Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Deputies Cairns and Michael Moynihan and Senators O’Loughlin and Seery Kearney.

The purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss disabled people’s organisations, DPOs, and the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to: Frances Quan Farrant, disability and human rights advocate; Peter Gohery, national chairperson, and Leo Kavanagh, member, from Physical Impairment Ireland; Maryam Madani, chair and founder, and Peadar O’Dea, policy officer, from Disability Power Ireland; Dr. Robert Sinnott, co-ordinator of Voice of Vision Impairment; and Dr. James Casey, John Sherwin and Joe McGrath of the DPO Network. Mr. McGrath is joining us remotely.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege and address some housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams to they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making their contribution.

I call Ms Frances Quan Farrant to make her opening statement.

Ms Frances Quan Farrant:

I am honoured to be given the opportunity to speak with members. I bring greetings from Australia, which is located on unceded First Nations land. Where I live is the home of the Kabi Kabi peoples of Southeast Queensland. My Irish ancestors from Kilkenny, Cork, Tyrone and Dublin would be immensely proud to know that their descendant, one of the diaspora of the Famine, has been honoured with this opportunity. I pay my respects to members, my ancestors and the people on whose land I reside upon with gratitude. I apologise for my inability to address you in Gaelic, but my forbears were forbidden to speak their native tongue, so I have no cultural memory in order to do so. I am sorry.

From the very inception of the convention as a concept in Mexico in the late 1990s, DPOs have been intrinsic to the development and implementation of the convention. It was disability rights activists and their representative organisations that revealed the abuses and horrors that Mexican disabled people were facing in locked institutions. It was Mexican DPOs that took this information directly to their then Government and their then President, Ernesto Zedillo, who instigated a global push to develop a UN convention on the rights of disabled people. Using their embassies and consulates across the world, Mexico was able to bring together enough support to have the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities commended to the United Nations. I wish to add that it was one of the fastest UN conventions ever developed.

Key players in this work with Mexico were Australia and New Zealand. Australia’s leading DPOs, namely, People with Disability Australia and the First Peoples Disability Network, conducted extensive field research to identify exactly what disabled people wanted in their convention. Australia was the only country to go directly to disabled people and consult. We asked the questions and got the answers. We collated the data and then, with the support of our consulates, we helped to directly develop the articles of the convention. It must be noted that eminent Irish legal scholar and current, though outgoing, UN rapporteur on disability, Professor Gerard Quinn, was directly involved in the development of the UNCRPD.

More broadly, DPOs play a role in ensuring the UNCRPD is implemented in nation states. As civil society organisations, DPOs are fundamental in ensuring transparency of process and in holding governments to account in maintaining the rights of disabled people.

The path is not always smooth and, at this time in world history, it could be said that we are seeing an erosion of the very principles of human rights. This is where DPOs have a special role to play. DPOs maintain the pressure and remind governments that disabled people are also citizens and, as citizens, are rights-holders. It is the work of DPOs that has revealed the atrocities acted upon disabled people in Ukraine. DPOs have a role as truth-tellers. It is DPOs that speak directly to government to change the systems and structures that perpetrate ableism and thus create institutionalised barriers that limit and oppress disabled people. To quote Gerard Quinn at the Conference of the States Parties, COSP, 15 in New York in 2022, the very logic of the UNCRPD is to dismantle ableism. It is DPOs that ensure this process of dismantling ableism is ongoing because - I nod to our own Australian disability discrimination commissioner, Dr. Ben Gauntlett - disability policy is good policy for all people.

We must look to the future not just with hope and perseverance but with an entrepreneurial lens to harness opportunities for lasting changes and to ensure that systems and structures do not maintain the status quobut are remodelled to uphold the rights of all citizens, because disabled people are citizens of their clans, of their countries and of the world.

Mr. Peter Gohery:

I come before the committee as the national chairperson of Physical Impairment Ireland, a true DPO that does not exclude any physically impaired person from joining it.

Why is it that limited hearings are offered to DPOs at any fora, while non-disabled people, who claim to speak on our behalf, receive the most hearing time? It is great that this committee has invited a person from Australia to hear what is wrong and listen to the way the State has and continues to fail disabled people in Ireland. The State has failed in listening to disabled people explaining to it what is needed here. This shows how flawed the system is in a country that is supposedly awash with money. It is spent everywhere but where it is needed the most, from a disabled person's perspective.

Most engagements conducted by this State on behalf of disabled people are like box-ticking exercises and kicking the can down the road. Most DPOs are left hanging on by a thread, hoping that one day there will be inclusion and integration for all disabled people.

For more than a year, we in Physical Impairment Ireland have worked intensively to have disabled parking bays brought up to a standard that is acceptable for us. We were not looking for gold-standard treatment. We required something that we can use easily. Only three towns in my county of Galway have met that standard to date. People with mobility issues in Galway have been informed that we will have to wait for an extra grant to come through for more towns to be included. At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, disabled parking bays were used for outdoor dining. We had a lot of people, especially in the hospitality services, shouting about how wonderful it was to see dining come back while few people, politicians included, complained about the loss of the disabled parking spaces.

In the past few weeks, we have complained about the lack of enforcement by traffic wardens and An Garda Síochána in relation to disability parking bays. When we phone some Garda stations, we are told that once a car becomes available, they will go and investigate the matter. Why do the gardaí need a car to check illegal parking? Can they not walk or use their bicycles to investigate these matters? From a Galway perspective, and I am sure it is remarkably similar in every other county in Ireland, under a freedom of information request it was revealed that in 2020 Galway City Council handed out thousands of parking fines. However, Galway county only issued 197 parking fines. Surely, questions must be asked. Someone is not doing his job properly.

We have complained on numerous occasions to Iarnród Éireann in respect of its priority seating policy for disabled people and their companions. Any able-bodied person can book online, and no questions are asked as to whether the person has a disability to allow him or her to book priority seating. When this happens and we are left standing for the duration of a train journey, we are advised it is a computer error. If it is an easy fix, then it should be fixed. No big deal.

Members of Physical Impairment Ireland had a meeting with the Minister of State with special responsibility for disability and her adviser. Unfortunately, we never got a response to our concerns and the critical issues we raised.

A few years back, a good scheme was introduced for able-bodied persons called the bike-to-work scheme, but there was no provision made for employed or unemployed disabled people. Those who could benefit the most are left aside, namely, disabled people.

A good friend of mine and I are known as above-knee amputees or, in medical terminology, AKAs. However, to this State we are the same. My friend is a right-knee amputee, whereas I am an left-knee amputee. My friend and colleague in Physical Impairment Ireland, requires adaptions to allow him to drive, whereas I do not need any adaption. That is some difference when it is explained clearly to the committee how able-bodied agencies and the State classify us.

A lot of our members in Physical Impairment Ireland and other physically-impaired people are petrified about making complaints to Departments and agencies of this State because we feel we will not get a fair hearing. A week ago, I spoke to a lovely lady on the phone regarding her application for disability allowance. She had been refused this grant. When she contacted the Department of Social Protection and asked a civil servant for an in-person appeal, she was laughed at and the phone call was terminated by the civil servant. The only way an apology was forthcoming from the Department of Social Protection was following a threat of going public and that the civil servant would be named on national radio.

One of our older members was verbally abused by a taxi driver who parked illegally in a disabled parking bay. When a member of the public came to our member's assistance, she was also verbally abused by the taxi driver. Our member refused to make a complaint to An Garda Síochána. He was afraid he would be followed home and he and his family would be attacked.

Many disability organisation and network meetings are held during working hours. DPO members who are lucky to be employed cannot afford to take time off work and most service providers are very reluctant to hold these meetings outside working hours. Most of these meetings seem to go round in circles and achieve nothing, other than the non-DPO attendees clocking up hours.

We posed questions regarding State funding for these service providers and their associates. We have been left in limbo and are still awaiting answers. It feels to us that it is like a nod-and-wink job, where only reports written by able-bodied service providers and their allies and not by disabled people are seen as being acceptable when it comes to reporting on disabled person's organisations in this State. This must stop immediately.

For ten years, I was refused a disability allowance and could not receive the invalidity pension. I was not disabled enough as per the Department of Social Protection. The disability allowance-blind pension was a mere €208 and invalidity pension was €213.50 a week at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The minimum offered to able-bodied people was €350 through the pandemic unemployment payment. The only conclusion one could come to from this was that disabled people were and must continue to be the third-class citizens of the State.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Gohery. I now call Ms Madani to make her opening statement.

Ms Maryam Madani:

I thank committee for inviting us to speak today. I wish to begin by acknowledging the presence of our allies in government and our fellow DPOs which are here today. Many of the points the committee will hear this morning were made in previous sessions last year by the likes of Dr. Sinnott and Mr. Leo Kavanagh. I hope any repetition of these points will emphasise their importance.

I am here with my colleague, Mr. O'Dea, representing Disability Power Ireland. Disability Power Ireland is a grassroots, cross-impairment DPO led and run entirely by disabled people. We seek to build grassroots collective power and increase visibility and participation of the disabled community through our parade and festival for Disability Pride Month in July, and through protest, art and direct action, while also engaging in policy to advance the human rights of the disabled community.

