Dr. Emer Begley:

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today. I am joined by my colleague Charlotte Olhausen, who is the Disability Federation of Ireland's policy and advocacy officer. The Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, is a civil society and pan-disability federation of over 100 organisations that work at national, regional and local level.

The extent, implications and impact of the rapid advancements in AI are still being understood. We met recently with our members and heard about AI's potential benefits for the disability community, including levelling the playing field for inclusive education and employment and supporting independent living. Voice detection technology and geographically accessible maps for wheelchair users were identified as positive advancements. Other forms of AI have the potential to support greater efficiencies and reduced costs for voluntary organisations.

However, the rapid evolution of AI also has the potential to leave people behind and put people at risk. If these significant risks are not understood and corrected, they will create new and additional structural barriers promoting discrimination and deepening existing inequalities and disability exclusion. AI should serve as a tool to empower people to live independent lives on an equal basis with others.

The EU AI Act aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, to which Ireland is a state party. Any national policies, legislation or leadership Ireland shows in the life cycle of AI-enabled systems must be framed around the protection of the fundamental rights of all people in Ireland, including those enshrined in the convention. Members of the DFI have questions and concerns about the use of AI-enabled systems and their applications, such as those systems trained on biased data sets that fail to take account of the breadth and diversity in our population. The EU AI Act lists several high-risk AI systems across employment, education, healthcare, housing and financial applications. The associated risks are exacerbated by the lack of data to inform the evidence base. In employment and recruitment, for example, AI poses the risk of worsening Ireland's disability employment gap, which is one of the highest in the EU at 38.2% compared with the EU average of 24%. The right to equality and non-discrimination as per the UNCRPD requires countries to abolish all forms of disability-based discrimination, ensuring provisions for reasonable accommodations and equal and effective protections for disabled people. The EU AI Act obliges member states to conduct fundamental rights audits in partnership with disabled people on AI systems to assess their inclusivity.

In a rush to embrace AI, the Government must not forget that it is bound by public sector duty. Any new policies or actions must be considered in this light.

The EU AI Act also aligns with the principles of universal design. Our colleagues from the NDA will speak more eloquently to that, I am sure. The prioritisation of AI co-creation with disabled people in the development processes will support Ireland's fulfilment of its obligations under Article 16 of the convention. DFI welcomes the step to establish a national AI office by August 2026. We recommend prioritising disability within this office to ensure the disability perspective is mainstreamed in all national AI development.

Affordability was a key concern for our members when we spoke to them. We heard of the expense of AI innovations which support independent living. To ensure equal benefit and access, AI systems must be affordable and the financial burden not placed on individuals. This is particularly important considering the extra cost of disability. The ESRI earlier this year estimated that households where there is a disabled person have between €488 and €555 in additional costs per week, with lower average incomes and higher average expenditure experienced by disabled households compared with others.

Knowledge of AI systems and their applications are also a key concern on how data is used and collected and the implications of its use. A response to this is a focus on AI literacy. Accessible training on AI must be prioritised to enhance digital skills for disabled people and the disability community and mitigate the risk of furthering their digital exclusion, as well as to enhance informed decision-making and the ability to undertake personal risk-benefit analyses.

Intersectionality was also a key concern. The Government has a duty to regulate companies, especially when it comes to developing AI. All actions related to its development, including codes of conduct, must embed intersectionality as a core guiding principle. The multiple and intersecting identities of minority groups most at risk of AI bias and discrimination are protected. For example, disability- and gender-inclusive data should be integrated into AI development and regulatory safeguards established to prevent algorithmic discrimination.

DFI is a civil society organisation and we note the large energy demands for training and running machines and for the disposal of specialist hardware used in AI. While AI can also be used to combat climate change, its growing carbon footprint raises significant sustainability concerns which should be considered alongside its social implications.

While AI has the potential to support independent living, participation and active citizenship for the disability community, it is only if the inherent biases of AI systems are identified and corrected; if the diversity of lived experience of disability is acknowledged and addressed, with a primary focus on co-design and co-creation; if the cost burden of AI systems and enabled technologies do not fall on individuals; and if there are strong regulatory systems in place, with accessible and freely available information on AI to increase awareness and understanding.

I thank the committee members for their time this morning. We will be happy to answer questions.