Dr. Robert Sinnott:

A Chathaoirligh agus a dhaoine uaisle, táim an-bhuíoch as a bheith anseo le cúrsaí a phlé ó thaobh DPOs de agus ar son m’eagras féin, Glór na nDall. I thank the committee. It is great to be here today representing my DPO, Voice of Vision Impairment.

I just got my doctorate last year in Irish. I would love to be able to pursue that as a career. In Australia, I would be able to because there would be funding for me to be able to access the archives. I am good at what I do. I am the head of my field, which is dialectology in Irish, but that has become totally closed to me. I do not want to be a professional disabled person, and I do not think anybody here does either. That is not what we are. We are people, first and foremost. Disability is not an identity for us. Disability is caused by the barriers that were put in front of us. My disability, in terms of accessing the material I should be using professionally for teaching, etc., is not intrinsic to me. It is caused by the system and by the lack of resources.

I also have to ask the committee’s indulgence because after four years, our organisation has received zero funding or support from the State, not only with regard to resources but also being generally ignored. We spend lots of time working on submissions and very detailed policies and we find that at best, they are aggregated along with thousands of others. That means the State is the arbiter. Maybe a Department will decide it likes the cut of the jib of one of these things and will reject what the DPOs say. That is not how it works.

It appears the State has not read what it ratified in Article 4.3 and general comment 7. Article 4.3 is the only part of the UNCRPD dealing with consultation. That is all about DPOs and that is explained in general comment 7. It makes no bones about it, as Ms Madani has just said. The only representative organisations in terms of disability are DPOs, or as the UNCRPD calls them, organisations of people with disabilities. Do not take my word for it. The UN committee has said this. In part A of general comment 7 is handily titled for everybody’s benefit, "Definition of 'representative organizations'". How clear can you get? These are organisations of people with disabilities. These are not disability service providers. These are not the usual ones, or what we all know as the legacy groups or the brand names for disability.

The reason I asked the committee's indulgence is because I do not have a Braille note-taker, for instance, to handily read the speech I sent here today. I have to use my mobile phone to read over various notes I have taken so that hopefully, I can sort of emulate it, which again is not fair. This is an example of the lack of resourcing and funding here. That is why I beg the committee’s indulgence. There may be gaps while I have to listen to what my notes say, especially when it comes to quotes from the UNCRPD etc.

It is great to hear the Australian DPO representative. It is fantastic to know we have other brethren and that things are working out better in other parts of the world. It could not be any worse than it is in Ireland in terms of DPOs. People do not get that DPOs are at the heart, as Ms Madani said with regard to general comment 7.1, of the UNCRPD.

The UNCRPD is the basis for everything we do in Ireland. This is not an abstract concept. Everything is laid out in general comment 7. It appears that most of those in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth – what a lovely name; it could be called the Department of Diversity, for instance - have not even read general comment 7. That Department is waiting for another arm of the State, the National Disability Authority, NDA, which is not run or led by disabled people or anything remotely like that. It is waiting on the NDA to get back to the State about its UNCRPD implementation strategy and in the meantime, there is absolutely nothing. The NDA is an arm of the State that is used to keep DPOs at arm’s length.

The Departments go to the NDA and see it as being the experts because it is the authority. Let us be clear about this, however; the NDA is based on legislation from the 1990s, prior to the CRPD. It is antediluvian in terms of our rights. I am not casting any aspersions on the excellent job people working for the NDA do or the great intentions they have but the system is all wrong. Some of them appeared at this committee around a month ago.

We each have five minutes to speak. It is déjà vuin terms of things not happening. The County and City Management Association, CCMA, attended this committee in November 2022 and the devil knows what it was doing. There was loads of stuff in terms of consultation on disability but not one mention of Article 4.3. Without Article 4.3, nothing is being done under the CRPD. Members have to remember when they ask people what consultation they are doing on disability that if Article 4.3, that is, DPOs, is not central to any such consultation, it is not consultation and it is not in line with the CRPD. DPOs are at the centre and must be distinguished from other civil society organisations under paragraph 13 of general comment 7. The views and opinions of DPOs have to be prioritised over all other civil society organisations, including civil service providers and the traditional brand names in disability. That is in paragraphs 13, 14, 23, 49 and 56; it is all over the place.

This is extremely important because DPOs need our own space in all consultations with the State. Whether it is with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth or any other Department, we need our own space because we do not need or want non-DPOs looking over our shoulders. With the Department, it is a case of the "Does he take sugar with his tea?" syndrome. It is like it is looking over our shoulders at the real people instead of talking to us directly.

We are under-resourced. DPOs need to have our rights incorporated into law, as stated throughout general comment 7. To give an example, under paragraphs 65 and 66, DPOs need to be able to take class actions and be able to disability-proof all legislation. I will give some examples. Hate speech legislation passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas and everyone clapped themselves on the back. However, there was no consultation with DPOs. We sent an observation but it was lost and we did not even get a response. That was approximately two years ago. We also had the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Act 2022 under which Ireland was supposed to be getting ready to ratify the optional protocol. There was no consultation with DPOs. What is that about? This is shameful. E-scooter legislation is before the Houses. It is on its last legs. I have been knocked down by people riding bicycles on pavements four times in the last 20 years. That Bill deals with dangerous stuff but again there was no consultation with DPOs. The large charities issued a press release but this comes down to our disability-proofing rights. This is important. Paragraphs 65 and 66 of general comment 7 state that if a proposal is not properly disability-proofed, it cannot go through and must be revisited. That is universal design and needs to be put into law.

The Planning Act that is before the Houses. This is very important legislation. The last planning Act was introduced in 2000. In addition to an environmental impact statement, which is required under European law, there needs to be an accessibility statement in consultation with DPOs. If the State does not provide one as part of any aspect of the planning process, for example, in the area of active travel, it cannot go through. This is what the CRPD says. It is not just me saying it.

I will mention low-hanging fruit that can be picked in two areas now. The first is the need to establish a register of DPOs. There are 650 quangos out there. We cannot approach them all. We do not have the time. They need to approach us and read our policies. They need to do that and we need to be supported in that. Everybody runs for cover when it comes to a register of DPOs. The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, say it is not their business.

Second, as part of the awareness-raising obligations on the State under Article 8, as clarified under paragraphs 14, 52 and 76 in general comment 7, a memo needs to be sent out to all disability service providers telling them they need to consult closely with DPOs if they want to do any advocating on behalf of the CRPD, rather than undermining us, as many of them do with their faux advocacy organisations, in siphoning off out members. That is paragraph 52 again. Those organisations should be sanctioned for doing that.

I will finish now. I would have been much quicker if I could have read my notes properly and if I had been properly resourced. I apologise again for that. On that point, under paragraphs 52 and 76 as regards awareness raising, the State needs to let every single public body know that DPOs must be prioritised in all consultations in order to disability-proof them. That is not happening. DPOs have stepped up to the plate to fulfil Article 4.3. The State has not reciprocated. We are being totally shafted and it is absolutely ridiculous. It is four years on now and I have a feeling we will be here again in four years' time doing the same again. I hope at least the UN committee will say we are right.