Nowhere are our rights better articulated than in the UNCRPD. It should forever be a source of shame that Ireland was the very last country in the EU to ratify the UNCRPD. Do we also want to be the last to ratify the optional protocol, because that is where we are headed? For perspective, North Korea has signed it. The only other countries that have not are the Netherlands and Belarus.

Without the optional protocol, there is no weight behind the Government's commitment to meeting its obligations under the UNCRPD. It is a silencing of the voices of disabled people in this country who have no recourse to address their human rights violations. There is no excuse for our Government's failure and continued delay to ratify, which is itself an admission that Ireland's legal structures are not up to par and that it is failing to implement the UNCRPD. We see this across the spectrum of disability issues including failure to provide adequate personal assistance services.

Details of where our national legal framework needs to be updated can be found in our submission on the topic to this committee. For example, it is imperative that the State repeal the outdated Disability Act 2005 and replace it with holistic anti-discrimination legislation that is firmly rooted in the rights-based UNCRPD in order to ensure guarantees of independent living, education, employment and an adequate standard of living. These are not covered in the medical-orientated Disability Act but they are provided for within the convention.

In terms of the role of DPOs in implementing the UNCRPD, we quote general comment 7.1 of the UNCRPD, which states: “The effective and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities, through their representative organizations, is ... at the heart of the Convention." The term "representative organizations" has been misused. It refers solely to DPOs, not charities, not service providers and not disability organisations the leadership roles of which are not filled by disabled people.

Under general comment 7.11, representative organisations “can only be those that are led, directed and governed by persons with disabilities,” as well as having a clear majority of disabled people in their membership. General comment 7.9 states:

States parties should acknowledge the positive impact on decision-making processes and the necessity of involving and ensuring the participation of persons with disabilities, through their representative organizations ... notably because of their lived experiences and knowledge of the rights to be implemented.

We as disabled people are the experts on our own lives and on these issues, which directly affect us, but because our lived experience and expertise is so undervalued, it is common practice everywhere for disabled people to be the only ones in the room who are not being paid to be there and consulted with, including in this room. Our travel expenses were not covered by the committee.

You would think, given the clearly crucial role of DPOs in implementing the UNCRPD, that some specific Government supports would be available to us. There are currently none. If only our expertise was valued, this could and should be an opportunity to start to rectify the 70% unemployment rate for disabled people. That is the worst in the EU alongside Greece according to the latest report by the European Disability Forum. Of course, social protection laws will have to be significantly updated to enable disabled people to accept paid work and grants for our organisations without losing our disability allowance. Along with many other DPOs, including Disabled Artists and Disabled Academics, DADA, we have emphasised that that should cover the additional cost of disability, shown to be up to €12,000 in the latest Indecon report. Our disability allowance, medical card and free travel pass should not be affected by taking on grants or precarious employment. We recently formed a coalition of new grassroots DPOs, which is still growing, none of whom have been able to receive funding yet for all the work they do. These other DPOs, some of whom may be represented here today through the DPO Network, include Disabled Women Ireland, Neuro Pride Ireland, Full Spectrum Ireland and DADA.

Under general comment 7.13, states parties are obligated to “support the capacity and empowerment” of DPOs. In order to effectively fulfil our role in the realisation of the UNCRPD, we require core funding and capacity-building supports to enable the establishment, development and operationalisation of DPOs. Whatever little funding is available to DPOs is often inaccessible to us due to prior established, larger organisations such as charities and service providers being in a better position to meet funding requirements. We cite the recent example of the disability participation and awareness fund, administered via Rethink Ireland and funded by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. While this fund ostensibly aimed to “support the overall participation of people with disabilities in local activities, in line with the implementation of the UNCRPD”, it showed no commitment to investing specifically in DPOs to build their capacity or any recognition of our crucial role in implementing the UNCRPD. None of the DPOs in our coalition or those here today was able to apply to that fund due to barriers we face in obtaining legal status as companies and the reluctance of all DPOs to register as charities in order to challenge the charity-tragedy models of disability.

Disabled people remain one of the most marginalised communities in Irish society, experiencing higher levels of poverty, unemployment and social exclusion due to societal barriers that make it incredibly difficult for us to self-organise into DPOs to begin with, particularly if they are truly representative, grassroots groups founded by disabled people from the ground up and not by non-disabled people or Government bodies, such as in the case of the very well-funded Disability Participation and Consultation Network, DPCN. We urge both Houses of the Oireachtas and all relevant Departments to take this seriously. They must support disabled people through our DPOs in order to give any credence to the gold standard human rights treaty the Government has signed and is seeking to implement. I thank the committee.

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.

Dr. James Casey:

The DPO Network welcomes the opportunity to be here today. The DPO Network is an Irish alliance of disabled people and their organisations, five DPOs, who have joined together as we have a common interest in the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Ireland. The five DPO member organisations of the DPO Network are AsIAm, Ireland's National Autism Advocacy Organisation; Disabled Women Ireland, DWI; Independent Living Movement Ireland, ILMI, which I represent; the Irish Deaf Society, IDS, of which Mr. John Sherwin is present; and the National Platform of Self Advocates, from which our comrade, Mr. Joe McGrath, is joining the meeting online.

The DPO Network is committed to the human rights and social model of disability which states that the exclusion, inequality and discrimination that disabled people experience are not the consequence of our impairments but, rather, a result of the economic, cultural, social and political barriers which are created and persist in society. The network recognises that this committee and other State agencies are beginning to identify the primacy of DPOs as per Article 4.3 and the general comment of the CRPD. This recognition of the role of DPOs in the development of policy and direct consultation is welcome.

The DPO Network is concerned, however, about the increased awareness of the role of DPOs without a real plan for how our development is to be supported and resourced. This results in DPOs being unable to participate in a meaningful way in the representation and consultative spaces or that the calls for DPO involvement result in tokenistic participation that is not underpinned by clear positions and strategies developed by the DPOs. On that basis, the DPO Network will repeat the following observations on how DPOs should be resourced locally and nationally to inform the development of policies to authentically implement the CRPD.

Ireland’s obligations under the CRPD are to ensure that State invests in policies, practices and supports to include disabled people in society as equals. Central to the effective implementation of the CRPD will be the full and effective participation of disabled people in the design, delivery and monitoring of policy at a local, regional and national level. Due to the dominance of disability service providers and the disability industry in Ireland - "disability sector" is the term we use - disabled people and DPOs have not directly benefited from sufficient investment to develop effective representation and policy development functions. This call for investment and core funding is imperative and continues to have a serious impact in disabled people’s voices being heard in policy and community development locally and nationally.

Meaningful engagement can only be done through strategic, multi-annual investment in DPOs. This will allow us to create spaces for disabled people to work collectively together, identify what structures to engage in that maximise our time and effort and bring collective policies to influence State policy and service development. Investing in DPOs will also allow us to lead on consultation with disabled people and nominate our representatives to bring our voice to the table. We hope increased recognition of the primary role of DPOs in the CRPD will see a systemic shift towards investment in DPOs so that they can organise collectively, and sustainably, to bring about a more inclusive society. We will continue to campaign for this.

A method of identifying authentic DPOs needs to be established in partnership with existing DPOs. One example of this is the DPO checklist in New Zealand. The NDA has quite a good paper on DPOs' identification using Australia, New Zealand and other countries. The criteria required to be recognised as a DPO need to be available and accessible to groups representing disabled people, and support must be available to enable appropriate groups to meet any criteria additional to those outlined under general comment 7. For instance, should it be necessary for an organisation to have a terms of reference or a constitution, or to register with a body such as the Companies Registration Office, CRO, to secure recognition as a DPO, then advice and practical support should be available for this. Disabled people have, as a community, significantly decreased access to financial and educational resources and many DPOs and local disabled people’s groups are run on an entirely voluntary basis. Navigating criteria such as these may fall outside their skill sets without support to build these skills being made available.

While it is important to have a rigorous and transparent method of identifying DPOs and distinguishing them from all other types of organisations, it is important that all genuinely self-representative groups advocating on behalf of their membership are adequately supported to do so. We have a relatively sparse and new DPO landscape in Ireland, and investment in empowering this space to grow is imperative to advancing the CRPD at both a local and national level.

It is critical that DPOs are invited to all meetings where issues related to their work are discussed at Oireachtas committee sessions. We are aware of many instances of meetings over the last year across different committees that included discussions with stakeholders, including service providers in the disability sector, about disability issues but where the relevant DPO organisations were not invited to attend or, worse, requested an invite to attend but were denied. We acknowledge that until DPOs receive adequate State funding and resourcing, we will not be in a position to attend all meetings but at a minimum, we should be aware of and invited to all meetings that include stakeholder testimony or feedback. We request that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Disability Matters leads by example in relation to this important aspect of inclusion, to demonstrate adherence to the principles of the CRPD. We also request that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Disability Matters assist DPOs in making the same request of all Oireachtas committees.

