Author: admin

As Presented by the State in May and June, 2024.
Submitted, August 14th, 2024.

1. Introduction.
2. General Approach.
3. NDA’s Consultation process.
4. Inclusive Learning and Education.
5. Employment.
6. Independent Living and Active Participation in Society.
7. Health and well-Being.
8. Transport & Mobility.
9. Closing Remarks on Consultation.
10. Monitoring.

Acronyms.

CRPD = Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
DCEDIY = Dept. of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.
DEPU = Disability Equality Policy Unit.
DETE = Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
DPO = Disabled Persons’ Organisation.
DPRO = Disabled Persons’ Representative Organisation (different way of describing a DPO, and is our preference).
DPCN = Disability Participation and Consultation Network.
DRCD = Department of Rural and Community Development.
DSG = Disability Stakeholders’ Group.
GC = UNCRPD General Comment – legally persuasive clarifications published by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
HSE = Health Service Executive
NDA = National Disability Authority.
NDS = National Disability Strategy.
PPN = Public Participation Network.
PII = Physical Impairment Ireland
PO = Principle Officer.
UNCRPD = United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
VVVI = Voice of Vision Impairment.

1. Introduction.

The Dept. of Disability (DCEDIY) is putting together a National Disability Strategy (2025-2030). There has been no strategy since the 2017-2021 Strategy was extended for an extra year, and came to an end in December, 2022. The structure underpinning these national strategies predated the UNCRPD, so the strategies themselves were not UNCRPD-compliant. This lack of legal heft and the vagueness of objectives contained on the strategies, has meant that we do not know of any benefit regarding our core issues of accessible communications or accessible built environment and transport which has resulted from the previous strategies.

Since June, 2021, DCEDIY has stated that this successor strategy will be aligned with the UNCRPD, and it does not inspire optimism that the objectives are not strong enough to speak about “implementation” of the UNCRPD, or its incorporation into Irish law.

The below observations are based on material presented at two events: in chronological order, the first presentations were made to the Disability Stakeholder Group on May 29th (regarding monitoring); and the second to a broad group of disability-related organisations, on June 4th (regarding consultation).

VVI makes these observations as a DPRO – Disabled Persons’ Representative Organisation (currently referred to by the Dept. of Disability etc. (DCEDIY) as DPO – Disabled Persons Organisation. Our colleagues at Physical Impairment Ireland also prefer the term DPRO, and we think this choice of language preference should also be respected by the State.

The criteria and roles of DPROs, as well as our special status regarding consultation and disability-proofing, are set out in Articles 4 (3), 29 (b (ii)), and 33 (3) of the UNCRPD, and especially as clarified by UNCRPD’s General Comment No. 7 (GC7).

This includes that DPROs are the only “representative” organisations of disabled people, and as such, they must be closely consulted and actively involved in all disability-proofing of just about everything (including the NDS, 2025-2030).

Legal Opinion, Commissioned by VVI, regarding DPROs
https://vvi.ie/legal-opinion-for-vvi-as-a-dpo-for-all-dpos/

These general legally-binding obligations on the State are of immediate effect (GC1, para. 30; GC7, para. 28), as opposed to “progressive realisation” as traditionally claimed by the State.

Noting the difference between close and broad/wide consultation (cf. GC7, para. 44), there should be DPRO-only spaces for close consultation across all branches and levels of government (GC7, para. 49), and the views and opinions of DPROs prioritised over non-DPROs (GC7, paras. 13-4, 23, 56); and in particular, distinguished from those of disability service-providers (GC7, para. 13). Indeed, disability service-providers, themselves, should be closely consulting and actively involving DPROs in any advocacy work they are doing (GC7, para. 14), and the State should be facilitating an environment conducive to the formation and growth of DPROs (GC7, paras. 51-2), including the creation of conditions whereby it is worthwhile disabled people joining their DPROs (UNCRPD, Art. 29 (b (ii)).

For the purposes of such close consultations, the State should set up a register of DPROs (GC7, para. 61), based on the criteria set out in GC7, paras. 10-4). These criteria include that DPROs must have the advancement of Human Rights as their core mission, and not be disability service-providers, and be independent of disability-service providers and other non-DPROs; they must be run, led, directed, and mostly membered by disabled people of that particular designated constituency; and they must be open to everyone in their constituency (whether this constituency be impairment-based or impairment plus characteristics of other protected category groups – i.e., intersectional).

VVI believes that there should be consolidation so that there is one DPRO per constituency – i.e., no duplication. It should also be noted that professional sectors do not constitute protected category groups, and so legitimate DPROs cannot be based on a profession or pastime etc, since such sectors are not protected category groups.

We set up VVI in July, 2019, in good faith, to help Ireland meet its consultative and monitoring obligations under the UNCRPD. We had to do this from scratch, and in a context where the general public, civil servants and politicians, alike, generally associated ‘representation’ of disabled people with disability service-providers or ally organisations, and not with our own Human Rights based organisations. Our sister organisation, Physical Impairment Ireland, was set up in March 2021, and it has faced the same obstacles of understanding. More than six years on from Ireland’s ratification of the UNCRPD, it is deeply frustrating that there is still such lack of awareness of Article 4 (3) obligations by public and private bodies, and that we are still left to carry such weight with so little resources, and normally only have our collective representative views aggregated in consultations, including in disability-proofing.

Since the first “consultations” on this NDS were initiated by DEPU back in July, 2023, neither VVI nor our colleagues in PII have been “closely consulted” as defined by the CRPD, which means that the NDS cannot be UNCRPD-compliant. This is ironic, given that the NDS hopes to be aligned with the UNCRPD.

Indeed, at some point between June and October, 2023, DEPU made a decision that, whatever close consultations it was to set up for DPROs, it would only engage those who are members of the “DPO Network” and would exclude other DPROs from those close consultative processes.

This has effected an apparent hierarchy of DPROs (and in-group and an out-group), which was reflected in DPO Network representatives being on the podium for the June 4th presentation, purporting to be speaking for “the DPOs” and “the DPO Movement.” We know that there have been meetings between DEPU and the DPO Network since October, 2023, ostensibly collaboratively co-creating the new NDS. In the meantime, DEPU has met PII and VVI only once, in December, 2023, and that one hour primarily involved VVI and PII trying to vindicate our rights under Article 4 (3), as clarified by GC7, and vainly trying to get reasonable accommodation regarding remote access to a public December 7th in-person NDS event being hosted by DCEDIY.

VVI and PII have been recognised as legitimate DPROs by the NDA (September, 2022), signed off on by DCEDIY, so there can be no reasonable justification for our exclusion from DPRO-only processes:

National Disability Authority Participation Matters (Sept. 2022)
https://nda.ie/publications/participation-matters-guidelines-on-implementing-the-obligation-to-meaningfully-engage-with-disabled-people-in-public-decision-making

For example, VVI is the only DPRO in the Republic of Ireland specialising in the rights and needs of blind and partially sighted people, and that remit gives us a unique voice. By excluding VVI from DPRO-specific processes, DCEDIY is discriminating against our members on the grounds of disability (their visual impairment). While other DPROs may have visually impaired members, we are the specialists for that constituency. This is also in a context where visually impaired people are ten times more likely to be discriminated against than almost any other impairment constituency – with the outlier being psychosocial conditions, which is still not as discriminated against as visual impairment in this regard (ESRI, 2018).

In violation of Article 8 of the UNCRPD, as clarified in GC7, para. 76, this collective discrimination of our members has permeated to all other public bodies involved in the whole-of-government approach to UNCRPD implementation, with the DPO Network being given the yacht treatment, and PII and VVI being given the canoe treatment – i.e., often totally ignored and never closely consulted and actively involved, even where DPRO-only consultations have been set up with the DPO Network. Given the similarities to the DCEDIY exclusions, we know that this is a pattern rather than a coincidence.

The State does not get to decide which DPROs it would prefer to work with and which ones it would prefer to shut out of DPRO-specific consultations. Also, it should be noted that on several occasions, DEPU has been forwarded the email by the DPO Network which excluded PII and VVI from the very beginning of that grouping. This is against the spirit of the UNCRPD, e.g., ‘To be open, democratic and represent the full and wide diversity of disabled people, they [i.e., DPRO umbrella or coalition groups] should accept all DPROs as members’ (GC7, para. 12 (a).

We think that we may have been excluded from the DPO Network because we were respectfully questioning whether some of its membership were meeting the criteria to be a DPRO under the UNCRPD. We have a right to ask such questions without intimidation or victimisation (GC7, paras. 29, 43). By apparently institutionalising this unfair exclusion, the State is blaming the victim and endorsing anti-UNCRPD behaviour (GC7, paras. 12 (a), 52).

Regarding our ongoing exclusion from DPRO rights, the following relevant points are from General Comment No. 7, translated into social model and DPRO-friendly language:

‘They [DPRO umbrella/coalition groups] only speak on behalf of their member organizations’, and ‘disabled people should be able to decide for themselves which organizations they want to represent them’ (GC7, para. 12 (a)).

‘Consultations should include organizations representing the wide diversity of disabled people’ (GC7, para. 15);

‘States parties should systematically and openly approach, consult and involve, in a meaningful and timely manner, DPROs’ (GC7, para. 22);

‘Full and effective participation requires that States parties facilitate participation and consult with disabled people representing the wide diversity in impairments’ (GC7, Para. 27).

‘States parties should ensure the full and effective participation of disabled people, through their representative organizations, as a measure to achieve their inclusion in society and combat discrimination against them (GC7, para. 33).

‘States parties should not withhold information, condition or prevent DPROs from freely expressing their opinions in consultations and throughout decision-making processes’ (GC7, para. 43);

‘States parties should ensure the close consultation and active involvement of DPROs, which represent all disabled people…’. (GC7, para. 50);

‘[States Parties] should ensure that DPROs representing all such groups are involved and consulted’ (GC7, para. 54).

[The Committee recommends that States parties adopt criteria to allocate funds for consultation, including by] ‘Distributing funds on an equal basis among different DPROs’ (GC7, para. 61 (d)) [and] ‘Making funding available to all DPROs’ (GC7, para. 61 (g)).

‘States parties should increase public resources for the establishment and strengthening of DPROs that represent all kinds of impairments’ (GC7, para. 64).

‘Consultation procedures should not exclude disabled people nor discriminate on grounds of impairment’ (GC7, para. 71).

2. General Approach.

Firstly, it should be noted that “sector” is a word appropriate to the disability industrial complex, and is not appropriate in a Human Rights context.

Secondly, the online poll, in Summer, 2023, to refine DEPU’s ‘five or six themes/pillars’, was not only anathema to Article 4 (3) of the UNCRPD, but was also inaccessible to screenreader-users (UNCRPD, Arts. 5, 9, 21). Rather than making up for such exclusion, DEPU, instead, has shut VVI out of the DPRO-only consultations. Such injustice is the opposite of the Human Rights approach to policy-making.

This discrimination highlights how accessible communications and Article 4 (3) obligations to DPROs should be ‘cross-cutting threads’.

These cross-cutting threads should include “Awareness” (UNCRPD, Art. 8), aimed at public bodies, disability service-providers, members of the public, and disabled people, themselves.

Slide 3 mentions: “Coordination of ongoing actions across government on disability, in alignment with the UNCRPD.”

VVI Response: in order to be in alignment with the UNCRPD, the cross-cutting nature of Article 4 (3) must be realised immediately (GC7, paras. 28, 68; GC1, para. 30).

