consult with and actively involve [disabled people, as that is the term we are using] ... through their representative organizations". That is the key part.

The point is that there is consistency and coherency. One does not have to keep reinventing the wheel or depend on one person's experiences. We can prioritise those who are most disabled or who have the least resources and put it into a framework so that we establish our positions, rather than each Department or committee doing independent research. It is notoriously difficult for companies such as Behaviour & Attitudes or RedC to find blind people. They can only operate through finding a friend of a friend. It is not good enough. There is a chance here for a coherent voice.

As Mr. Kavanagh said earlier, the only representative organisations are DPOs. That is currently in the National Disability Authority's paper on language, as well as the legal opinion, and agreed with by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. The DPOs are key to the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 4.3 is part of general obligations and general comment 7 explains this in paragraph 3. This means that there is no implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities without the prioritisation of DPOs in consultations. Everything has to begin with co-design through DPOs. They have to be distinguished. One would not put trade unions in the same room as employers unless they are having a dispute, bargaining resolution or something like that. Regarding the idea of ticking a box and putting all disability organisations, DPOs, and service providers in the same group, we often see service providers as being part of the problem.

Accountability is needed. If matters that should be rights are to be outsourced to charities, there at least needs to be proper accountability and transparency. That is a key role that DPOs can and should provide. We do not use "sector" but the disability sector does, because it is an industry. Too often, charities in it are treated as if they are a mix between Luke O'Neill and Mother Teresa, as if saying that they are experts but also that they are very good, too. It is all well-meaning, but the UNCRPD points to a new way.

A clear majority in a DPO has to be disabled people. It has to be led, run and directed by disabled people exclusively, not just by a clear majority. It has to be an organisation that has been set up specifically to defend human rights. It is not just a little bit of the purpose, but the main purpose of the organisation. There is more, which can all be read in general comment 7. Those are the main conditions. DPOs should be distinguished from service providers under paragraph 13. Ireland needs a register of DPOs, which does not exist at present. Many local authorities do not even know what a DPO is, which is due to the lack of leadership shown by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, which is the key Department. It should produce memos to let people know about DPOs and to prioritise them.

DPOs need to be registered. We need core institutional funding, as mentioned by previous speakers, which is also covered in general comment 7. Legislation is required to protect DPOs in several ways. Our oxygen is being sucked up by some service providers, which are setting up would-be DPOs that are really under the control of the service provider. That disempowers disabled people. It is only through DPOs that they are empowered by the UNCRPD. We do not have the resources, given that we have no income, to compete with charities that get millions to do their glossy magazines, presentations and so on, or to do things as regularly, because we are run not even on a shoestring budget, but with none at all. It is just voluntary work. Ultimately, the projects that do not involve DPOs need to be sanctioned as a result, which is laid out in general comment 7. This is not reinventing the wheel. We ratified this.

A massive cultural shift is needed in the State to overturn the idea that representative organisations are DPOs. Non-DPOs have taken on the mantle of being representative organisations. This has been shown in documents from this committee from July 2021. We engaged with it on that matter. It happened during the setting up of the Disability Participation and Consultation Network. Disabled persons organisations and representative organisations were included. Instead of being synonymous, with DPOs being the only representative organisations, this differentiated DPOs from representative organisations. This happened as early as March 2020, in the national disability inclusion strategy review done by the Department of Justice. This misconception is ingrained and a cultural shift needs to happen. It does not matter if a charity or service provider is led by a disabled person. It is still not a DPO under the conditions required to be a DPO. Generally speaking, a service provider cannot be a DPO. There are very rare exceptions, which I suspect would only happen in the case of persons with intellectual disabilities.

Rather than defining DPOs out of having a representative role, much balance needs to be redressed and lost ground needs to be made up for. Much is happening right now. The National Disability Authority was set up in 1999. That subsumed many functions given to DPOs, such as advice to the State, which is embodied in the National Disability Authority. That needs to be looked at. We also have the disability steering group. Only a tiny minority of representation on that is from DPOs. The disability consultative committees in various Departments involve hardly any DPOs in their own right. The Oireachtas disability group involves hardly any, or no, DPOs. All of this needs to be reversed.

We have given many examples. The most significant issue is the implementation plan for the UNCRPD. It is astounding that we have not even been approached about that core topic. Instead, the National Disability Authority and disability steering group have been approached. It is no wonder that Article 4.3 does not feature at all in the State's report on the UNCRPD. The core basis of the UNCRPD and of DPOs is missing. Without that cornerstone, there cannot be any meaningful implementation of the UNCRPD.