The UNCRPD cannot be implemented locally, regionally, or nationally without investment. It is time to ensure disabled people are resourced to collectively have our voices heard. It is time for "Nothing About Us Without Us" to become a reality.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Casey. I will now invite the members of the committee to put their questions. When I call each member to speak, he or she should adhere to the agenda item scheduled for discussion. Members should start their speaking time by identifying the person or persons they wish to answer the question and should ask the questions one at a time. Always use plain English, speak slowly, be clear with the questioning and allow sufficient time for individuals to answer. I will call members according to the speaking rota and all members will get an opportunity to speak.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their input there. Once again, we can hear directly from the people who are most affected and the organisations representing them. We have heard from all of the different services, including the HSE and different groups, and often enough one gets bogged down listening to them when we talk about funding and so on.

Having listened to everyone here, from the people with disabilities and from the DPOs, the DPCN was set up with the purpose of consultation on Government policies and legislation. This is what it was set up for and this is what it maintains. Having heard from a lot of people, this does not appear to be happening the way it should. We need a proper fit-for-purpose system. The witnesses have said that consultation with DPOs does not take place. We need to ensure that it takes place and we need people to push for it to take place. The people at the centre of this are the people with disabilities and their representatives in the DPOs. We need to push and make sure that people's voices are heard. There are a lot of further authentic DPOs that are not represented. Reference was made to a register. Perhaps this needs to be looked at. Will the witnesses tell us how that can be done? Obviously, a lot of people are not in the loop and not getting heard but who need to be heard. They represent the people with disabilities.

Strengthening the DPCN would give more broad representation for DPOs across society. The UNCRPD cannot be implemented properly without proper investment. This is a reality. Ireland has not even adopted the optional protocol, which is another major problem that needs to be addressed urgently and looked at. With budget 2024 coming up, where do the witnesses believe that funding should be directed and prioritised? While there are probably a million areas we could talk about, what are the main areas that should be prioritised? One of those is the cost of living, which is a major issue. Reference was made to the payment of €350 that was given out to people during Covid. When we consider what people on disability are paid, which is insignificant in comparison, it is disgraceful that there could be a discrimination against people in that way.

We must ensure that all Departments are disability-proofed. What role do the witnesses see in trying to tackle the different Departments? What sort of pressure needs to be applied? Obviously, we will apply political pressure and each party will have its own budget coming up and where the funding should be. As we have done in the past, Sinn Féin has disability-proofed our different portfolios. This needs to be pushed.

There is also the idea of a one-stop shop for people with disabilities, which would be a centralised service based on their needs. How do we see that happening? A register of DPOs was discussed here. How will that be brought about and how would those DPOs be identified? Perhaps one of the witnesses could respond to that.

Tá sé an-suimiúil dom éisteacht le Dr. Sinnott maidir leis an nGaeilge agus é ag foghlaim na Gaeilge. Tá a lán barriers ann maidir le foghlaim na Gaeilge, go háirithe don duine ina chás féin. Dr. Sinnott mentioned Article 4.3. That should be pushed and implemented more. We should ensure that people are reminded Article 4.3 is there.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. There are a lot of questions and comments in there. If at some stage I feel that I need to move on to the next member, on the next round I will come back first to anyone that I have not allowed to speak. I want to be fair to everyone.

Dr. Robert Sinnott:

I thank Deputy Ellis for the questions. Things have not been disability-proofed unless the DPOs have been approached. No party here has approached the DPOs with regard to disability-proofing. None, and not us anyway. Nothing has been disability-proofed. Absolutely not. With regard to the DPCN, this is the mindset and the culture that has to be considered. Article 4.3 is not just part of the CRPD. Article 4.3 is at the heart of the CRPD. There is no CRPD without Article 4.3. We are the start. We are the alpha and the omega of the CRPD. If it is about disability-proofing, that is us. That is what we are here for.

We are trying to provide the service yet nobody is coming to us. People are just ignoring us. With regard to the DPCN, it would be great to have a one-stop shop in order for the State to box-tick, but the DPCN is a dog's dinner because of the way it was set up.

This can be seen in the Department of Justice's report of March 2020, the national disability inclusion strategy, NDIS, interim report, which actually misquotes Article 4.3. It states people with disabilities shall be closely consulted and actively involved in the implementation of the UNCRPD but it cuts out the key four words at the end, "through their representative organizations". Therefore, the State itself was totally engaged in misrepresentation of what the UNCRPD states. I am not saying it was deliberate misrepresentation but it absolutely was misrepresentation. The DPCN is a dog's dinner because it threw all the disability actors together; it needs to separate DPOs. First, if the DPCN is to work, it has to be DPO only, as under paragraph 49. There has to be a space. Second, the DPCN could not be expected to deal with each body. There are 650 public bodies. How much processing power would this involve? When I refer to the DPCN, I mean no other organisation can be representative. As long as there is a non-DPO in the DPCN, it cannot be representative. To be realistic, all the DPCN could possibly be good for is having the high-level meeting with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, because that is all that such a structure would be resourced to do. Otherwise, one would be talking about a massive Civil Service in its own right to consult all the various public bodies etc.

We are also very big on bilateral meetings. There are certain things that affect visually impaired people especially, including in respect of types of braille, and they get marginalised in wider meetings. These things have to happen on multiple levels. Every level and branch of government should have separate DPO consultation. Again, I am referring to paragraph 49 of general comment 7.

Mr. Leo Kavanagh:

To answer Deputy Ellis's question on the register of all DPOs, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, affectionately known to us as DCEDIY, along with its Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and its Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, must immediately organise a register of all DPOs. The DPOs that should be on it are disabled persons' organisations led, governed and managed by persons with disabilities. The members should be persons with disabilities only. Let us cut out the middleman; come to us, please.

Dr. James Casey:

There were many questions and they were good. I will probably make a hames of answering them but I will try anyway.

One point we are here to talk about today is that there needs to be a mechanism to consult with the Government DPOs. There already is an organisation for service providers but not for DPOs. It needs to be established. I am aware that the new Department is doing something on that but let us open it up and have DPOs at the heart instead of saying, "Here, this is for you now."

With regard to the upcoming budget, we believe there should be a ten-year budget for disability. There should be a specific focus on disability, with a multi-annual dimension. There also should be a disability-strategy focus on the UNCRPD and disability and how the arrangement works. With regard to what can be done over ten years in this regard, there are four stages. There should be a register of DPOs; there has to be one. There is a lot of gaslighting – I love that word – going on at the moment. Others talked about advocacy groups and all this kind of carry-on. Cut it out. It is not hard to see where it is coming from. We do not have tobacco companies speaking for non-smokers, yet the position on disability is regarded as acceptable. That is the truth. We need a register.

We need to have a strategy on mainstreaming disability, having real inclusion and not just bringing us in for photoshoots. It is a question of the Government determining how to do that.

There needs to be a commitment to retrofitting the articles under the UNCRPD retrofitting legislation. A perfect example is the Disability Act 2005, in which disability is defined as a wholly functional limitation. That is not reflective of modern European countries; it is outdated beyond doubt. I realise we have very strong anti-discrimination legislation but it is not what I envisage. I am not a legislator and might be making claims, but I believe there needs to be retrofitting to greater reflect our position as a modern, social democratic country. Otherwise, we are standing on very thin ice. There needs to be service provision. I am referring to what is compliant under comment 4. There are several issues in this regard.

To return to the issue of DPO regulations, the NDA has produced a paper and has investigated the attributes of DPOs using Australia and New Zealand. They are quite good. We should use these because we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We should just build on this. The criteria are very good.

Mr. Joe McGrath:

From the platform's point of view and as one of the representatives in the DPO Network, I believe that with regard to everything Deputies do in the Dáil concerning legislation and money, we should all be consulted so all our opinions will be taken into account. We are not all looking for big pots of money; we just want our basic rights met under the UNCRPD. It is very important that in the work I do to make a bit of money for myself, I have my rights met and have protections under employment law. In setting up DPO networks and DPO organisations, we should be given reasonable funding in order that we can be consulted at all times to the benefit of our members. I am delighted to be part of the network. The platform could not be consulted all the time as members are working and holding down part-time jobs. If we were given a contribution towards attending meetings, we might be able to take a day off work. Every organisation looking for Government funding should be consulted at all times in respect of legislation in the Dáil. Our opinions should at least be taken into consideration by the Government when it is putting budgets together in the next five years.

Mr. Peter Gohery:

I thank Deputy Ellis for his questions. I propose a disability impact assessment of all planning in the future. I am told that many town authorities that are getting urban renewal grants are going to exclude disabled parking bays from the centres of the towns. We need them to access local services, including the post office, bank and chemist. Despite this, the authorities want to exclude the bays as they do not see them as being a good thing. If we had a disability impact assessment, we could say a plan was not fit for purpose and that we wanted to ensure we were included. There are already environmental impact assessments, so what I propose should not be a big thing.