Slide 3 mentions: “Providing a dynamic framework to address issues as they arise and maintenance of our ambition on disability”

VVI Response: as the only representative organisations under the UNCRPD, DPROs have our ear to the ground in this respect, and VVI and PII with our respective areas of specialist expertise must be closely engaged with and actively involved on a regular basis”.

Slide 3: “Providing a framework and structure for coherent sector-led action on disability and a space for collaborative problem solving.”
VVI Response: this is only realistic with regular “close” consultation with DPROs, including PII and VVI, as opposed to broad/wide consultations.

SLIDE 4: Cross-cutting critical enablers

Article 4 (3) is literally cross-cutting (GC7, para. 68), so it is a serious flaw that it is not even given this status by the Phase 2 draft of the NDS. Even according to the NDA, acknowledging our DPRO rights at a later stage is “tokenism” (NDA, Participation Matters, 2022, p.24).

Ongoing exclusion of VVI from assistive technology committees is a significant shortcoming and is a violation of the UNCRPD. We expect acknowledgment of our full DPRO rights, and the use of our current online resources.

Regarding research, close consultation with DPROs, including with VVI and PII, from early stages, is critical (GC7, paras. 17, 54, 90, 91). Indeed, research without early DPRO involvement (i.e., all interested DPROs, with weighting according to constituencies), is likely to be wasteful, and even harmful. Some reasons for this are that:

• without the continuity and consistency of full DPRO involvement, much funding and research is liable to be ‘re-inventing the wheel’;
• quantitative, qualitative, and desktop research – the basis of research, traditionally speaking – are missing a key component when it comes to disability, and that is the Human Rights approach to research. The basis of this is that those with least resources and supports are harder to reach using traditional research methods, but for universal design, the needs of such people must be prioritised. For example, there may be visually impaired people with acquired brain injuries, who are autistic, who are wheelchair-users, who suffer from fibromyalgia, or who are members of ethnic minorities or other intersectional groups. Such disadvantage can even something as basic as never having learnt to use computers or smartphones via screenreading technology or not having access to that assistive technology in the first place. DPROs, without any conflict of interest, have unique access to this collective expertise and memory, and in VVI’s case, we are uniquely placed in our specialising of the needs of blind and partially sighted people across all walks of life.

However, analogous to a Trade Union, we have our own voice, and are not a postman for researchers nor a reservoir of research participants. Last year, we successfully worked with a multinational corporation on research because it was UNCRPD-compliant, including with co-design with VVI.

3. NDA’s Consultation process.

Slides 5-10: While DPRO views “were captured throughout” the consultation outsourced by DEPU to the NDA, there was no prioritisation of our views and opinions nor an explanation given to us as to how our views were considered etc. (GC7, para. 23). As such, this process was not UNCRPD-compliant.

Our DPRO’s views were absent from the town-hall meetings, because that format was inaccessible to us with no facilitation of hybrid options.

Where is the incentive for disabled people to join DPROs (UNCRPD, Art. 29 (b (ii)) if our collective expertise and representation is just to be aggregated?

Need for accessible electronic documents, which is a basic Human Right for our members, is not mentioned in Slide 8.

DPROs are key to legislation and policies regarding discrimination (GC7, para. 70).

4. Inclusive Learning and Education.

Slides 11-6: Close consultation with VVI (as a DPRO) is particularly important in the area of learning and education, given our constituency (GC7, para. 85), and this applies to private and public educational institutions, as well as all related public bodies (ibid.). Along with accessible travel and transportation (including an accessible built environment), the core to our accessibility in every other respect involves accessible communications (UNCRPD, Articles 9, 21), which are the reason why visually impaired people consistently do so poorly in third level attendance – i.e., based on lack of accessibility in primary and secondary school. In annual figures released by AHEAD, visual impairment consistently emerges as the least represented disability category in third level education.

We, in VVI, have the first hand experience of members who have solutions (simple fixes) to Special Needs Assistant challenges in primary and secondary school.

We also have the solutions, based on first-hand-experience, on participation third level education up to the highest level.

While, given our Article 4 (3) rights, we do not have to sell ourselves or our significance, VVI has put together world class free online resources to be the basis of any engagement between ourselves and any public or private body related to the educational sector:

VVIMAC – Manual of Accessible Communications
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

VVIMAPS – Manual for Accessible Public Spaces
https://vvi.ie/vvimaps/

We have had no correspondence with the Dept. of Education, but would welcome an introduction. The Department has a healthy aim to learn from lived experience of disabled people, but for that to be meaningful rather than random, this must be through our DPROs (as per the UNCRPD).

The Dept. of Further & Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS) is responsible for policy regarding third level education, but also, necessarily, for policy on research – which is very much linked to the third level area. See UNCRPD, Art. 31 – research, and GC7, paras. 17, 54, 90-1.

However, funding from the Irish Research Council, which is a conduit of State funding to third level research institution applicants, continues to fund disability-related research which is not UNCRPD-compliant and which undermines the role of DPROs, including by prioritising disability service-providers in partnerships. For example, our 2023 co-designed research with a multinational on accessibility of audio-visual media, was followed in March, 2024, by the Irish Research Council paying for a project through DCU on the same issue, but involving, instead, a disability service-provider focusing on visual impairment. This latter funding was, thus, re-inventing the wheel and wasteful, and because it was not co-designed with VVI, is not UNCRPD-compliant.

As of June 21st, 2024, DFHERIS’s position is that it has nothing to do with how such funding is spent, and that such would be a matter for the various research institutions involved. We think that it is not unreasonable to expect that all research specifically focusing on disability be UNCRPD-compliant as a precondition for State funding.

DFHERIS closely engages with the Disabled Postgraduate Advisory Committee (DPAC), but DPAC cannot be a DPRO under the UNCRPD because third level graduates are not a protective characteristic group. In other words, the subcategory is sectoral, not intersectional. Otherwise put, because it is ostensibly a cross-impairment organisation, but excludes disabled people who are not third level graduates, then it is not compliant with GC7, para. 11 (e). However, Notwithstanding this, DFHERIS needs to be systematically approaching all actual DPROs, and given our speciality in the needs of visually impaired people, it is a significant deficit that DFHERIS is excluding VVI from close consultations. And yes, VVI has members and representatives with every level of FITAC qualification, and none.

DFHERIS tells us that there are “disability organisations” on the National Access Plan Steering Committee. VVI is not yet one of those organisations. We do not understand why such an UNCRPD-compliant asset as VVI would be wasted, except for lack of awareness of the Department’s Article 4 (3) obligations (cf. UNCRPD Article 8).

DFHERIS have many other disability-related initiatives, but since, as far as VVI is concerned, they are about us without us, we cannot see how they can be fit for purpose.

In sum, Article 4 (3) (as clarified by General Comment No. 7) – consultation – is the cornerstone of Article 24 (clarified by General Comment No. 4) – education. Fundamental to both are Article 9 (GC2) – accessibility – and Article 21 – accessible communications; which are, in turn, also shaped by the general obligation of Article 4 (1) of the UNCRPD.

5. Employment.

Slides 17-21: ‘The adoption of all policies regarding the right of disabled people to work and employment (art. 27) should be taken in close consultation with and the active involvement of DPROs’ (GC7, para. 86).

At least 76% of severely visually impaired people of employment age are not in employment. This can be contrasted to 13.9% or disabled people in general, and 7.5% of the general population.

While 22% of the population is said to be disabled to some degree (Census, 2022), only about 8% are disabled to a significant extent. This raises a question in terms of the 6% target for disabled employees in the public service. In meeting such targets, will the State be picking the ‘low-hanging fruit’, so to speak, and employing those who are not disabled to a significant extent?

Our members find application processes to be normally inaccessible, or at least extremely difficult to access. Psychometric tests are generally inaccessible to visually impaired people, and so, making us complete them is discriminatory.

The Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE) is in no position to “engage with employers to raise awareness of the supports for employing a person with a disability” without first being aware itself of such needs through close consultation with DPROs.

Nor can DETE “Raise awareness and promote competency training amongst employers” without close consultation with DPROs.

For reference, see UNCRPD General Comment No. 8.

As a useful resource, see VVIMAC – Manual of Accessible Communications
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

VVI supports the creation of a state-run Employment Agency for disabled people, run by disabled people with close consultation of DPROs. This will make it easier for disabled people to know that suitable jobs are available, and will make it possible for them to be supported in putting together CVs, making applications, interview presentation skills etc.

6. Independent Living and Active Participation in Society.

Slides 22-9: This is particularly relevant to UNCRPD’s Article 19, as clarified by GC5, however, as with everything else, the cornerstone is cross-cutting Article 4 (3). All other Articles are related to this theme, but for visually impaired people, the two particular areas are accessible communication (Arts. 9 and 21), and safe and accessible mobility, including within an accessible built environment (Arts. 9 and 20). See also General Comment Nos. 2 (accessibility) and 7 (participation through their DPROs).

Housing.

In October, 2023, the national Housing Agency went to great effort to explain to the respective Local Authority Disability Housing Steering Groups that they are obliged to prioritise the views and opinions of DPRO’s, and to distinguish DPRO’s from all other organisations, especially disability service-providers, in consultations.

The extent to which VVI reps are getting the dividend from this on the ground is quite variable, but nowhere excellent. It should be noted that neither VVI nor PII are on the Disability Housing Strategy Committee, which is necessarily a significant deficit.

The Arts Council.

We have never heard from the Arts Council, so presume that it is unaware of Article 4 (3) and the concept of DPROs. We know the Arts Council has engaged with Arts & Disability Ireland (ADI), which is a service-provider rather than a DPRO; and with Disabled Artists, which is not a DPRO because it is limited to the arts sector rather than being open to all disabled people etc as per UNCRPD, GC7, para. 11 (e).

DCEDIY.

As detailed in Section 1 of this document, VVI has never been given the due weight of our DPRO status by DCEDIY, and indeed, we find ourselves being discriminated against as the specialists in visual impairment and being left out of DPRO-specific consultations by DCEDIY.

As ever, all its stated plans, without us, cannot be UNCRPD-compliant or fit for purpose.

DRCD.

A very worrying phrase is used by DRCD in slide 29: namely, “organisations representing the Disability sector.” The term “disability sector” is appropriate to the disability industrial complex, and not to a Human Rights based approach in policy-making. The only representative organisations regarding disability are DPROs (GC7, para. 10, etc.), which cannot be disability service-providers, and must be Human-Rights-based. Once more, this confusion appears to be indicative of a lack of awareness of the DPRO concept, which is the responsibility of DCEDIY under Article 8 of the UNCRPD. It is through ‘participation of disabled people through their representative organisations (DPROs)’ that self-empowerment is expressed on the policy-making level (GC7, paras. 27-33, etc.).

Related to this was something mentioned on the day, but not mentioned in the slides. This is the intention for the DRCD to use PPNs as a vehicle for participation of disabled people in the community etc. It is essential, as an immediate obligation under the UNCRPD, that all PPNs be compliant with Article 4 (3) of the UNCRPD (GC1, para. 30; GC7, para. 28). This includes that in matters pertaining particularly to disability, including in representation from the social inclusion pillars, that PPNs must prioritise the views and opinions of DPROs, and distinguish them from non-DPROs, and also prioritise them in capacity-building. This is necessarily conditional on DRCD, itself, being aware of its own obligations under Article 4 (3) in order to let PPNs know their obligations.

One area in which we find disability service-providers ‘eating our lunch’ and undermining our raison detre is at local level. We do not have the brand-name recognition nor the capacity/resources to compete with such organisations, but we should not be expected to be competing with them (UNCRPD, Art. 29 (b (ii)). The PPNs are one such area where we find out that our low capacity is drowned out by the voices, influences and resources of disability service providers.

