Dr. Robert Sinnott:

We should not have to be arguing the point about disability proofing. It has economic significance in that it saves money. Most of us here hope to live well into our 80s. We want a country and an environment that is accessible to us all. Pedestrianisation of cities is an idea that is popular right now. However, a person who is 85 years of age and cannot walk from one side of the city to the other needs transport, whether public transport or a vehicle with a blue badge. A pedestrianised city is no good to such a person. Everything is designed with non-disabled people and a perfect idea of humanity in mind. It is just not fair. Disability proofing would save on all that. The planning legislation that is going through the Oireachtas right now must include disability proofing and disability impact assessment, as Mr. Kavanagh suggested. That is absolutely critical. It will be another 25 years ago before the next planning Act is introduced.

Many specific issues have been raised today. DPOs should be engaged with by the housing committee when relevant issues are discussed. DPOs should be at the heart of discussions on employment issues. There is a lot of detail involved. This meeting is designed to engage with DPOs on the implementation of Article 4(3) of the CRPD. I respectfully suggest that if we do not get the bigger issue of DPO involvement right, which is what we are here to talk about, nothing else is going to work. We will be going around in circles for years to come. It is about consulting DPOs.

Core institutional funding is required under general comment No. 7 of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. On this issue, I would not have any faith in the Ombudsman. Our members have been going to the current Ombudsman. His view, as the National Disability Association, NDA, expressed to this committee a month ago, is that people do not go to the Ombudsman any more in respect of the Disability Act. It is no wonder. The previous Ombudsman told me in 2014 that, since 2005, the office had not come down in favour of any complaint submitted under the Act. The Office of the Ombudsman is not strong enough to adjudicate on these issues. I like the Australian model of a commission that actually has teeth. The Ombudsman has no teeth. The office just puts the cats laughing.

On the question of running an organisation, it is important to note that the New Zealand model was drawn up in 2014. I respectfully point out that general comment No. 7 was written in the meantime. It is all there. General comment No. 7 is our reference point and our North Star. It is absolutely a massive improvement on what is in place in New Zealand. If I were co-ordinating a residents' association, all our members would be able to read material in accessible formats by default and we would be able to set up the meetings and all the rest very handily throughout the country. However, all our members are visually impaired and have other disabilities, impairments or conditions as well. It is much more difficult to set up and run an organisation when it is run for and by disabled people.

However, we are playing to our strengths. We have put amazing policies online. For example, we have a manual of accessible planning for pedestrians, which any local authority can consult. It was not mentioned by the County and City Management Association, CCMA, representatives when they appeared before the committee. We have a manual on accessible communications, VVI MAC, on our website. It is very detailed and of world-class standard. It is based on the experiences of all our members. We support those with the fewest resources. Those are the views we prioritise. It is the difference between asking 1,000 individuals and asking a representative organisation. That is what we do. We distil all this stuff into a policy people can consult. However, that resource has been totally and flatly ignored. That is not even a capacity problem; it is a just-ignoring-us problem.