On funding through the budget, there are a few things I would like. I would like to see the budget raised for people with disabilities. The realistic cost of a disability is anything up to €20,000 per year, depending on whom you are talking to. Not all disabilities are equal. I cannot speak for a person in a wheelchair or someone who is visually impaired; I can speak only for myself as a prosthetic wearer.

It is time we stopped buying our products from England. The UK is outside the EU. Products have to be shipped into England – we are told there is no tariff on them – and then they are shipped to Ireland.

The cost of a socket has gone up by 50%. What is going on is crazy, and it is all because of Brexit.

Every person with a disability should be awarded the medical card because of the costs out there rather than differentiating one person from another. Once we have a disability, we hear buzzwords like "inclusion" and "accessibility", but they do not seem to matter. It is only a select few who get it.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a bit hoarse today, so excuse me. I welcome all the witnesses. All of us are learning, and it is so important that we all play our role.

First, will the witnesses discuss the level of discrimination that people with disabilities in Ireland still face as well as any international best practice in tackling discrimination? Will they discuss further how discrimination can be removed to increase the uptake of people with disabilities in employment? Sorry - I hope the witnesses can understand me. It is not too often I have no voice. What changes are needed to see transition to the social model of disability? What models of independent living and inclusion in the community for people with significant support needs have been successful, including international best practice?

I was reading Mr. Gohery's opening statement. I have a few cases in Carlow involving Iarnród Éireann. Mr. Gohery referred to seating and policies for people with disabilities. In my constituency, there are small train stations that are not manned any more. As a result, the toilet facilities are not open. It is a major issue. I see it daily, and I feel there are huge challenges.

When Mr. Gohery says that the State has continued to fail disabled people, he is right, unfortunately. We here have a duty of care to make sure we continue to work with them. Deputy Ellis spoke about budget 2024. How do we change consultation and implementation? How do the witnesses see us being able to make a bigger impact in concentrating on our budget for 2024?

Lastly - and I really felt that this summed everything up - Dr. Casey stated:

The UNCRPD cannot be implemented locally, regionally, or nationally without investment. It is time to ensure disabled people are resourced to collectively have our voices heard. It is time for "Nothing About Us Without Us" to become a reality.

That is factual. As I said, we all need to do more. I see it every day in my constituency, even when it comes to employment. There are doors there that we need to look at opening. Again, I apologise about my voice.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go to the poor people who have not spoken in the first session, if they want to speak. Mr. O'Dea, you are indicating.

Mr. Peadar O'Dea:

When it comes to improving, say, employment, there needs to be more investment in accessibility in workplaces or funding for accessibility. Investment is not only tied in with employment but also answers the question about independent living. Both Houses of the Oireachtas, as far as I know, adopted a motion in 2019 put forward by Deputy Pringle, an Independent, calling for the establishment of a personal assistance service. In principle, therefore, the Oireachtas has already formally committed to this. It would be good to have legislation in the future to actually put that into practice, though, because a personal assistance service would take disabled people out of institutions. The former Ombudsman released a report in 2021 saying that there were hundreds if not thousands of young disabled people still trapped in institutions. He referred to that as wasted lives. Personal assistance would enable disabled people to start living independently and maybe to get a foothold on the employment ladder.

I will briefly go back to Deputy Ellis's points and questions about funding for the budget. It is essential that DPOs get funding. It is not enough just to consult us. Obviously, it would be a major step forward if we were consulted because we are not being consulted. On top of that, however, the unwritten expectation is that we have to do a lot of consultancy work for free, and that is just not appropriate on any level. We are experts in our field just by experience because many of us are disabled, so we all have that life experience on top of any academic or research experience we have additionally in our various roles. We are therefore approaching this professionally and we should be treated as professionals. It seems like an unwritten rule that, on the few occasions we are even allowed to engage with decision-makers, the expectation is that we cannot get some sort of remuneration or even a stipend for it, which is not acceptable. Yes, for the budget I would prioritise funding. There is also the funding lock, so, for instance, more established organisations, many of which are not actually DPOs, get funding because they already have a proven track record of projects to which they can lay claim. That immediately shuts out newer groups like Disability Power Ireland because we are recently established. We do not have a proven track record of funding because we cannot access it. For instance, we were locked out of the recent human rights funding IHREC released. I do not remember the formal title. I think it was the human rights scholarship. We were locked out of that because of limitations such as that. There needs to be funding from which new grassroots groups can actually benefit. Otherwise, we are just going around in circles and continuing to do voluntary work, which is not appropriate.

Mr. John Sherwin:

I have just a short comment in response to Deputy Murnane O'Connor. We are talking about discrimination against persons with disabilities. I would go a step further and say that, for example, the Government's own literature acknowledges that deaf people are marginalised by the State's policies, and I am pretty sure that is the same for disabled cohorts of people. The question is how we change that, and that, of course, needs a far more comprehensive answer than it would be possible to deliver at a meeting such as this. In a simple sense, however, how we start to change that is by involving persons with disabilities and DPOs at the core of everything. When there is an engagement, if the question is asked afterwards, "Was a DPO invited?", and the answer is "Yes, but it was not there", that is not enough. What you have to ask is, "Was a DPO involved?", and if the answer is "No", then the question is "Why not?" Starting to answer that question in a proactive way is at the core of meaningful engagement for DPOs. As for simply inviting people to make submissions they are under-resourced to do, we anticipate that if the State tries to live up to the UNCRPD and if every Department, State body and local government agency starts to make demands for feedback from DPOs, it will be quite impossible to deliver.

How does the State change the structure to make that possible? The whys of all this must be answered. If there is no DPO at the table, the Government needs to ask why and follow through to try to solve that problem.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Quan Farrant may wish to address some of the questions or points that have been made.

Ms Frances Quan Farrant:

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I will respond to the Deputy's question about international best practice. As someone who has been in DPOs for a decade or more, if there is a phrase I dislike, it is "best practice". How can I compare best practice in Australia and Europe, specifically Ireland? I cannot. Australia is a country and continent with a population of 25 million, 5 million of whom are people have disabilities. They are spread across urban, rural, regional and remote areas. When I say remote, I mean seriously remote. We cannot even apply a best practice concept in our own country. We cannot and should not do so because there is no one-size-fits-all model. Disability is not an homogenous thing. It is a diverse thing that is part of the human experience. I would go one step further and say we should move beyond the social model of disability and into the human rights model of disability. Considerations of best practice should bring one straight back to the UNCRPD and all policies, procedures, protocols and legislation, all of which should be applied specifically for Ireland with full direct and funded consultation with Irish DPOs.

Mr. Leo Kavanagh:

I send my congratulations to Deputy Murnane O'Connor and Carlow on the victory in the McDonagh Cup last Saturday. I wonder if that has anything to do with the Deputy's hoarse voice. We will not go there. I digress.

The Deputy asked about discrimination. The worst form of discrimination is when the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth refuses to meet with DPOs. We have been looking for a meeting with the Department's senior civil servants for well over a year. My most recent request was via email and included a read receipt. Three of the senior civil servants read that email but I received no reply. What is going on in the Department? At best, it is insulting. I would not use the expressions in this public forum that I would like to use when considering that lack of response at its worst. I am sure it is not the case in Australia that the Department which caters for people with disabilities ignores them and their rights. Would that be correct?

Ms Frances Quan Farrant:

The Department would be in serious trouble were it to do so. Australia has the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which predates the UNCRPD. We are, however, in the process of reviewing the legislation. Even still, we have a disability discrimination commission to which we can go. The Government can be held to account in that regard.

Mr. Leo Kavanagh:

I would be in favour of an ombudsman for disabilities on the basis of this week's Central Statistics Office, CSO, findings that 22% of the population of this country has a condition or disability. That is a big proportion of the State but I think the figure is still too low. It might be nearer the 25% in Northern Ireland, which figure was contained in its most recent census report.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing the start of the meeting. I was next door at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I am trying to bilocate. I read all the opening statements and thank our guests for writing them. I also thank them for taking the time to be with us to engage in this important discussion.

I was struck my what Mr. Sherwin said, which was that DPOs not only need to be invited to the table but fully included. That goes back to Mr. O'Dea's point about having the funding to make that happen. Every DPO is under pressure. Resources are being pulled apart. As we, as a State, focus more on this area, as we need to because it is the right thing to do, the unintended consequence, unfortunately, is that it puts more pressure on the DPOs. We want to consult and tap into that lived experience and use it to shape the State's policies and services but, as Mr. O'Dea has said, people cannot consult for free. I hear that loud and clear and will take that message with me.

Mr. O'Dea also made the point that everybody here is a professional and has professional experience to share. That brings me to my area of particular interest, namely, barriers to employment. I would appreciate it if our guests could take the time to outline what they see as barriers to employment and how we should be breaking them down. Prior to my election as a Deputy, I worked in an organisation that did its best to ensure it hired people on a more inclusive basis. We partnered with a number of DPOs and higher education institutions to ensure we were doing that effectively and it was working well. Perhaps our guests would share the benefit of their experience.