7. Health and well-Being.

Slides 30-.6: While this theme is particularly relevant to Article 25 of the UNCRPD, as ever, Article 4 (3) is a necessary cornerstone. For visually impaired people, as ever, closely related articles are Articles 9, 20, 21, dealing with accessible communications and safe and easy mobility in an accessible environment.

Our relevant resources are:

VVIMAC – Manual of Accessible Communications
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

VVIMAPS – Manual for Accessible Public Spaces
https://vvi.ie/vvimaps/

DCEDIY.

DCEDIY cannot know the needs of visually impaired people without closely consulting with their DPRO (VVI). This UNCRPD obligation is a precondition for sustainability and efficacy.

Dept. of Health.

Likewise, the Dept. of Health cannot know the needs of visually impaired people without closely consulting with their DPRO (VVI). This UNCRPD obligation is a precondition for sustainability and efficacy. The Department should be mindful of the possible conflict of interests when dealing with disability service-providers who may have a conflict of interest, for example, when being consulted regarding assistive technology while they are also dealers in assistive technology. It is essential to distinguish DPRO’s from disability service providers in all consultations.

Disability Awareness and Competency Training needs, at the very least, to have been disability-proofed by interested DPROs, including VVI. Regarding co-design of systems etc., this must be done through DPROs (Article 4 (3) of the UNCRPD); this is the only way to ensure a comprehensive Human Rights based approach that is both iterative and consistent.

For a basis, see our VVIMAC – Manual of Accessible Communications
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

8. Transport & Mobility.

Slides 3740: While transport is particularly relevant to Articles 9 (accessibility) and 20 (mobility), cross-cutting Article 4 (3) obligations are core. See UNCRPD General Comment Nos. 2 and 7).

8.1. Easy Solutions, based on DPRO Consultations.

The solutions are straightforward and free if disability-proofing through DPROs happens at the concept stage of designs.

VVI’s online resources include:
VVI’s Planners’ Checklist for Accessible Streetscapes
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/vvi-planners-checklist-for-accessible-streetscapes/

VVI Manual of Accessible Planning for Pedestrians (VVIMAPP)
https://www.vvi.ie/mapp

VVIMAPS – Manual for Accessible Public Spaces
https://vvi.ie/vvimaps/

Furthermore, close consultation by interested planners in Dublin City Council led to the world’s first screenreader-accessible drawings:

Section 14 of Duke Street / Anne Street South Public Realm Scheme – Part 8 – Dublin City Council – Citizen Space

8.2. Need for Paradigm Shift.

Although the Dept. of Transport signed the NDA’s Disability Matters document (November, 2023), acknowledging that DPROs are first port-of-call in disability-proofing consultations, The Dept. of Transport and its agencies have continued to effectively ignore their legally-binding obligations under Article 4 (3) of the UNCRPD, as clarified by General Comment No. 7. In a PQ from October, 2023, the Dept. and National transport Authority (NTA) have said that they await Ministerial and DCEDIY guidance before such compliance.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-10-03/189/#pq_189

Again, in a PQ response on February 1st, 2024, the Minister for Transport said he was aware of the UNCRPD obligations, but was awaiting guidance from the relevant Ministers in DCEDIY regarding the completion of the next NDS.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2024-02-01a.171&s=uncrpd#g173.r

This is highly problematic because our DPRO rights under the UNCRPD are of immediate effect on Ireland’s ratification of the Convention in 2018 (GC1, para. 30), and not a matter of “progressive realisation” which has been sometimes claimed by the State. Effective Ignoring of DPROs such as VVI necessarily means that billions of euro are being wasted on infrastructure that has not been disability-proofed in a UNCRPD-compliant manner. We are also advised that these legally-binding obligations are given a statutory footing in the Local Government Act (2001, S69 (2)).

The past few years have witnessed a veritable avalanche of “Active Travel” projects throughout the country, which are inherently disablist. How could it be otherwise when the basic concepts were not initially disability-proofed through DPRO’s at an early stage. It is probable that apart from the Local Government Act, this sort of disablist planning is also a violation of our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 8 and 14). If Human Rights only consisted of what planners and policy-makers wanted to hear, there would be no point in the concept of Human Rights. Some of the greatest disabling obstacles in Active Travel are:

• island bus-stops and cycle-through bus-stop – reckless planning;
• cycle-through bus-stops put our rights as a protected category group (PCG) behind those of those who choose to cycle (a non-PCG).But apart from that principle, the concept is intrinsically dangerous to us, and once again, reckless planning.
• raised crossings, aka. Continuous footways etc., and table crossings etc. These take from us a key method of orientation by kerbs and dished crossings, and endanger us by not alerting us that we are about to cross a space frequented by traffic. It is little consolation that we have the right of way after we have been injured. It is insulting that every Active Travel project describes these as ‘improvements for pedestrians’, when for us, they are the exact opposite.
• where segregated cycle-lanes prevent us from door-to-door journeys (by taxi or blue badge vehicles), this is intrinsically discriminatory.
• so-called ‘pedestrianisation’ discriminates against us by removing our orientation points of dished crossings etc., and by preventing us from getting door-to-door transportation.
• shared space by pedestrians with other vehicles (including bicycles), is highly dangerous for us (cf. TrinityHaus Report, 2012; Holmes Report, 2015).
• reduction of signal crossings discriminates against us because we cannot make eye-contact with oncoming traffic (including cyclists).

Other measures which discriminate against us by negatively impacting our safety include:

• not closely consulting with us on e-Scooter regulations;
• effectively ignoring our contributions on EV-charging consultations;
• not having audio emissions from e-vehicles under 20kph.

Such measures as above make us prisoners in our own homes and forces us to rely on the kindness of family or friends to make even the most basic journey to our local community. This goes against a central concept – ‘rights, not charity’, which is at the heart of the DPRO movement.

The Wayfinding Centre.

A glaring structural problem is that the Dept. of Transport has invested at least €3.5m in a private charity project called “The Wayfinding Centre” which is wholly non-UNCRPD-compliant. Not only was there no close consultation with any DPROs regarding this project, but no DPRO that we know of even approves of the concept. A serious problem is that the Wayfinding Centre aims to be the primary consultee in research and policy and disability-proofing streetscapes and public transport from now on, and that is 100% flying in the face of Article 4 (3) of the UNCRPD. Something will have to give, and it cannot be the State’s legally-binding obligations under Article 4 (3) of the UNCRPD.

Legal Opinion, Commissioned by VVI, regarding DPROs:
https://vvi.ie/legal-opinion-for-vvi-as-a-dpo-for-all-dpos/

The Wayfinding Centre got zero approval from DPROs; indeed DPROs were never really asked what we thought of it.

The Wayfinding Centre is exploring research partnerships with third level institutions, etc., which are wholly non-UNCRPD-compliant, and the training programmes they propose are also non-UNCRPD compliant, since they have nothing to do with DPROs.

Another basic flaw in the Wayfinding Centre is that it is based on the idea of travelling to travel-training for visually impaired people. Such training is far more efficacious in situe (i.e., in one’s home environment). No wonder that the Wayfinding Centre claims to be the first of its type in the world – even though in its early marketing stages, when it was looking for seed-funding and buy-in from other disability organisations, it claimed that there were three other examples of what it did elsewhere in the world.

Recent Discriminations:

On March, 27th, 2024, The Dept. of Transport announced a “Moving Together” document for public consultation, which went to consultation on April 15th, to close in July.

In late March, we requested from the Department that it make available an accessible version of the document, since the only publically available version was inaccessible, even to our most experienced of screenreader-users accessing .pdf. Our last contact with the Department on this was at the end of April, and we have not been contacted since.

There was a Sustainable Mobility conference in Portlaoise on May, 22nd, 2024, which we asked to be made hybrid to facilitate attendance by VVI reps. Only one of our reps managed to make it because this request was refused, and that rep’s views were either ignored or aggregated with everyone else’s.

Public Transport.

Public transport operators do not effectively (closely) consult with VVI, despite our DPRO status and expertise.

The main public transport operators have “Disability User Groups” that our representatives feel marginalised at, and our bilateral meetings, where they happen, even when on a regular basis, do not have many or any points actioned.

The only explanation for this is that the public service providers do not understand why a DPRO exists and why we should be treated as a priority consultee. Instead, we find that they defer to Vision Ireland and its Wayfinding Centre (which is wholly anathema to the UNCRPD).

9. Closing Remarks on Consultation.

Slides 41-2: Slide 42 mentions: “Consultation and participation of disabled people and engagement with DPOs in development, implementation and monitoring.”

It must be understood and clarified that Article 4 (3) obligations refer to the participation of disabled people “through their representative organisations” (DPROs) – see title of GC7. Unless clear distinctions are made between DPROs and non-DPROs, there cannot be a clear path to accountability, since the interests of DPROs are necessarily not aligned with those of disability service-providers etc.

In terms of what’s possible, it is apparent to VVI that the State, through lack of understanding, massively over-complicates what is required for accessibility, at least from a visual impairment perspective; and because of this, it appears to be unnecessarily intimidated by the illusion of complexity.

VVI has free online resources to be the basis of engagement with all public bodies (including the hundreds of semi-state etc.). We have a model set up which would enrich our membership and representatives, as well as the public bodies with which we deal. It is a win-win. Once officials see how it works, everything fits into place.

Note that each DPRO will have its own preferred way of playing to its own strengths, and a one-size-fits all approach is liable to be problematic for that reason.

Finally, General Comment No. 7 clarifies Articles 4 (3) and 33 (3), and as such, it is essential that it be used as a common roadmap from which we can work. When all the parts come together, public bodies and officials will be surprised how intuitive and common-sense everything is – underpinned by a written framework – starting with GC7, and building on that.

10. Monitoring.

Article 33 of the UNCRPD.

In terms of monitoring, there is planned to be, lower down from the Human Rights Commission, the Joint Oireachtas Committee, and Cabinet Committee, an Oversight Group, comprising sectoral leads and DPRO representatives – responsible for oversight and steering Sectoral Implementation Plans; and lower again, Sectoral Delivery Groups, comprising sectoral leads and DPRO membership. Presumably, the latter would be something like a dedicated group on transport accessibility etc.

DPRO involvement necessitates a DPRO register, based on General Comment No. 7 (paras. 10-4). No genuine DPRO can be excluded from this process, and organisations not meeting the criteria should not be categorised as DPROs.

There was also mooted the possibility of a mirror-group at the second-lowest of those tiers, also comprising non-DPROs. If this happens, the clear pathway of accountability will almost certainly be compromised, given the wholly different nature of DPROs from non-DPROs, and the desires of the latter to preserve their influence, notwithstanding Article 4 (3) of the UNCRPD.

The following contains paragraphs from General Comment No. 7 (GC7), in social model language, augmented by VVI comments where relevant.

Part II (D). Article 33: involvement of civil society in national implementation and monitoring.

34. Article 33 of the Convention establishes national implementation mechanisms and independent monitoring frameworks and provides for the participation of DPROs therein.
    Article 33 should be read and understood as supplementing article 4 (3).

CRPD, GC7: States Parties should: 94 (k) Ensure monitoring of States parties’ compliance with articles 4 (3) and 33 (3), and facilitate DPROs’ leadership in such monitoring;

(l) Develop and implement, with the involvement of DPROs, effective enforcement mechanisms, with meaningful sanctions and remedies, for non-compliance with State parties’ obligations under articles 4 (3) and 33 (3);

Comment: this means that DPROs views and opinions should be prioritised (GC7, paras. 13-4, 23, etc.), in the implementation and monitoring, as well as in the consultation around disability-proofing.