I will make a suggestion in response to Mr. Kavanagh's passionate plea for better engagement from the State and particular civil servants. His suggestion of an ombudsman for disability was interesting. I am also a member of the Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen. That committee might be able to consider the issue. Perhaps Mr. Kavanagh would like to make a petition to the committee to investigate the issue. That committee has dealings with ombudsmen. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission will be before the committee today. The committee takes petitions on board and works closely with ombudsmen. Mr. Kavanagh might make his suggestion to that committee and I can support him.

I would like to hear from our guests about barriers to employment.

Mr. Peter Gohery:

I thank the Deputy for her questions. I heard her say she is a member of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I would love for every new house in Ireland to be disability-proofed. There should be no more commitment to disability-proofing only 10% or 15% of new houses. I was in the building game and know what it is going on. It is not costing anything extra to disability-proof a house from the start. The enormous costs arise when we go back in to adapt a house after it is built. Listening to the radio on my way to Leinster House today was disheartening. The amount of money that has been handed back is disgraceful. We have received calls from people in different counties looking for adaptations to their houses but the councils are telling them they have no money to do so for the rest of the year.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt but perhaps I could ask a question about housing adaptations. I am conscious, as Mr. Gohery will be from his experience in the building game, that the price of everything has increased dramatically. Does Mr. Gohery feel we need to look at the payment value for the adaptation grants? That has not moved in a long time.

Mr. Peter Gohery:

I do. A friend of mine applied for an adaptation grant to do up his house. His leg is going to be amputated because he has a problem with his knee. He wants to install a ramp going into the house and his bathroom needs to be redone. He is a senior citizen. He was offered a budget of €3,000 to do the work.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Gohery for sharing that experience.

Mr. Peter Gohery:

It would be better if we were to do it from the start. I was an able-bodied person for 42 years and overnight, my whole life changed and I became disabled. We have been talking about discrimination, and an example of that is looking for a loan for a prosthetic leg. A friend went into the bank to look for such a loan. He wanted €20,000. The bank told him it would not lend him that money but would lend him the money for a new car. How is he going to get around?

There is also discrimination around employment. I went back to college from 2014 to 2016 to get a degree in health and safety. Now I can see the importance of health and safety and can drive the message home. However, the degree I was not good enough. When applying for jobs, I have been told I am too qualified or not qualified enough. This shows that because I have a disability, an organisation could say that it did not need me and I could not say anything to it.

I gave a guy good money to do up a CV for me. He said, "Pete, it is your disability that is discriminating against you." That is going on wholesale out there. The sad part about it is clear when we look at the invalidity pension. People have to be out of work for a year to qualify for it. If a person takes up employment, he or she no longer qualifies. The person might not be suited to that employment and could be let go within six months or two years, or after the probation period. That person will then have to wait a year again to qualify for the invalidity pension. How will people survive in that situation? It is unfair.

My last point relates to Dublin Bus. Before buying new buses, the company did not talk to any DPOs or any person with a disability, including wheelchair users. Some of the new buses are totally inaccessible for wheelchair users. That is a disgrace. The Oireachtas is the organ grinder; its Members are in control of the money. Dublin Bus should be dancing to their tune, not the other way around.

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.

Mr. John Sherwin:

Deputy Higgins asked about barriers to employment. Normally, the Irish Deaf Society would have a deaf representative at a meeting like this. As a hearing person who is privileged to work with the Irish Deaf Society, I will comment on some of our activities, projects and policies, but I am not assuming to comment from the lived experience of a deaf person.

Employment barriers specifically for the deaf community start at the education level. Education is not delivering the same kinds of qualifications and abilities for deaf people as it does for hearing people. We have a position paper on education on our website. We have developed a deaf career project, which we are hoping to turn into a service. It is a guidance-based service that, at its core, encourages deaf people to think beyond a job to a career. There is no clear Irish Sign Language sign for "career". We have to build that up from the idea of a job. We are trying to break through a huge lack of ambition.

One of the problems is the lack of access to language and interpretation services in the workplace. Deaf people can get jobs at the lower rungs of the ladder but to progress into management, people need to be able to communicate clearly with other staff. A successful initiative in the UK is the access to work scheme, which provides for the costs of interpreters for deaf people throughout their working career. The cost of that scheme provides a net return to the British Exchequer when account is taken of the impact of pulling deaf people and their families out of the poverty trap and giving them the ability to pay taxes. There is an impact on a holistic level. The figure is something like for every £1 spent on the scheme, £1.20 goes back to the economy. That might be a function of the larger population in the UK. If such a provision were anywhere close to breaking even in Ireland, it could offer a very long-term supportive scheme that would see deaf people breaking through the employment barriers, which are, in essence, communication barriers.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now call Senator Clonan. I will let Mr. O'Dea respond first in the next round.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe go léir chuig an gcoiste. I know Leo and Peter. Last year, shortly after I was elected, they came to visit me. The first thing that struck me was their energy and the anger they expressed in regard to the status of our disabled citizens. During our meeting in the visitors' bar, Peter and his daughter informed me they were going for a walk, and off they went. I realised that Peter knew Leinster House better than I did and knew more people here than I did. Likewise, when we were leaving, Leo pointed me back in the direction of my office. I was a little disorientated.

The concerns of DPOs should come as no surprise to any Member of the Oireachtas. The witnesses have been very invested in advancing their cause. Despite all the challenges and obstacles, they have made their case very clearly, in line with the CRPD. It strikes me at many of these meetings that everybody on one side of the room is on a subsistence payment, travel allowance or some other allowance. The only people in the room who are here on their own expense and unpaid are disabled persons. That constitutes a real barrier to participation.

Shortly after I met Leo and Peter, Robert and I had a very interesting telephone conversation in which he set out for me the provisions of the CRPD. He helpfully pointed out the section that mandates me, as a parent and carer, to speak to the lived experience of disability.

I apologise for being late this morning, but what also struck me in Dr. Sinnott's submission was the casual and cruel obstacles placed in his path to realising his full potential with his doctorate. If we were to replace the word "disabled" with "LGBTQI", "on the basis of ethnicity", "on the basis of sexual orientation", "on the basis of identity" or "on the basis of religious formation", we would quite rightly be up in arms. It would bring the country to a halt. However, for some reason when it comes to disability Ireland accepts and reinforces the obstacles that are often so cruel, capricious and heartless.

I have a couple of questions on that because I am on a journey, as our guests are. Is Ireland an outlier when it comes to disability? We are the only country in the EU where the State is not legally mandated or obliged to look after our disabled citizens, whether it is with therapy support, surgical interventions or personal assistants. I have met disabled citizens from other jurisdictions and the level of support, autonomy, personal choice and capacity to live independent lives notwithstanding the challenges is in very sharp contrast to that of people in Ireland. Ireland is one of the worst countries in the EU to have a disability in. For shame. Is that our guests' experience?

If we are one of the worst, why is that? I suspect there is something in the Irish psyche and in our culture around shame. It is the only conclusion I can reach. There is a very peculiar attitude. Disability is not celebrated. There is a narrow, rigid understanding of what we celebrate, so people get it in the sporting arena, but they do not get it elsewhere. Ms Quan Farrant is welcome. I have friends in Brisbane and Wollongong, a long way away from here. She talked about the remotest parts of Australia. In the summertime, my 21-year-old son has no supports. That is something we have remedied this year. He spent last summer in his bedroom looking out the window all day as a 21-year-old man. That is remote. That is the dark side of the moon. It is for want of a personal assistant. That would allow him to live an autonomous and independent life. Thus, the second question is what is it about here that makes this so.

I agree with Ms Quan Farrant we need to move on from the social model to a very noisy, fundamental human rights or radical approach. Everything we have been doing so far has not made a difference. In our lived experience, by all the objective measures, things have deteriorated here in the last ten years. I have come across people in the HSE, including disability service managers, who put obstacles in your path. We have not chosen to be in this space. We are in it by virtue of the circumstances of who we are. These are people who have chosen to gravitate and go into these professional roles and use their significant power and resources to put obstacles in our pathway. That is why I absolutely endorse Article 4.3 and the idea that DPOs and the voice of disabled persons should be front and centre. I have raised two philosophical questions, namely, whether Ireland is an outlier and in guests' experience and their view, what the reason for that is. I thank them for their time and for coming in.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to Mr. O'Dea because he indicated in the last session there might be something Deputy Higgins asked he wanted to address first. Then anyone can come in on Senator Clonan's questions.

Mr. Peadar O'Dea:

Yes, I want to quickly address Deputy Higgins's points about examples of barriers to employment. I am visually impaired. I have a master's degree in disability studies obtained from the University of Leeds in 2017 and I am policy officer for a DPO, but as I said, because we currently do not have access to funding, neither I or anyone else in the organisation can get paid. We are all doing voluntary work, but we are putting in a huge amount of hours, especially Ms Madani. It is frustrating because we are told if we go into education and work hard we will achieve things, but unfortunately it does not happen much of the time if one is disabled. There is a big question around the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality that seems to go into a lot of thinking, and not just in Ireland.

To address the Senator's points, I am hesitant to say Ireland is an outlier. I am most familiar with Ireland. I lived in the UK for four years. It has many of the same problems and they are somewhat magnified. The access to work programme was mentioned. In theory, it is great, but it has been slashed through austerity measures over the last 13 years. It is something to keep in mind that economic policy at a high level can have an impact on the day-to-day lives of disabled people. I am cautious about saying there is a shining international example we should be citing. I could point, for instance, to Sweden, which is doing some interesting stuff around personal assistance funding at a central level that seems good. However, I am sure if I went to Sweden I could find problems. I always held up Germany in my mind as a positive example, but after speaking to some friends from there who are disabled, they say once a person applies for social security there he or she is effectively legally barred from the employment market. That person is essentially segregated. What I am trying to say is there are pitfalls and pros and cons to everything.

I am cautious about saying Ireland is an outlier. There needs to be a mentality shift here. We have a kind of inferiority complex sometimes that we are inherently worse than every other country at everything. While there are many things Ireland is doing I do not like, I am certain I could find at least some of those things paralleled if I lived somewhere else. Ireland should have the mentality it could be a leader on disability rights. I do not see why not. We are supposedly one of the richest countries in the world. We always top the well-off indexes, or at least we rank in the top half of them. I do not buy the idea Ireland is inherently flawed. We could set standards. I will leave it there.

Mr. Peter Gohery:

First of all, I thank everyone. We had a protest a couple of weeks ago outside the gates of Leinster House about getting the optional protocol ratified. I thank every Deputy who turned up that day, as well as fellow DPO members and colleagues who turned up to support us. However, I was horrified to see the lack of support from other people in here in Leinster House. Even on that day, one person with a disability walked by us and seemed to not even see us. It was a real slap in the jaw to us. That day I sat back and observed what was going on to see how we were being treated and I was horrified to see it. I am thankful for the support on the day.

The other thing I was going to say earlier was in response to the mention of discrimination. A lady in our organisation went back to college and she had her daughter with her just to see how everything was going. The disabled bathrooms were not fit for purpose. She had to get her daughter to stand at the door so nobody else would come in while she was using the facilities.

It is a disgrace that it happens in this day and age.

Regarding why Ireland is the way it is, years ago, if you were born with a disability, you were put into a mother and baby home or the asylum, which was wrong. If Stephen Hawking was alive in Ireland in those times, we would probably have locked him up. People do not see us that way. They see us as a burden on society. We did not make the problems but we have the solutions and if the committee listens to us, these solutions will not cost a lot of money but if we keep going the way we are going, it will cost someone a fortune. It is not for me; we are fighting for everyone throughout the country. I thank the committee for all its help and everything it has done for us. I thank the speaker from Australia who told us what is going on. I hope that someone does listen because the system out there seems to be much fairer and they are listening.

The one expression I hate is "lived experience". It should be living experience because "lived" to me means I had a disability and I am better now. Unfortunately, I will never change. It is the living experience. If you have a disability before the age of 18, as soon as your 18th birthday arrives, the next thing that happens is that you are brought in for an assessment again. Somehow or other, the system in this country thinks that the day you turn 18 is the day you have left your disability behind you. It is a disgrace regardless of whether you are missing a leg or have some other disability. If you had it from birth or before the age of 18, it will not disappear magically when you reach the age of 18 and I am sure it is the same for visual impairment.

Mr. Leo Kavanagh:

Senator Clonan said that the State is not obliged. It most certainly is not. Look at the way we were treated when we tried to contact the disability policy unit in the Department. Are we the worst in Europe when it comes to disability? We most certainly are. Senator Clonan asked why this is the case. There is a huge stigma around disability in this State. It is not just people with intellectual disabilities or mental health problems. It covers the spectrum, including people with physical impairments like me. Since the foundation of the State, people with disabilities or mental health issues were put into institutions. The State wanted these people to be put into institutions. Their families were not always in favour of this but they were coerced into putting their children or loved ones into these institutions. Have things improved dramatically? They have most definitely not. Why is this? It is because there needs to be a willingness to change but, unfortunately, that does not exist in this modern, well-educated country, which is nonsensical.

Dr. James Casey:

I will respond to Senator Clonan and will bring in Mr. McGrath, who is itching to say something. We do need to engage with the social model because we have not engaged with it. Ireland went from the medieval period right through to enlightenment. We did not go near the Renaissance. I am from the west. I can tell the Senator that for the truth. We have not engaged. We went from a medical model, which did not happen, to full-on equality so let us engage with the social model and get that frame of thinking and the human rights model flow from that. Why is that? I will be honest with the Senator. It is because of money. If you go down any street in Stockholm, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oulu, Kuopio or Amsterdam, you will not see a plethora of disability services charity shops. You do not see fun runs for impairments. There is a lot of money involved in disability. The Senator knows that. I have seen his frustration over trying to get his son's future fixed but that is not from investment. It is like "where is that money going?" The figure last year was €2.37 billion last year but I have not seen it.

Two conversations are happening. There is one about what disabled people need and want and there is the one about what disabled people are getting and it is not us who are having part of that conversation. This is not to deride any of that work but it does not happen in any other section of society. Where is that coming from? It is coming from the majority of service providers, large charities and religious orders and we know how well that served the country. We have gone from that to a different section where they are providing services and putting in a frame of equality and all that kind of crack but we need to scratch the surface. Again, it comes down to money, money, money and there is a lot of money. Where money is involved, power is involved and where power is involved, somebody is not going to give that up easily.

Thirty-three percent of disabled people in this country are at work. Why is that? I work with a lot of young disabled people and have seen them bloom over the years. The Senator met a few of them at the book launch. They have this frustration but because they are more connected, they see disability as identity but they also see it as something they collectively actively work on and they can see things can change. This is the great last barrier to equality in this country. We have had the women's health referendum and the LGBT+ marriage referendum. This is something that needs to be dealt with because we are not dealing with it properly. A function of this is consulting with DPOs so let us go back to creating a register of DPOs and creating the attributes of DPOs and a mechanism to talk to them.

Mr. Joe McGrath:

Every DPO should be registered. Regarding employment, once anybody with a disability, intellectual or otherwise, gets the opportunity to be in paid employment, be it part time or full time, he or she is able to contribute to society. I represent the National Platform for Self Advocates, which represents people with intellectual disabilities. If our organisations were funded to do our duty to progress things for us, we would be able to feed into more of these discussions and put more papers out or be consulted at a reasonable time instead of having to take days off work. It is very important that the Government and people in Dáil Éireann take what we say today and implement it with best practice. If there is money to be given to organisations, it should be given to the people in front of this committee today and other organisations it is worth giving money to because a little money helps a lot of people to get their points of view across and ensures they are not reliant. When they come together, as the DPO Network has, to share resources or help themselves promote what they are trying to do, it will be better for all disabled people because if people with disabilities are seen to be working in the community, it is better for their mental health and they make more ties and work friends.

They have more friends and get to more people in the communities where they live, with employment and everything we try to do as organisations. We try to help ourselves and many other people as well where we can, but we do not have the money to help every DPO because DPOs are not funded enough.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, I have to leave the meeting, but I really appreciate the witnesses' feedback. I took such comfort from Mr. O'Dea's words about not always having an inferiority complex. My hope is we will become the best country in the European Union in which to have a disability, and that is through the DPOs’ community and our community.

Mr. Leo Kavanagh:

In regard to one remark Deputy Feighan made, I agree with him 100%. Local authorities must be obliged to meet disabled persons' organisations, but the only way they will do that is if the UNCRPD is fully ratified by the State, and that includes the optional protocol. This can must no longer be kicked down the road. It has to be ratified, really and truly, by the end of this year. There is no reason it should not be. It is farcical what has been going on, but this farce has to stop.

Dr. Robert Sinnott:

It should be made clear that DPOs are not a lobby group or a vested interest in that way. It is a specific rights category. There is a gap for us as human rights defenders. That is a specific role and the State has obligations in law to us that it does not have to, for instance, Microsoft or any of the other big multinationals. It has specific obligations to us and that cannot be overlooked. It is not about us being heard or having a voice at the table. It is about us being prioritised in our views and opinions. That relates to paragraphs 13, 14, 23, 56 and so on of the seventh general comment. It is not good enough that we are just at the table.

When I earlier called the DPCN a dog's dinner, that was not a reflection on anybody in the DPCN. There are 117 ordinary members, and as for how that is supposed to be managed, I have no idea. It was set up in total contravention of the CRPD, even though it was supposed to have been done to implement Article 4.3 of the CRPD. The founders clearly had not read Article 4.3 or the seventh general comment when they were setting it up. This is the lack of thinking. The Department of Children, Disability, Equality, Integration and Youth is not undertaking its awareness obligations. For example, it currently has two awareness campaigns on the go. Paragraph 76 of the seventh general comment states that Article 4.3 is of key importance to Article 8, yet the Department is only now, after I wrote to it in early May, getting around to consulting DPOs as an afterthought, possibly, on 8 or 9 June.