CRPD, GC7: 35. Article 33 (1) requires States parties to establish one or more focal points and/or coordinating mechanisms to secure implementation of the Convention and facilitate related action.

The Committee recommends that States parties’ focal points, and/or coordinating mechanisms, include the representatives of DPROs, and formal procedures of engagement and liaison with such organizations, in consultation processes related to the Convention.

41. To implement article 33 (3), States parties should ensure that DPROs have easy access to the focal points within Government and/or the coordination mechanism.

Comment: six years on from Ireland’s ratification of the UNCRPD, VVI finds this to be absent.

CRPD, GC7: 37. Article 33 (3) emphasizes the obligation of States parties to ensure that civil society is involved and can participate in the independent monitoring framework established according to the Convention.
The involvement of civil society should include disabled people, through their representative organizations.

38. States parties should ensure that independent monitoring frameworks allow for, facilitate and ensure the active involvement of DPRO’s in such frameworks and processes, through formal mechanisms, ensuring that their voices are heard and recognized in its reports and the analysis undertaken.
    The inclusion of DPRO’s in the independent monitoring framework and the work thereof can take several forms, for example, through seats on the board of or advisory bodies to the independent monitoring frameworks.

Comment: In Ireland, IHREC is the independent monitoring framework. Section 103 of the 2023 Assistive Decision Making Amendment Act provides for disabled people being on IHREC’s Disability Advisory Group, but not necessarily through their representative organisations (DPRO’s). IHREC has the power to make sure that such voices are representative by ensuring representation by key constituency DPRO’s on the Disability Advisory Group, but it has not done so, apparently doing the minimum required under the 2023 Act.

CRPD, GC7: 39. Article 33 (3) implies that States parties should support and fund the strengthening of capacity within civil society, in particular DPRO’s, to ensure their effective participation in the processes of the independent monitoring frameworks.

DPRO’s should have appropriate resources, including support through independent and self-managed funding, to take part in the independent monitoring frameworks and ensure that reasonable accommodation and accessibility requirements for its membership are met.

The support and funding of DPRO’s in relation to article 33 (3) complement States parties’ obligations under article 4 (3) of the Convention and do not preclude them.

Comment: we receive zero supports from the State, and our requirements to have capacity-building supports in terms of form-filling etc., are receiving no attention from the State.

CRPD, GC7: 65. States parties should develop strong mechanisms and procedures ensuring effective sanctions for non-compliance with the obligations under articles 4 (3) and 33 (3).

Compliance should be monitored by independent bodies, for example the office of the ombudsperson or a parliamentary commission, which have the authority to initiate investigations and hold the responsible authorities to account.

At the same time, DPROs should be able to initiate legal actions against entities when they find that the latter have failed to comply with articles 4 (3) and 33 (3).1

Such mechanisms should be part of the legal frameworks governing the consultation and involvement of DPROs, and national anti-discrimination legislation,2 at all levels of decision-making.

66. States parties should recognize effective remedies, including of a collective nature, or class actions to enforce compliance with the right of disabled people to participate.
    Public authorities can significantly contribute to effectively guaranteeing disabled people’ access to justice in situations that negatively affect their rights.3
    Effective remedies could include:
    (a) suspending the procedure;
    (b) returning to an earlier stage of the procedure to ensure the consultation and involvement of DPROs;
    (c) delaying implementation of the decision until appropriate consultations take place; or
    (d) quashing, totally or partially, the decision, based on non-compliance with articles 4 (3) and 33 (3).

Contents.

1. Accessible Registration.
2. Accessible Polling Cards.
3. Accessing Polling Centres.
4. Privacy.
5. Accessibility Problems with the Tactile Voting Template (TVT).
6. Insufficient Colour Contrast on Green Paper.
7. Returning Officer Feedback to the Franchise Unit of the DHLG.
8. The Discretionary 2-Hour Cut-Off.
9. CRPD-Compliant Disability-Proofing.
10. General Recommendations.
    Appendix A. Excerpt from Manual For Presiding Officers.

1. Accessible Registration.

The degree of accessible registration varies among the thirty-one Local Authorities, and it is to be welcomed that there is to be one registration portal from 2025, at www.voter.ie.

Galway County Council began online voter registration in about 2010, and two or three other counties immediately began to use the same system, borrowed from Galway. If compliant with the 2016 EU Websites Accessibility Directive (2016) and European Accessibility Act (2019), as well as VVI’s guidance on accessible websites na d forms, online registration is welcomed by many visually impaired people for making the process more accessible and convenient.

However, even for visually impaired people who have good online skills, assistance may still be required for certain aspects of the registration, such as acquiring photo ID and dealing with papers to be signed by an Garda Síochána. Close consultation and active involvement of VVI, as per Article 4 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), is essential to make the process work for all visually impaired people, including those with least resources and supports.

Similarly, many visually impaired people do not have good computer skills, and as such, may need even more additional assistance in accessing the registration process. Once again, a precondition of such accessibility is the Human Rights to consultations specific to DPROs such as VVI are obligatory under Article 4 (3), and in keeping with Article 29 (b (ii)) of the CRPD.

2. Accessible Polling Cards.

While, technically, as we were told by the Franchise Unit of Dublin City Council, voters do not need to show polling cards at polling stations during referenda, polling cards do expedite proceedings. Also, visually impaired people may find it more difficult to locate identification – for example we are not eligible for drivers’ licenses – and as such, an accessible polling card can help.

The Franchise Unit of Dublin City Council, on request, will email the polling card by default. This means that the voter can then show the polling card on screen to officials at polling stations in a much more accessible way for many.

Local Authorities around the country should be made aware of this option so that they can then advertise it and otherwise offer it to visually impaired voters.

3. Accessing Polling Centres.

3.1. Voting-Related Signs Dangerously Located.
3.2. Postering.
3.3. Finding the Polling Station.

3.1. Voting-Related Signs Dangerously Located.

The ‘Ionad Votála’, ‘Polling Station’ and ‘voting this way’ signs issued to presiding officers are often located less than 2.3m above the ground, meaning that they are low-hanging enough to cause injury to visually impaired voters. Presiding officers should be instructed, before every polling day, that such signs should be more than 2.3m clear of the ground, and securely fastened so that they are not left swinging down as a result of gusts.

3.2. Postering.

As ever, our members experienced difficulties with low-hanging referendum posters, which endanger our safety and long-term health when we collide with them. One of our members sustained a long-term brain injury after colliding with a low-hanging poster in 2014, which also led to the loss of the remainder of his sight.

An Coimisiún Toghcháin states that it has no responsibility for the details of postering bylaws and policy etc., but we can see no reason why it cannot advise on this feature of referenda/elections. Either way, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage is in a position to promulgate legislation to make sure that our safety is guaranteed in this respect.

3.3. Finding the Polling Station.

Some of our members who travelled independently to their polling station got lost and were much delayed in eventually finding the polling station. This occurrence is much more frequent now that there is an avalanche of disabling design being visited on our urban roads and streets by the National Transport Authority, in particular. Even apart from this, election posters are often hung dangerously low, meaning that independent travelling by visually impaired voters on their way to polling stations has traditionally been, and remains, hazardous.

Also, since polling stations are usually not frequently visited by our members, routes can be difficult to memorise, even where the placemaking has not been ruined. The exterior design of schools has also been ignoring CRPD obligations of consultations with DPROs on universal design, and as such, wayfinding for visually impaired people can be nigh on impossible in them, and even hazardous when obstacles such as unprotected cycle-stands are included.

We propose that a help number be made available for each polling station, whereby a visually impaired person who is unsure as to the location of the polling station, can call and ask for assistance in reasonable vicinity of the polling station.

4. Privacy.

4.1. Training of Polling Officers.
4.2. Easels and Wall-Facing Booths.

4.1. Training of Polling Officers.

Some of our members felt that the polling officer assisting them with their voting was too close while they were voting, meaning that the vote was not as private as they would have wished. This should be a matter of training, that a polling official is trained that if a visually impaired person wishes to vote on their own, then the official merely needs to establish that the visually impaired voter is happy in their understanding of how the TVT works and that the paper is properly aligned, and then just let them at it, with the official’s back turned to the visually impaired voter.

For elections, we think it very important that three further steps be taken to ensure privacy.

4.2. Easels and Wall-Facing Booths.

Election papers are far too long for the polling benches. This is not a problem for people who are not visually impaired, since they can just bend the paper accordingly. However, for those of us who use the TVT, this is not an option. We might vainly try to turn the page sideways, so that the top and bottom of the paper are facing left and right sides of the polling booth, respectively, but this involves uncomfortable contortions that cannot be sustained for very long.

Voting at open tables etc., is not an option, because we cannot tell if someone is looking at us while we vote.

As such, at least one booth should be turned towards the wall, so that a voter has their back to the wall when voting. To overcome the election TVT length issue, a plywood or chipboard easel should be available allowing the voter to put the polling paper on a stable slant in order to facilitate comfortable and accurate voting. We have seen prototypes of such easels from one manufacturer.

Furthermore, it would be more conducive to privacy were there one TVT per paper, instead of having to change over during the voting procedure, which involves interaction with the presiding officer which should not be otherwise necessary.

5. Accessibility Problems with the Tactile Voting Template.

The referendum TVTs were the same ones last used in 2019 – which was their first time out, and at that stage, quite experimental. This first batch has two significant design flaws.

5.1. Braille Type.
5.2. Raised Print Insufficiently Clear.
5.3. Separating English and Irish Text.

5.1. Braille Type.

Because Unified English Braille (UEB) is used in this TVT, even for Irish text, the ‘á’ and ‘í’ each take three cells instead of one, so that tá takes five cells instead of two, and níl takes six cells instead of three. This is both confusing and cumbersome. Sighted people only have to read two and three-letter words in this case, where braille-readers, for no good reason, are being forced to read the equivalent to five and six letter words, respectively. This barrier to intelligibility is discriminatory.

The reason why this extraordinary mistake happened was that the Franchise Unit approached the NCBI, as the primary braille service-provider, to advise on brailling instructions. The result appears very much like a non-braille-reading member of staff put all the text through the converter in Duxbury software, using Unified English Braille for everything.

Moreover, even the use of Unified English Braille is only appropriate in terms of private use where choice is available, and not in public contexts. For instance, in this case, the unnecessary use of a capitalised initial for “yes” and “no,” meant that these words had four and three cells (equivalent to print letter spaces), respectively.

The solution is to use non-UEB, or Standard English Braille, Grade 1, in the brailling of a new batch of referendum TVTs. Technically, this means that the old Standard Irish Braille should be used for the Irish lettering, so that each acute accent letter only occupies one cell, and that there are no capital letters.

5.2. Raised Print Insufficiently Clear.

The edges of the raised print letters are shampered, instead of straight-edged, and as such, are unclear, making them difficult or impossible for some of our members to read. Some of our members have reduced sensitivity in their fingers, and so it is vital that the edges of raised print be exceptionally clear.

5.3. Separating English and Irish Text.

One of our members wrote, “I found the template cluttered and wonder should they have put the Tá on the left of the box and Yes to the right of it and likewise in the case of Níl and No on the second line.”

It is our position that, unless required in in educational or research contexts, languages in accessible formats should be kept strictly separate. This is because of the principle of “keep it simple” in such formats being paramount, and the related increased chances of unnecessary confusion where languages are mixed.

Accordingly, we advise that the Irish language options be to the left of the voting spaces on the TVTs, and the English options to the right.

6. Insufficient Colour Contrast on Green Paper.

One of the referendum papers was white, and the other was green, both with black text on them. Some of our members felt a bit uncomfortable using the green paper since the shade of green was a bit too dark. We realise the importance of being able to distinguish between the two ballot-papers at a glance for sighted officials, including at the count centres. However, this should also be easily accessible by visually impaired voters, and VVI is the body prescribed by the CRPD to be closely consulted and actively involved from the concept stage in looking how this change of standard is to be created.

7. Returning Officer Feedback to the Franchise Unit of the DHLG.

Presiding Officers did not generally seem to be interested in collating feedback on the voting experience of visually impaired people. While this system is potentially flawed, especially because failings of their own or their colleagues are liable to be covered over, it is still useful to have an extra channel of fault-reporting to aid in election planning.

Mostly voters would not know that the polling official was expected to report back to the Returning Officer regarding any problems, but where problems arose and our members were aware of this duty, they had to prompt the polling officer in this regard, before notes were taken.

This could be a matter of training.

8. The Discretionary 2-Hour Cut-Off.

In keeping with the 1992 Electoral Act, In Section 3.10 of the Manual for Presiding Officers, it is explicitly stated that election officers have discretion to deny the right of disabled people to vote in the final two hours of voting.

Section 3.10 of the handbook states:
“you may refuse to mark ballot-papers for an elector with a physical disability, visual impairment or literacy difficulty where the request is made within two hours before the close of the poll if you feel that compliance with the request would interfere with the proper discharge of your duty or unduly obstruct other electors. People with disabilities may be limited in the transport options available to them at certain times of the day, so you should refuse a request only if it’s absolutely necessary…”

The absence of a definition of what is meant by “absolutely necessary,” leaves the decision purely at the discretion of a Presiding Officer. Since all polling stations should be adequately staffed, we ask how is it possible that any situation could mean that it is “absolutely necessary” to deny a disabled person their right to vote at a polling station…and remember that this prescription is only targeted at disabled voters, and no-one else.

This advice by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which is responsible for elections in Ireland, is a clear violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Ireland ratified in 2018, and which contains the following internationally-binding obligation: “States Parties shall guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others” (CRPD, Article 29).

While this advice would appear to be a disabling tradition in Ireland, “in this day and age,” as one of our members put it, “you’d think they’d know the meaning of discrimination. It is as if we are still being treated like second-class citizens.”

9. CRPD-Compliant Disability-Proofing.

9.1. Training Advice.
9.2. Ignoring Consultation Obligations.
9.3. Language.

9.1. Training Advice.

As if CRPD obligations didn’t exist, the Department advises, in the Manual, that Presiding Officers use a training resource by the National Disability Authority (NDA) which, as is clear by NDA’s own description, is out-of-date.

“We produced a short online training module on disability equality awareness in 2011. It is currently being revised to reflect new legislation and practice, and to make it more accessible. It is expected to be available in late 2024.”

The NDA’s description also makes clear that the “disability awareness training,” ironically, is not adequately accessible.

“Designed in 2011, the module works best in Google Chrome and was not designed for use on smartphones or tablets.”

https://nda.ie/publications-and-resources/disability-awareness-training

Regarding visual impairment, at least, a far more appropriate and CRPD-compliant resource is VVI’s Manual of Accessible Communications (VVIMAC)

The VVI Manual on Accessible Communications (VVI MAC)

9.2. Ignoring Consultation Obligations.

The use of the NDA as an out-of-date training resource is particularly frustrating since the State, mostly, continues to ignore its cross-cutting obligations to consult directly with disabled people through their representative organisations on all disability-proofing (CRPD, Article 4 (3)).

Disabled Persons’ Representative Organisations, as defined by the UN Committee, are Human-Rights-based; and are led, run, directed and mostly membered by disabled people. Because of the potential for conflict of interests, disability service providers cannot be representative organisations in relation to disability (according to the UN Committee). This excludes the brand-name disability charities in Ireland which continue to masquerade as “representative,” often with the State support – subverting the CRPD it has committed to implement.

9.3. Language.

The State’s traditional reluctance to prioritise the views and opinions of disabled people through their representative organisations is also reflected in the ‘medical model’ language of disability used in the advice:

For example, “people with physical disabilities” instead of ‘people with physical impairments’;

“people with literacy difficulties” instead of ‘people with dyslexia’ or ‘dyslexic people’.

‘Social model’ language of disability speaks of “disabled people,” in recognition that disability is a negative social construct rather than a malady intrinsic to an individual. In other words, we are disabled by prejudice; we are disabled by bad design; we are disabled by unnecessary barriers and by ignorance. In this way, ‘disabled’ is a verb describing what is being done to us by society, and not an adjective which points the finger at us for being different because of our impairments or various conditions.

This is further explained at:

https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/3-language-and-terminology/#3.2

10. General Recommendations.

In order for all of us to have the same opportunity of exercising our Human Right to vote, VVI emphasises the importance of a plurality of voting-methods. Some innovations to be considered in a timely manner are:

• Online voting as in Estonia.
• Phone voting as in Australia and New Zealand.

Online Voting (I-Voting).

i-Voting should be available to all, so as to minimise likelihood of identification of a voter. In general, mainstreaming and universal design – whereby we share different options with all others, rather than being “othered,” is the solution most compatible with our equality of opportunity and Human Rights of full dignity.

Estonia has had secure online voting as an option for everyone since 2005,

https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/e-democracy/

However, it was only much more recently made accessible for users of screenreading technology. While we might say ‘better late than never’, the use of secure online voting in Ireland should have accessibility built into it from the concept stage (as per CRPD, Arts. 4 (3) and 9).

New South Wales had been using i-Voting for visually impaired voters since 2013, but ran into deep difficulties when it tried to extend access to all interested voters in 2021. However, New South Wales is planning to have i-Voting up and running once more for visually impaired voters by 2027.

Online voting: NSW gets the ball rolling on iVote 2.0

Telephone Assisted Voting

This option has been available to visually impaired people in Australia since 2013, and is now also used for the same cohort in national elections in New Zealand.

Australia:

https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2013/files/blv.pdf

New Zealand:

https://vote.nz/assets/Alternate-formats-2023-General-Election-/Vote-by-telephone-dictation-at-the-2023-General-Election.pdf

Phone-voting is limited to disabled voters in Australia and New Zealand, and the reasons for this should be examined.

While there’s no doubt that telephone assisted voting would be really accessible and convenient for visually impaired people, confidentiality, secrecy and verifiability would need to be explored before it could be introduced.

Appendix A. Excerpt from Manual For Presiding Officers.

Referendum on the Thirty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution, the Family Bill, 2023
And referendum on the Fortieth Amendment of the Constitution (Care Bill, 2023) 8th March, 2024.

Prepared by the Department of the Housing , Local Government and Heritage for the Guidance of Presiding Officers in accordance with the directions above.
3.10. Refusal to mark ballot paper within two hours of close of poll.

You may refuse to mark ballot-papers for an elector with a physical disability, visual impairment or literacy difficulty where the request is made within two hours before the close of the poll if you feel that compliance with the request would interfere with the proper discharge of your duty or unduly obstruct other electors.

People with disabilities may be limited in the transport options available to them at certain times of the day, so you should refuse a request only if it’s absolutely necessary.
An elector with a physical disability, visual impairment or literacy difficulty may have their ballot-papers marked by a companion at any time up to the close of the poll.

Under no circumstances may a ballot-paper be brought outside the polling station to any person, whether incapacitated or otherwise.

That could potentially close the poll two hours earlier for people who are unable to mark the ballot paper independently. It seems a little problematic for that to be given out as official advice.

The Below was submitted by Voice of Vision Impairment (VVI) as part of a broad public consultation on Ireland’s Climate Action Plan, 2024, which is the annual updating of a general policy framework called the Climate Action Plan. Submitted on April 5th, 2024.

1. Executive Summary.
2. Who We Are.
3. The Role of DPROs.
4. CAP 24 Consultation Process is Inaccessible.
5. Ignoring of Disability-Proofing in CAP 24 Process.
6. Some Substantive Issues.
7. Reversing CAP-Related Policies of Disablement.
8. Concluding Questions.

1. Executive Summary.

Ireland’s legally binding Climate Action Policy, which is a policy framework currently based on 2021 legislation, is in violation of Ireland’s legally binding obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which oblige the State to disability-proof all policy frameworks through close consultation and active involvement of disabled people through Disability Rights Organisations.

• CAP 24 cannot be fit for purpose when CRPD-compliant disability-proofing is absent. Visually impaired people all over Ireland are already suffering as a result of the ignoring of this aspect of ‘just transition’, such as:
• streetscapes are being made inaccessible to visually impaired pedestrians;
• requirements for many of us for door-to-door journeys in blue-badge vehicles, and often also by taxi, are being made unduly difficult or impossible;
• inaccessible information and systems mean that blind and partially sighted people are being discriminated against in the transitions of the energy-consumptions models;
• non-targeted subsidising of household energy charges does not take account of the extra energy-consumption needs of disabled people;
• even the supposed consultation processes around annual plans, including Climate Action Plan 2024 (CAP 24), have not been disability-proofed as per CRPD, and so, not surprisingly, they are inaccessible to Voice of Vision Impairment (VVI) as the collective voice of visually impaired people.

2. Who We Are.

Voice of Vision Impairment (VVI) is Ireland’s national Disability Rights Organisation for visually impaired people (i.e., people who are blind or partially sighted). Our exclusive representative role comes from Article 4 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), as clarified by the UN Committee in General Comment No. 7 (GC7). We refer to Disability Rights Organisations as Disabled Persons Representative Organisations (DPROs), but the same organisations are also generally known in Ireland as Disabled Persons’ Organisations (DPOs).

Article 4 (3) of the CRPD is a cross-cutting general obligation, and it tells us that the State, in disability-proofing policies and designs, must closely consult with and actively involve disabled people through their representative organisations, as defined by GC7.

In particular, DPROs must be distinguished from disability service-providers (the traditional charity brand-names which comprise the Irish disability sector), since such organisations have potential conflicts of interests in trying to advocate and simultaneously provide services for disabled people (GC7, para. 13).

DPROs are run, led and directed by disabled people, and mainly membered by disabled people. They must be based on promotion of the Human Rights of disabled people, and so, they cannot be disability service-providers.

Legal Opinion, Commissioned by VVI, regarding DPROs as the only representative organisations with regard to disability.
https://vvi.ie/legal-opinion-for-vvi-as-a-dpo-for-all-dpos/

3. The Role of DPROs.

According to General Comment No. 7 (GC7), Disability-proofing should take place from the concept stage of any policy framework or design, and this process should be discursive, and not one-off (GC7, para. 28). Crucially, DPROs are to have our views and opinions prioritised over non-DPROs to the extent that we alone should be the consultees in close consultations regarding disability-proofing, with anyone else who is interested being able to participate in broad consultations where such are deemed appropriate (cf. GC7, paras. 23, 44, 49).

4. CAP 24 Consultation Process is Inaccessible.

Public bodies should be systematically approaching DPROs to disability-proof everything they do (GC7, paras. 22, 65-6). Not only has this not happened regarding the Climate Action Plan (CAP) to date, but the documentation provided is not adequately accessible to screenreader-users, and as such, our observations are based on information that was extremely difficult to access and process using screenreading technology.