The Department said that it cannot do it any later because it is already too late. It has already had a number of focus groups, however. The Department does not have a clue what it is doing. How can the other 650 public bodies have a clue if the entity that is the focal point does not? The only way we can do this is outlined in general comment 7. The latter contains 10,000 words. Somebody who is in charge and somebody who is responsible should read it. That is where the guide is. General comment 7 states that there needs to be DPO-specific legislation and that that things must be disability-proofed by DPOs. That is the only way we will be able to get the likes of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to fulfil its obligations, let alone the other 650 organisations.

There are some outliers, and some brilliant ones. Dublin City Council is making some effort, for instance, with no help or guidance from the Department with responsibility for disability, etc. We have to fight. It is like firefighting. We should not be firefighting. There should be a top-down approach, but that is not happening. We need the committee to make sure it happens. We need legislation. In the meantime, we need the registration and we need a memo from the Department to all 650 groups to tell them that DPOs must be prioritised, not just represented at the table. They should systematically approach us, not the other way around.

Ms Frances Quan Farrant:

There has been a lot of discussion. I had never met my colleagues here today previously. It is wonderful to be here and on the same page. There are some things we need to consider deeply. I hear the voice of Rosemary Kayess, the Australian representative on the United Nations committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, in general comment 7. DPOs must be funded for their core work. It is not right that there is a highly qualified policy officer sitting next to me who is not paid. That is an injustice.

How is Ireland going to go to the committee in Geneva when it comes up for review if it has not fully ratified the UNCRPD or the optional protocol and does not have a mechanism to implement the convention? How is Ireland going to answer to the committee? I have been in Geneva. Those involved with the committee are severe because they are extremely good at what they do - they are very well elected and they have civil society right behind them; that is us, the DPOs, and we inform them. They know, to the bone, exactly what is going on, what questions to ask and states are questioned severely. One must think about that seriously because it is quite a serious process. Recommendations will be brought down upon a state which are then reviewed again. Australia has done this twice. We were brought forward because we were not doing enough after we ratified. I use the word "state" because governments change. I will not say that the UNCRPD does not change because it is a dynamic human rights tool and is reviewed all the time. Ireland has signed; now it should ratify and do it properly. Ireland has the opportunity to lead in disability rights and policy. It has a small population compared with Australia, a completely different geographical situation and is in the EU. It could lead in the EU and then lead and show us a thing or two down under, perhaps.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all of our guests. It is very good to have them here. I joined the meeting about half an hour ago. I missed the first part. I apologise if this question has already been asked. I will build on a contribution I made last week when I spoke about my experience in the Netherlands several years ago. I saw many more people with disabilities in the Netherlands and I wondered why that was. I stayed with a person who was severely physically disabled while I was over there and it got me thinking about why I saw more people with disabilities in the Netherlands. Coming from a background of campaigning in respect of transport, which was my path to politics, I knew the Dutch had very good walking and cycling infrastructure. That is often seen as infrastructure for able-bodied people ,but it was pointed out to me that it can work very well for people who do not have the same physical ability as me. This really good infrastructure the Dutch do, which is ostensibly for walking and cycling, can be very important for people with mobility difficulties because you can use wheelchairs or whatever mobility device with this infrastructure. If you do not have it, it is much more difficult to get around if you depend on those kinds of devices.

I acknowledge that there is a difficulty, particularly with the section of the community who are visually impaired. There are challenges with respect to enabling cycling infrastructure, while also protecting the safety of people who are visually impaired. I would like to hear the views of our guests on what we call active travel infrastructure, which is walking and cycling networks, their thoughts on the infrastructure and its importance to them. One reason I mention this is because, since I was on that trip to the Netherlands six or seven years ago, I have not heard advocates from the disability community voicing their desire for this kind of infrastructure. That could be down to me because I only became a member of the committee recently. It may be that I am not tuned to the voices of the community. I would like to hear the thoughts of our guests. If there is advocacy in this area, will they point me towards it?

Dr. James Casey:

That is a great question and something just recently ILMI and even the DPO Network we just chatted about have been heavily involved in. I was at the Sustainable Mobility Forum in Athlone recently, which was opened by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan. I listened to a plethora of stuff. The DPO Network was here, as was ILMI, talking about disabled people and climate change. A lot of the time, up to this point, we have not been seen as part of this discussion, but we are. We are actively part of it. Sustainable and active travel is a huge thing which we need to be part of. We were at the recent national sustainable travel forum in Croke Park. One thing I took from that and the feedback I gave was that there must be a DPO presence at those events. There were dedicated individuals but for example, I cannot speak for somebody who is visually impaired, neurodiverse or deaf because I am not. I know who I can talk to who can. As a representer of organisations, you can gather that consensus and bring it in. For instance, regarding active travel, there is the national cycling manual, which we just did the last time. Take the example of greenways. There will be more of them, and they are very important. They should be done properly in the first place. There must be consultation, and it should not just be piecemeal in nature. It also comes back to DPOs being involved from the outset and having those spaces. We are the ones with the methodology, the experience and the channels - we can consult a large number of people, which would feed into better policy and a better society. For instance, greenways, cycle paths, etc., should be modelled on those in countries where such infrastructure is planned.

I spent much time in a city in Finland called Oulu and they have amazing cycle paths. Anyone who is into cycling will have heard of it. It is amazing. These spaces are for everybody. Everyone shares them, including walkers, people with mobility issues, old people and parents. As regards what could possibly be done, regardless of planning, there needs to be a little more awareness about who has use of cycle paths because if some lad in Lycra comes flying along, it is not easy to move out of the way.

This goes back not only to active travel but the also the sustainable development goals in which Ireland plays a role. We are a member of Coalition 2030. It is important that disabled people are at that table as well. All 17 of the sustainable development goals, which include travel, climate change and water, affect disabled people. Therefore, having us at the table is important. It goes back again to what we in the DPO Network were saying. We need to be at hearings of Oireachtas committees, whether in the area of transport, environment, employment or education, because all these issues affect us. Active travel affects us. We can bring something to the table. For instance, floating bus stops can be a death trap for some people but that was not tagged in the beginning. It comes back to consultation. Active travel is a good thing, and 99% of climate action is good. We have to do it. There is no question about it. Instead of pedestrianising some streets, why not pedestrianise all of them and have public transport going into them? Make it for the pleasure and accessibility of everyone rather than the pleasure of a few. These are issues on which we have to act. I go back to it again. When it comes to these issues and stuff, there is always an angry focus on disabled people as if we are almost an energy burden or we are not part of the discourse. That is not true. We will give solutions which will be benefit society as well.

Mr. Peter Gohery:

I would give the Government an F grade for "fail" in transport. On the train service, for example, any wheelchair user has to give 24 hours before travelling by rail to a town to ensure there are staff there. In County Carlow, there are stations that are unmanned which means wheelchair users cannot disembark from trains in them.

Another issue is walking paths. When county councils repair footpaths, I can trip on them if the repairs are not done properly. An elevation of a quarter of an inch - between 3 mm and 6 mm - will trip me up. I do not have the luxury of knowing exactly. I am sure it is worse for the visually impaired. Footpaths are not being done right and are being left in an awful state. Dr. Sinnott will speak about that.

The other issue is greenways, which are a contentious issue in County Galway. I have been working on this since 2014. I know a lot about them and what is going on. The sad part of this is that I was never consulted as part of a DPO or as a disabled person or asked what we wanted. E-scooters and e-bikes, which we mentioned, will not be banned on greenways. They have the potential to do anything up to 60 km/h. Where greenways are being planned - forced in I should say - in County Galway is away out in the back of beyond. There are access issues if someone has an accident on one. I was told before that was not the case. I was talking to a friend I know who was travelling on the Waterford greenway. She fell off her bike and broke her wrist. She had her son with her. It took her five hours to get off the greenway. She had to limp all the way back to Waterford hospital because the services did not know where she was. We are told that does not happen. That is crap; it does happen. We wanted the greenways to go along the side of the road so that if there was an issue, or if a person got tired or was not able to keep walking or push a wheelchair, a car could be brought up close by or the person could be pushed to a nearby exit to get off the greenway. There are certain areas in rural Ireland where these greenways are going to be white elephants. They will never be used. They will only be for the few, which is wrong, not the majority. In and around towns, they will be highly used and populated but in rural Ireland, they are not going to be seen.

Mr. Leo Kavanagh:

Deputy Leddin spoke about his stay in the Netherlands where he said wheelchairs are more visible. I will give him a reason this very minute why wheelchairs might be more visible in the Netherlands than in Ireland. A person who requires a made-to-measure wheelchair in this State must wait at least eight months for it. Ordinary wheelchair users must now wait at least eight weeks before they receive one from the HSE. These people are prisoners in their own homes. That is why the Deputy is not seeing them on the streets.