We ask that the Dept. of Environment Climate and Communication (DECC) use the following resource going forward, and we are happy to answer any questions on it: https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/6-electronic-documents/

5. Ignoring of Disability-Proofing in CAP 24 Process.

Throughout CAP 24, there are any amount of mentions of the legally binding obligations to carbon emissions etc. However, as laudible as these references are, when they take place in a context of the wholesale ignoring of the State’s legally binding obligations under the CRPD to closely consult with and actively involve DPROs in a uniquely special way, it is clear that there is a double standard when it comes to legally binding obligations – that is, that where they relate to disability that they can be ignored. This approach, which is widespread in Ireland, is either wholly ignorant of Ireland’s obligations under international law, or it is contemptuous of those obligations.

Given the environmental emergency context, it may be worth noting here that as part of its consultative obligations regarding disabled people, The State should have been closely consulting and actively involving DPROs since the ratification of the CRPD by Ireland in 2018, including with regard to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (GC7, paras. 9, 94 (r)). At this stage, if the State ever gets around to honouring these legally binding obligations, the consultations will necessarily be too little too late. To make up for time lost regarding disability-proofing, an extra urgency and impetus is needed into pausing everything until we get to be properly consulted, as per the CRPD.

The State needs to be approaching DPROs and consulting us from concept stage of everything (GC7, para. 15). The CAP is so far-reaching and systemic in application that lack of proper disability-proofing (as opposed to tokenistic platitudes, or as opposed to no engagement with DPROs at all, as has happened so far), Means that the CAP 24 document cannot be fit for purpose.

The “just transition” mentioned in Section 7 of the document is actually conditional on the legally binding obligations of Article 4 (3) of the CRPD being taken as seriously as the other legally binding obligations which get great mention in CAP 24. To ignore this would reduce “just transition” to being one-way spin by those who have little to no literacy in the social or Human Rights model of disability.

The language in the document should, of course, also have been disability-proofed by DPROs. Disability barely gets a mention in the CAP 24 document – i.e., nowhere is the word used apart from mention of disability parking facilities. The prevailing culture or attitude of the authors clearly wreaks of the ‘medical model’ approach to disability in the use of the language of “the elderly and less able in society.”

The social model of disability, on which the Human Rights model is based, holds that disability is a social construct, and as such, we are disabled (as a verb) by ignorance, bad design, neglect, prejudice, etc., and that is why we use “disabled people.” Euphemisms such as “less able” merely display an ignorance so bad that it dare not even speak the name of this social construct. Disability will not disappear by pretending it doesn’t exist or trying to wish it away. It must be tackled in a CRPD-compliant way.

In sum, CAP 24 cannot be fit for purpose when CRPD-compliant disability-proofing is absent.

6. Some Substantive Issues.

The National Transport Authority has led the way, chaperoned by a sympathetic Dept. of Transport, in the wholesale destruction of our accessible streetscapes and built environment more generally – except, in the case of the NTA, it was not even a case of not knowing about the CRPD, but rather one of a contempt for it (see Parliamentary Question from October 3rd, 2023):
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-10-03/189/#pq_189

CAP 24 talks about evidence-based solutions. But Irish research into shared space conducted by TrinityHaus for the Centre for Universal Excellence and Design in 2012 has been totally ignored, as shared space between pedestrians and cyclists or e-Scooterists is being rolled out all over Ireland in so-called “Active Travel” projects.
https://www.tcd.ie/trinityhaus/research-areas/healthy-and-inclusive-places/shared-spaces/

This research-based warning against shared space is repeated in the British context in Holmes (2015).
https://chrisholmes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Holmes-Report-on-Shared-Space-.pdf

The term “evidence-based” should not be used as mere spin, and nor should it be be used to cover an aesthetic or zeitgeist preference.

There appear to be sage nods of approval in CAP 24 when phrases such as “safe biking and walking” are responded to favourably by the public, but in the past five years, walking has become much more unsafe for visually impaired pedestrians as a result of this wholesale disablement by design. For a rights-based approach, see our Checklist for Planners:
https://vvi.ie/vvis-written-submission-on-irelands-next-disability-strategy/

This is, in turn, based on our Manual of Accessible Planning for Pedestrians:
https://www.vvi.ie/mapp

and Manual of Accessible Public Spaces
https://vvi.ie/vvimaps/

Our “Quality of life” has taken a nose-dive as our freedom to access our environment is increasingly restricted (in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 8 and 14).

Some of the diabolical and reckless designs include “raised crossings,” “continuous footways,” “table crossings,” “island bus-stops,” and “protected cycle lanes.”

As if it were not bad enough for our members as pedestrians, those who rely on blue-badge vehicles are finding their movement increasingly restricted by lack of exemptions to single blue-badge vehicles out from general traffic. Door-to-door journeys are crucial for our members, especially if the journey is not a routine one.

So-called ‘pedestrianisation’ makes it more difficult for our members to independently get exactly to where they need to go (whether being dropped off by taxi or blue-badge vehicle), and flush surfaces remove our underfoot wayfinding, for apparently no good environmental reason, but rather, apparently, for some aesthetic desire to copy European cities which are themselves mainly inaccessible to independent visually impaired pedestrians.

We also have to run the gauntlet of e-vehicles with no audio emissions from engines below 20kmph, something which needs EU legislation, but something to which Ireland bares equal culpability.

Other basic tenets of climate justice which should be incorporated into CAP 24 from a visually impaired perspective include:

• a detailed action plan on accessible in-home displays for smart meters;
• accessible subscription to vulnerable customer register;
• fully accessible price comparison websites;
  https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/5-accessible-websites-and-apps/
• inclusion of visually impaired people in a revised Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme.

7. Reversing State’s Disabling Policies.

So far down the road has the State gone in total ignorance of or contempt for its CRPD obligations that The “High impact actions” we require may, at this stage, only come through the courts.

While DPROs should be represented on the Stakeholder council, And be at the centre of the National dialogue on climate action, these in themselves do not meet CRPD-compliance standards. DPRO-only spaces need to happen, immediately, for genuine disability-proofing of the policy framework, and no aggregation of DPRO views and opinions with those of non-DPROs – the roadmap to the process is in General Comment No. 7.

A non-CRPD compliant Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) is not fit for purpose and is literally illegal. DPROs such as VVI have been utterly ignored in the disability-proofing of the document, and what little disability-proofing which did occur, happened in 2019 through the National Disability Authority (which is a public body, not a DPRO, and so doesn’t not comply with Article 4 (3) consultation obligations as a consultee in its own right).

Finally, the copious mentioning of research-based and evidence-based solutions in CAP 24 would nearly be impressive it it were not so transparently self-serving (e.g., ignoring of TrinityHaus research mentioned above). However, close consultation and active involvement of DPROs brings a different dimension to outcomes which is, by its nature, overlooked by usual research methods.

The Human Rights approach to solutions means that those with least supports and resources – who tend not to be captured by research companies to a substantive degree – are prioritised. This is because research tends to be majoritarian, and “the best for the most” is almost the polar opposite to the Human Rights approach. Research questions can be leading, and focus-groups often have leader-biases intrinsic to them. Those with least resources and supports – those who are most disabled – tend to be those least likely to be found in focus groups or responding to research questionnaires.

8. Concluding Questions.

Q1. Why has the State’s legally binding obligations to closely consult and actively involve DPROs in disability-proofing been ignored – certainly in so far as VVI is concerned, and we cover a significant constituency?

Q2. As a matter of urgency and emergency, what is DECC going to do to mend this astonishing and discriminatory oversight?

• Background
• Question 1: What Changes are Important…?
• Question 2: What Needs To Happen First For This To Happen…?
• Question 3: What would a successfully implemented strategy look like?
• Question 4: …Any Other Relevant Views…?

Background.

Ireland has gone through the motions of coming up with various five-year National Disability Inclusion Strategies (NDISs) for most of the past 25 years. The efficacy of those strategies – i.e., ranging from barely perceivable advances to steps backward – speaks to a wastage of resources on self-serving spin by the State, and a system which needs a total reset.

In 2018, Ireland ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), but it appears that nobody with power read or understood Ireland’s obligations under that treaty, and so the State failed to notice that the CRPD it ratified meant a paradigm shift in how things are to be done, and not business-as-usual.

For example, up until now, Ireland has publically stated that it sees the implementation of everything in the CRPD as being a matter of “progressive realisation,” (e.g., IR, para. 7),* apparently unaware of the fundamental UN treaty principle that only socio-economic and cultural rights are of “progressive realisation” and that everything else is of immediate effect (cf. CRPD, General Comment No. 1 (GC1), para. 30).

• IR = Ireland’s Initial Report on its Implementation of the CRPD, November, 2021.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c9352-ireland-and-the-uncrpd/#:~:text=On%2010%20November%202021%2C%20Minister,rights%20of%20people%20with%20disabilities.

Given the above institutional failings on the part of the State, it was hardly surprising that it did not immediately replace the last NDIS (2017-2021), and instead, prolonged that NDIS by a year, and had nothing to replace it with in 2023. In the meantime, there has been no CRPD-compliant implementation of the CRPD, so effectively, no actual implementation of the CRPD – immediate or otherwise.

In particular, Article 4 (3) obligations to prioritise the views and opinions of Disabled Persons’ Representative Organisations (DPROs) in disability-proofing and anything else relating to the CRPD (GC7, paras. 13-4, 23, 56), has been stubbornly ignored by public bodies, including the “lead” Department, that of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and youth (DCEDIY) (GC7, para. 35).

A clear distinction should be drawn between DPROs and non-DPRO actors. The views and opinions of DPROs, which are specifically disability rights organisations, must be prioritised over disability service-providers, the National Disability Authority (NDA), ally-organisations, and fragmented voices of independent disabled individuals. The unmediated collective voice of disabled constituencies, through a Human Rights approach, are what matters. Even disability service-providers are to closely consult and actively involve DPROs in their own advocacy – as opposed to undermining our fledgling space and trying to embed themselves in institutional State structures as the primary consultees and experts (GC7, paras. 51-2). The potential conflict of interests of service providers in also claiming to “represent” their service-users is an issue that should be obvious to all, and is noted by the UN Committee (GC7, para. 13).

In June, 2021, DCEDIY told the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Disability Matters that the next NDIS would be all about implementation of the CRPD. In the intervening time, DCEDIY has continued to effectively ignore VVI and other DPROs, with the latest excuse on December 6th, 2023, being that DCEDIY’s Disability Policy Unit is not “public-facing.” This is to ignore the clarification by the UN Committee (November, 2018) that States parties should ensure that DPROs have easy access to DCEDIY, as the focal point of the CRPD (GC7, para. 41).

In June, 2023, DCEDIY decided it finally had the time and resources to put together the next NDIS, based on implementation of the CRPD. The first principle it decided was that it was better to get a few Articles of the CRPD right in the next strategy rather than getting them all wrong, and in July-August, 2023, it held a self-selecting opinion-poll on what five or so areas were to be focused on. This opinion-poll was inaccessible to screenreader-users, so the general obligation of accessible communications (Article 4 (1) of the CRPD) did not make it as one of the five winners in this talent-contest of Human Rights.

Even though accessible communications are of immediate effect in terms of implementation, we may have to wait another seven to ten years before we have a chance to enter this core issue in another talent competition for basic rights. In the meantime, we can expect to find it difficult to read accessible information on what progress, if any, is being made in the five winners of the Human Rights popularity contest.

To copper-fasten its aversion to Article 4 (3) obligations of direct consultation with DPROs, DCEDIY outsourced its consultation on the next NDIS to the National Disability Authority (NDA), as intermediary, in a process which promises to distinguish the various type of category of actors, including DPROs. However, the NDA is also ignoring the obligation to prioritise the views and opinions of the collective voices of the respective disability rights organisations (DPROs). Moreover, the outsourced process prevents discursive engagement and feedback between the State and DPROs, and gives the power of interpretation and prioritisation to the NDA as intermediary filter.

In sum, this very consultative process on CRPD-implementation is not, itself, CRPD-compliant. The rules of engagement included that each of the first three answers to the set questions was to be five hundred words or less, and the last question was to be three hundred words or less.

Our submission reflects our frustration with the State’s failures to date, and with the non-CRPD-compliance of this consultation – i.e., not compliant with Article 4 (3) of the CRPD, as clarified by GC7.

Question 1: What changes do you see as important to ensure that disabled people in Ireland are fully included in society in line with the vision of the UNCRPD?

VVI’s focus is on visually impaired people (i.e., those of us who are blind or partially sighted), although there are cross-sections of a wide range of other impairments and conditions among our membership.

On the everyday level, the changes needed for the full inclusion of visually impaired people in society can be categorised under four themes.

1.1. Two-way Accessible Communication.

This particularly encompasses Articles 4 (1), 4 (3), 5, 9, 19 and 21 of the CRPD, but in effect, cross-cuts every single article of the CRPD for us. Examples include access to bus-routes, travel timetables, planning maps, planning for national emergencies, access to justice, applications for jobs and benefits, education, health-care, and political and cultural rights of equal access.

VVI requests that this be a whole-of-government pillar of the next NDIS in its own right. It is also of fundamental importance to the Deaf community, people who are hard of hearing and people with intellectual disabilities.

If it is not a pillar in its own right, it needs to be the primary cornerstone of every single pillar and strongly emphasised across all public bodies not responsible for the pillars.

Our Manual on Accessible Communication (VVIMAC), costs little or nothing to implement – it is just a matter of awareness and systems planning:

The VVI Manual on Accessible Communications (VVI MAC)

1.2. Accessible and Safe Travel and Built Environment.

€290m is being spent on “Active Travel” in 2024, and this, as well as the entire €600bn of the National Development Plan must be CRPD-compliant through disability-proofing through DPROs. Instead, an avalanche of disabling and hazardous projects are being rolled out nationwide, and these will be expensive to reverse, and they will need to be reversed.

As above, our policies are of little or no cost if implemented at design stage, and are a matter of awareness:

Planners’ Checklist for Accessible Streetscapes
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/vvi-planners-checklist-for-accessible-streetscapes/

VVIMAPS – Manual for Accessible Public Spaces
https://vvi.ie/vvimaps/

VVIMAPP: Manual of Accessible Planning or Pedestrians
https://www.vvi.ie/mapp

1.3. Accessible Technology.

Easy access to such technology should not depend on employment status. Under Article 4 (1) of the CRPD, as well as Arts. 9 and 21, such access is a Human Right, also very much linked to 1.1 above.

1.4. Cost of Visual Impairment.

Taking inflation into account, the Indecon Report (2021), commissioned by the State into the cost of disability, regarding visual impairment, must be addressed. Cost of disability payments should not be related to employment status, and should be non-means-tested and non-taxable.

See our pre-budget ’24 submission on the Cost of Visual Impairment and solutions

Voice of Vision Impairment Submission on Budget 2024

1.5. Awareness of Social and Human Rights Model.

On a wider level, there needs to be awareness-raising about the social and Human Rights models of disability among public bodies, NGOs (including disability-service providers), and among disabled people themselves and their families (CRPD, Art. 8). In particular, Article 4 (3), as clarified by General Comment No. 7 (GC7) needs to be given its full weight (i.e., cross-cutting obligation with immediate effect), including exclusive deep consultations with DPROs, and prioritising of DPRO views and opinions in consultations.

Disability-proofing consultations must be CRPD-compliant, and this protection needs to be enshrined in law. This enables disabled people to come out from under the tails of disability-service-providers in particular, and to develop confidence in representing our own interests and empowering ourselves, with State supports such as core-institutional funding of DPROs. The collective voice should never be aggregated with individual voices or those of non-DPROs.

From this change flows a lot of other changes in culture and attitude to be mentioned in next sections.

Question 2: What needs to happen for these changes to be achieved?

2.1. Bigger doesn’t mean better in consultations.

Broad consultations can include Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, but Article 4 (3) – deep – consultations on disability-proofing everything is wholly predicated on DPRO-only consultations at that deep level. While this is strongly implied in GC7, paras. 44, 49, it is a logically necessary conclusion to everything else being clarified by the UN Committee in the General Comments.

Interviewing a thousand individuals is costly in terms of the State’s resources, including processing of such information etc., and at best, an individual can only hope to have their contribution as a sound-bite, if it makes it through at all to the final report. Moreover, fragmented contributions are more likely to lack consistency and are likely to leave more room for interpretative power by the public body, not always in the best interest of our accessibility. Similarly, service-providers have their place – i.e., as service-providers, and they should not be allowed to have their eating of DPRO lunch continue to be entertained by the State (cf. GC7, paras. 13, 51-2).

2.2. There must be awareness by all public bodies, including the NDA and DCEDIY of the need to prioritise the views and opinions of DPROs in disability-proofing (GC7, paras. 23, 13-4), and in monitoring frameworks (GC7, para. 56).

2.3. Without prejudice to the above, there needs to be a distinction between views/opinions and rights.

2.4. Awareness-raising among disabled people and their families to get them to join already-existing DPROs, or to set up their own if there is none already representing their constituency. Duplication should be discouraged.

2.5. Awareness-raising among disability-service providers and ally organisations.

They need to become aware that in their own advocacy work, they need to be closely consulting and actively involving DPROs (GC7, para. 14), instead of trying to undermine the DPRO space with their own “advocacy” networks, which divert disabled people from their DPROs, and take away from our talent-pool, as well as the rights—based platform that guarantees our full access and empowerment.

2.6. Capacity-building of DPROs.

Core institutional funding and easy access to (and targeting of DPROs) for other funding is essential, but we need other capacity-building to get around infrastructural barriers, such as setting up a collective bank account and becoming a CLG. Note that currently we do not, as Human Rights organisations, have to become charities, but current legislation going through the Houses of the Oireachtas would change this, making life for us far more onerous. We propose, instead, a totally separate corporate category of DPRO, which is in keeping with the criteria set out in GC7.

2.7. Disability-proofing by DPROs must be made a mandatory step for all policies, plans and legislation (GC7, paras. 65-6), or at least in the meantime, for this to happen in key areas.

2.7. DPROs need to be immediately included, in a meaningful way, in the National Development Plan and the Sustainable Development Goals (GC7 etc.).

2.8. Disability-proofing cannot be an add-on.

Disability-proofing must be a cornerstone of all new plans and designs, and DPROs be allowed to set the agenda for necessary retrofitting disablist designs and plans.

Question 3: What would a successfully implemented strategy look like? For example, how do you think life should have improved for disabled people in Ireland at the end of a five-year strategy?* (Maximum 500 words)

3.1. DPROs won’t have to keep trying to explain to public bodies the difference between DPROs and service-providers etc., and that as rights-based organisations under the CRPD, DPROs have a particular legal standing in disability-proofing that needs to be seriously engaged with. We can then have much more time to do lots of other important things.

3.2. DPROs won’t have to be constantly looking over our shoulder to see how disability service-providers or other NGOs are trying to shaft us directly or indirectly – by appropriating our DPRO space and muddying the waters. Indeed, disability service-providers will be accountable to us (Cf. GC7, para. 14).

3.3. Our policy documents will be read widely by State employees in the relevant key positions, and they will be implemented. They cost hardly anything to implement, and this is mainly just a matter of awareness. Such documents will be seen as a really useful resource that help public officials to ‘colour by numbers’ in terms of accessibility in terms of the needs and rights of visually impaired people.

3.4. When we go to the trouble of organising collective positions that prioritise those with least resources and supports, this collective voice will not be aggregated or otherwise ignored, and instead, public bodies will be engaging with us in a genuine, meaningful and discursive way in a process in which VVI learns as well as the public body.

3.5. Related to this, there will be bilateral meetings by public bodies with VVI on matters specific to, or focusing on, the accessibility rights and needs of visually impaired people.

3.6. Because of the above, we will have lots of meaningful and fulfilling work for our reps to do, and be in a position to pay them for their work. VVI itself should be paid for our specific consultations as well as receiving adequate core institutional funding.

3.6. We will have thriving local sections of VVI from which new reps can get experience and which can feed into our national structure – as per our Constitution. This might be contrasted with 31 different local visually-impaired groups not adhering to any common standard etc., in local consultations with Local Authorities etc. On this point, DPROs will also have their views and opinions prioritised regarding disability-proofing in all PPN-related work, and have first refusal on Strategic Policy Committees.

3.7. Given all the above, VVI talented representatives will be in abundance, since they won’t be being diverted off into sheep-fold alibi structures of service-provider fake representation (cf. GC7, paras. 13-4, 51-2).

3.8. We will have the resources and capacity to ably represent individual members in their individual experiences of discrimination, and to further feed those experiences into our policies. We will also have the capacity and resources to train our reps and officers regarding the social model and Human Rights approach to disability.

3.9. On the most immediate level, we will be able to travel safely anywhere, independently, and have the same access to information as our sighted comparitors.

Question 4: If you have any other views that are relevant to the new National Disability Strategy please tell us? (Maximum 300 words)

4.1. NDA as Obstacle.

Currently there’s a catch 22, because the NDA and DCEDIY are not fully aware, themselves, of their Article 4 (3) obligations, as exemplified by this very consultation, which itself is not CRPD-compliant because it is not explicitly prioritising the views and opinions of DPROs (GC7, paras. 13-4, 23). “Prioritise” does not mean “involve,” “include,” or even ‘distinguish contributions according to source-type (DPRO, ally, service-provider, individual disabled person etc.).

As per para. 23 of GC7, prioritising our collective views and opinions – which is, itself, a Human Right of obligation on public bodies – also means explaining to us, i.e., VVI, in a detailed way how our views were considered and accepted or otherwise.

In the framing of the questions, and limiting of our DPRO submission to 2,000 words, along with all other non-DPRO contributions, either contempt or ignorance has been shown to the UN’s clarification of the meaning of Article 4 (3).

The NDA being used by DCEDIY as a buffer from dealing directly with DPROs, and as an intermediary for filtering and sorting our views and opinions along with everyone else’s in a pretence of legitimate authority, which is unaccountable and non-CRPD-compliant, ironically deeply undermines the consultative process (Article 4 (3)) for what is supposed to be a CRPD-based strategy.

But with more than 40 employees, and a budget of more than €6m for 2024, the NDA cannot be an objective participant, since the acknowledgement and granting of our full rights necessarily diminishes the sham authority of the NDA. However, such self-preservation by the NDA is short-sighted, because whether it is through the Optional Protocol or the UN Committee report, accountability to the CRPD processes is only a matter of time. That process does prioritise the views and opinions of DPROs.

As a public body, like any other, the CRPD places on the NDA the same obligations as any other public body, and gives the NDA no more authority nor recognition than any other public body. Accountability and teeth in disability-proofing our State can only come through Article 4 (3) and 33 (3) of the CRPD, as clarified by General Comment 7, as well as through the international organisational processes laid out in the final third of the CRPD.