The cost of a prosthetic limb has increased 30% since Brexit. The cost of a silicone sock used by amputees like my good friend Mr. Gohery is now over €1,000, which equates to nearly five weeks' invalidity pension. Based on Brexit, tendering processes for mobility aids and prosthetic limbs must be reviewed immediately. The cost of wheelchairs, mobility aids and prosthetic limbs has skyrocketed. Disabled people cannot afford them in many cases and definitely cannot afford to be without them. That is a fact. Suppliers have to be sought in mainland Europe, not in the United Kingdom. The price of wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs and mobility aids must be factored into the Brexit adjustment reserve fund discussions to support and counter the adverse economic and social consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Physical Impairment Ireland, of which I am the national secretary, knows that work is ongoing regarding Ireland's Brexit adjustment reserve and will not be decided until a claim is submitted in September 2024. People with physical disabilities and other disabilities throughout this State are one grouping that has been greatly affected by Brexit. We must insist that the request is pushed by our Government in these discussions without further ado.

To return to public transport, I live in rural Ireland. My house is on the N77 between Portlaoise and Abbeyleix in County Laois. Disability-friendly buses pass by my door. However, if I stand out on the road and signal, they will just drive by me because they will only stop in rural towns. They will not stop in townlands or villages in many rural areas. I do not drive. Each morning, if I require a taxi to get me to work, which is five miles from my home, it costs €18 and another €18 to get home again. That is €36 for the pleasure of working, and let it be said that I am very grateful that I am able to work. This is just crazy stuff. At the minute, footpaths in Portlaoise are being dug up to become cycle lanes. That is no good to me because, due to my physical impairment, I cannot cycle. I would like Deputy Leddin to bear those points in mind.

Mr. Peadar O'Dea:

The Deputy raised some interesting points regarding the Netherlands. I will say, as the Deputy acknowledged, that the visual impairment aspect of the Netherlands is a nightmare. I have a sister living there and I went to visit her last year. There are no audio devices on traffic lights. In Ireland, traffic lights make noises and people can feel a kind of pulse from the traffic light, which is handy if they area visually impaired. In the UK, there are cones underneath the traffic light that rotate to let a person know when it is signalling. In the Netherlands, neither of those is used, so there are pitfalls to using the Netherlands as an example, for sure.

Regarding public transport, Ireland has a problem with transport generally. There needs to be connectivity. Public transport needs to be addressed.

As Dr. Casey said, climate action is absolutely essential and has to be taken but if access needs are being ignored, then it is not being done properly. A report from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2020 stated disabled people will be disproportionately affected by climate change. We saw examples of this in Germany in 2021 when there were floods. Disabled people were stranded in institutions and they drowned. The institutions were in areas they could not leave despite the emergency when the immediate area was flooded. Germany is one of the worst polluting countries in the world. It will be particularly hit by flooding in the future so this will be a recurring problem if disabled people are not moved from institutions. Why do I raise this? Inevitably Ireland will face climate problems, so we need to decarbonise. This is an acknowledged fact. We need a public transport system that stands up to scrutiny and we do not have one. It is good in the city centre but even then there are problems.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not saying we should be building these networks for climate reasons. Even if there were no climate crisis and it did not exist, the point has been made to me that, notwithstanding the challenges that are very real, as has been acknowledged, for people who are visually impaired, these networks, if done right, can enhance the mobility of people who have issues. They would enable the use of mobility devices such as wheelchairs. We simply do not have these networks in our towns, villages or cities or in between them. Not having them is impacting the ability of people who are dependent on these devices to get around. When those in a wheelchair have to share the space with vehicles such as trucks, buses and cars they are much less likely to want to do so. The point was made that in Ireland many people who are dependent on such devices are essentially prisoners in their own homes because we have not provided this type of infrastructure.

Dr. Robert Sinnott:

Apart from accessible communications, safe access to our environment is the single biggest issue at present. There is an avalanche coming at us. It is like whack-a-mole. We cannot deal with it. For instance, the National Transport Authority, NTA, had a so-called consultation on greenways across 22 counties. Who could get around that? We sent them our principles, which were duly ignored. The NTA is unaccountable in terms of its attitudes to the UNCRPD. Recently, Deputy Gino Kenny tabled a parliamentary question on our behalf to the Department of Transport asking in what way it is upholding the right of DPOs to be prioritised in consultations under the UNCRPD. The response was that the Department is waiting for guidance from the Department with responsibility for disabilities. Good grief, we will be waiting until the next century. This is what is happening.

Let us say there is a doctor at No. 83 South Great George's Street. That is a street that originally the NTA had in mind to pedestrianise. When a street is pedestrianised somehow, magically, cyclists become pedestrians. This is mad. Streets are not really pedestrianised. They are for pedestrians and cyclists. There is massive disability-washing going on whereby it is said that cycling is great for some people who are disabled. Visually-impaired people cannot see cyclists coming to get out of their way. There has to be 100% segregation between pedestrians and cyclists. In Amsterdam it is lethal around the train station for visually-impaired persons. There are not as many visually-impaired people on the streets in Amsterdam now. We already have an infrastructure that is based on kerbs. Most of the English-speaking world does. It is excellent and fantastic. This is being changed with the concept of shared spaces.

I will go back to the example of the doctor at No. 83 South Great George's Street and I have a reason for doing so. If I had a doctor's appointment there, I would need to be dropped as close as possible, be it by taxi, public transport or a blue badge vehicle. If possible, I would need to be dropped outside. If the street were to be totally pedestrianised, a taxi would leave me on Dame Street at the top of South Great George's Street. The doctor would be approximately 300 yd down to the right. This would not only affect visually-impaired people. It would also affect people with pulmonary disease. It would affect the 186,000 people who can find it difficult to walk for more than ten or 15 minutes.

Paragraph 9 of general comment 7 of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights refers to the sustainable development goals 2030. The year 2030 will have come and gone before the State gets around to consulting DPOs. I cannot explain enough that the NTA has not read general comment 7. By the looks of it, it has not read the UNCRPD either. There is no UNCRPD without Article 4.3. It will be very expensive to try to undo all of this. Members will realise all of this when they go into their dotage. As they get older, they will find they will not be able to get to that doctor at No. 83 George's Street. I cannot believe this has not been disability proofed. What is happening here is illegal under international law. It is absolutely detrimental to the life and limb of our members. It means they cannot leave their houses. They cannot be independent. It is a disgrace this is going on. It is an absolute scandal that this is allowed to be done.

The NTA has a transport user access group. It specifically asked what it calls representative organisations for people with disabilities to join. Two of them are service providers. They themselves say they are not DPOs. That is the attitude of the NTA. It has such contempt for the UNCRPD and the rights of disabled persons. It certainly does not want to hear from DPOs. The committee needs to change that. It has the legislative power to do so. It will not happen through the Department of Transport telling the NTA to be nice to disabled people. It needs legislation. It needs to be shown that nothing will happen unless it is properly disability-proofed with DPOs. That needs to be made mandatory for the NTA.

Ms Maryam Madani:

I want to make a point on the free travel pass and medical cards. They need to be made available to disabled people regardless of whether they take up employment. This is because of the inadequacies of our public transport system.

Ms Frances Quan Farrant:

I could wax lyrical about climate change and its impact on people with disabilities in Australia. Australia is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to climate change. We have been through three years of La Niña, which is a weather system in the Pacific. It dumps rain on the east coast of Australia. It has caused catastrophic floods. What we found, particularly in Lismore in northern New South Wales, was that the impacts on people with disabilities were profound. People drowned in their homes because they were on a flood plain. Disability has to be part of every aspect of policy when it comes not only to climate change, transport and education but to everything. It is about all 31 articles of the UNCRPD. Legislation needs to be retrofitted. I do not think anyone in Ireland needs me to talk about rain.

Mr. Joe McGrath:

Transport in rural areas needs to be integrated. Mr. Kavanagh said that buses passed by his door and he does not get picked up.

There should be stops outside his door or a bus that can come and get him and bring him to his place of work or wherever he wants to go if he does not drive. At the end of the day, if we do not have good infrastructure for getting around in rural Ireland or large cities, people will use cars or get their family members, if they are lucky enough to have them, to drive them around from place to place.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McGrath. I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee and for their contributions. Most of them have met before and engaged, and it is always a pleasure. I find I learn so much from them and others who have come in here and shared their lived experience with us. As a committee, we have written to all Departments and reminded them that they have an obligation to invite DPOs into their committees to discuss areas of policy and have a responsibility to disability proof all policies and budgets. We will continue to do that. All of us in our respective parties need to do that, and I hope all members will do that because I committed to do so in my party. We have made calls for a register of DPOs. We think it is very important that happens as quickly as possible. There should be proper investment in DPOs to ensure they are in a position to consult all Government bodies, local authorities and any other relevant organisations. We have written to the Minister, but have not yet received a reply, regarding the requirement to register as a charity to be able to apply for funding, something Disabled Women Ireland raised with us. We think that is ridiculous. We need to move away from the charity model. We need a human rights model. We will continue to follow up on that issue. As usual, the witnesses have brought up lots of issues we need to reflect on, and we will continue to do that. I look forward to further engagement inside and outside of the committee.