More of the same, in terms of the NDA’s role, will get us no further than we are today, except with possibly even more money being wasted on the NDA.

Unlike the NDA, we don’t get paid to waste our time.

Unlike the NDA, we have a specific role provided for in the CRPD. The NDA, itself, as a public body, is supposed to be fully accountable to DPROs, in terms of disability-related policy and accessibility-proofing.

VVI is disappointed at the lack of disability-proofing of, or contained in, the Planning & Development Bill approved by the cabinet in early October. Our reasons are set out below. We have sent this, in letter and submission forms, respectively, to the relevant Ministers, their opposition counterparts, and to the Joint Committee on Housing and Local Government.

1. Introduction.
2. The Planning & Development Bill.
3. Golden Opportunity.

1. Introduction

We are Voice of Vision Impairment (VVI), Ireland’s Disabled Persons’ Representative Organisation (DPRO) under the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), specialising in advancing the rights and needs of blind and partially sighted people. DPROs are the only ‘representative’ organisations regarding disability, as per Article 4 (3) of the CRPD, meeting the following criteria:

• to avoid conflict of interest, DPROs are not disability service-providers (General Comment 7 (GC7), para. 13);
• DPROs are Human Rights organisations and rooted in the CRPD (GC7, para. 11);
• DPROs are led, directed, run, and specifically staffed by disabled people (ibid.);
• a clear majority of their members (i.e., not service-users) are disabled (ibid.);

Legal Opinion for VVI as a DPO – for all DPOs

Ireland ratified the CRPD in 2018, and so, is supposed to be bound by it, as international law.

Article 4 of the CRPD consists of “General Obligations” which are cross-cutting of everything else contained in the Convention.

Article 4 (1 a-e), effectively means that policies (and by extension, legislation) should be disability-proofed and be compatible with implementation of the CRPD.

Article 4 (3) is the only part of the CRPD explicitly dealing with consultation, and this obliges ‘close consultation with and active involvement of DPROs in all matters relating to disability’ (i.e., including the disability-proofing just mentioned. Details on how this should be done are contained in the UN Committee’s clarification of Articles 4 (3) and 33 (3) – General Comment No. 7 (GC7) – published in November, 2018. This includes prioritising the opinions and views of DPROs in such consultations (GC7, para. 23), and having DPRO-only consultative spaces at all levels and branches of government (GC7, para. 49). DPROs should be proactively approached for continuous (not one-time) engagement in a consultation (GC7, para. 28).

2. The Planning & Development Bill.

Ireland has agreed, in the CRPD, to make the built environment accessible (CRPD, Article 9 (1), and GC2), by utilising the principles of universal design (Article 2).

The last Planning & Development Act (2000) had effectively no disability-proofing of it or in it, and as such, our members face an avalanche of disablist planning. This disablement through design means that we find ourselves increasingly excluded from our environments, such as in the proliferation of open plazas and spaces to be shared between pedestrians and cyclists.

Our nightmarish lived experience is, no doubt, mirrored in the experience of other vulnerable pedestrians and those who must depend on four-wheeled vehicles (such as many in their 80s and 90s, etc.).

Currently, plans must have an Environmental Impact Assessment which rightly looks at the affect a development might have on a particular type of snail, for example, but there is no equivalent to see the impact that a plan might have on our safety or accessibility to a local area or amenity; or even on our safe and accessible travel from our homes to the local shop etc.

The increasing isolation of our members, who find themselves more and more restricted in terms of movement, or confined to visiting fewer and fewer areas, is leading to increasing isolation, and deterioration in physical and mental health. These are the hidden, but very real, social costs of Active Travel plans, in particular, which more-often-than-not, actually put an end to our long-time reliance on Active Travel by making places inaccessible to us as visually impaired people.

In 2013, the National Disability Authority published detailed guidelines on what a “Disability Impact Assessment” should look like; but this was pre-CRPD ratification and so is missing vital structures as set out in General Comment 7.

https://assets.gov.ie/238598/e8eca089-3bce-4945-bf6c-24a4053cb4ff.pdf

This advice, to our knowledge, has never been acted on in any plan.

Dublin City Council has been having trials in disability-proofing on certain projects (since 2022), and is finding the experience so useful that it plans to make it corporate policy in the near future. It is a win win, since planners know where to go to find out what they need to do to make their plan workable for as many as possible. Dublin City Council is basing its plans on compliance with consultation obligations in the CRPD (Article 4 (3) and GC7).

3. Golden Opportunity.

This Planning & Development Bill is a golden opportunity for the State to implement key aspects of the CRPD in a way that is immediately practical and discernible by all, while also massively improving the life chances and life quality of visually impaired people, and others, throughout the country.

We were disappointed to find that the awareness-raising by the focal point of the CRPD in Ireland (the Dept. of Children, Equality, Disability etc. (DCEDIY), is so poor that those who drafted the Planning and Development Bill were not aware of their obligations or to the once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix what is very much broken in terms of safe and accessible built environments for a growing population of older and disabled people.

It is not too late to add revisions that protect our Human Rights (along the lines of Ireland’s obligations under the CRPD), to include:

• where plans require an Environmental Impact Assessment or Statement, they must also require an Accessibility Impact Assessment statement;
• Accessibility Impact Assessments must comply with Article 4 (3), as clarified by General Comment 7 of the CRPD), including:
• systematically approaching all national and relevant local DPROs for their close consultation and active involvement;
• for planning authorities to develop agreed procedure with each DPRO for general application;
• continuous, rather than one-time engagement with each DPRO;
• for DPRO-only consultations except where advised otherwise by a relevant DPRO;
• for DPROs to be involved from the concept stage of all relevant plans;
• prioritisation of views and opinions of all DPROs in such consultations, with prioritisation of national DPROs in terms of over-arching principles.
• realistic timeframes for consultations;
• proper resourcing and capacity-building of DPROs to facilitate our meaningful participation in consultations on accessibility impact assessments;
• an independent review body, such as an Oireachtas Commission, to monitor Article 4 (3) compliance in planning;
• making Article 4 (3) compliance a prerequisite for all public realm plans (GC7, paras. 65-6);
• facilitating the taking of class actions by DPROs against disablist planning decisions and decisions that are not otherwise CRPD-compliant;
• regular review and monitoring of the efficacy of DPRO engagement with a view to strengthening and supporting where identified as needed;
• other provisions to be worked out through close consultation and active involvement of DPROs.

By way of resourcing materials, VVI has published a number of relevant documents:

VVIMAC – Manual of Accessible Communications
https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

Manual of Accessible Planning for Pedestrians (VVIMAPP)
https://www.vvi.ie/mapp

VVIMAPS – Manual for Accessible Public Spaces
https://vvi.ie/vvimaps/

We are always available for close consultation and active involvement regarding this specific legislation, and the State’s obligations to DPROs and our Human Rights, in general.

info@vvi.ie

1. Executive Summary.
2. Introduction.
3. State’s Legal Obligations regarding resourcing of DPROs.
4. Funding Related to Disability-specific Services.
5. Relative Poverty of Visually Impaired People.
6. Mobility & Environment.
7. Housing and Independent Living.
8. Health.
9. Education & Culture.
10. Assistive Technology Scheme.

1. Executive Summary.

Some Key Asks by VVI in Budget 2024 are:

• Registration and Proper Funding of DPROs (3)
• Funding of Disability Service-Providers to be Conditional on their respect for Articles 4 (3) and 33 (3) of the CRPD.
• For a Cost of Visual Impairment Allowance of €214 per week, per person, in line with Indecon Cost of Disability Report, and this allowance to be for all visually impaired people, non-means-tested, non-taxable, and in addition to all core benefits (5.1).
• for core basic incomes to keep up with inflation, and for anomalies between such payments to be ironed out (5.2-6).
• for information and application services to be accessible (5.7).
• free public transport at point of use for all (6.1).

For streetscapes to be disability-proofed by DPROs as a precondition (6.2-3).

• for the same incentives to own private vehicles to be available for visually impaired people as for wheelchair-users (6.5).
• removal of VAT on guide-dog related costs.
• for funding to be made available so that there are no visually impaired people homeless (7.5).
• an end to all prescription charges for those on medical card (8.3).
• for accessible educational texts (9.3)
• for funding of an Assistive Technology Scheme for visually impaired people to access the latest technology in a way they can afford.

2. Introduction.

We are Voice of Vision Impairment (VVI). VVI is Ireland’s Disabled Persons’ Representative Organisation (DPRO) with specific regard to the Human Rights of visually impaired people.

According to the UN Committee on the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), A DPRO must have Human Rights campaigning at its core, must have a clear majority of its members with the particular impairment for the respective constituency being represented (visually impaired people in our case), and must be led, directed, and run specifically by such people.

The UN committee overseeing the CRPD notes that DPROs should have our views and opinions prioritised, in decision-making processes affecting disabled people, over all other civil society organisations, and especially over disability service providers (such as those funded under Sections 38 and 39 of the Health Act, 2004), since the latter may have a “conflict of interest” in trying to be service-provider and advocate at the same time (cf. CRPD, General Comment 7 (GC7), paras. 13, 14, 23, 56, 57 etc.).

As mentioned below in more detail, the State has, up until now, ignored its legal obligations towards DPROs, including those of supports and resourcing. As such, because of our relatively low resources and zero supports from the State or otherwise, VVI may not be able to produce submissions to the glossy standards of disability service providers. For example, we are relatively short on costings when it comes to our proposals, often due to the state-funded documentation being totally inaccessible to those of us using screenreading technology.

Our desiderata, below, are principles either directly mentioned in the CRPD, or as fitted by us to the Irish context of the lived experience of visually impaired people – an approach which prioritises the voice of the least resourced and least supported individuals, and which is a sum of the pooled experience and collective expertise of our members.

Note on Language:

We use “visually impaired” or “vision impaired” to describe people who are blind or partially sighted, respectively.

We say “disabled people” – with “disabled” being a verb, not an adjective – to highlight that while people may be born with impairments and diversities, “disability” is a social construct, meaning that people are disabled by bad design, planning, and attitudes, mostly caused by insufficient knowledge. This “disabled people” language is in line with the social model of disability embraced by the CRPD.

3. State’s Legal Obligations regarding resourcing of DPROs.

As part of the State’s obligations under Article 4 (3) of the CRPD, which took immediate effect in 2018 (cf. General Comment 7, para. 28), The UN Committee says that the State should ringfence core institutional funding for DPROs (ibid., para. 61 (d)), while ensuring DPROs are autonomous in deciding their advocacy agenda, despite the funding received (ibid., 61 (e).

Since, in Ireland, there is a strong historical legacy and tradition of non-DPROs (and in particular disability service providers) colonising the “representative” space, real representation (through DPROs) is in a fledgling state, and is operating in hostile territory. Since all of our representatives are themselves disabled, and since all our workers, including representatives, are volunteers, it is imperative that we receive appropriate supports from the State in our empowerment and capacity-building (ibid., paras. 13, 39.

To paraphrase the UN Committee: ‘The barriers faced by disabled people in accessing inclusive education compromise their opportunities and undermine their capacities to be involved in public decision-making, which, in turn, have an impact on the institutional capacities of their organizations. The barriers in accessing public transport, the lack of reasonable accommodation, and low or insufficient income and unemployment among disabled people also restrict the capacity of such persons to engage in civil society activities.’ (ibid., para. 59).

Asks (3):

• That the DCEDIY set up a register of DPROs (ibid., paras. 44, 61, 94 (t)), along the lines set out by the UN Committee (ibid., paras. 10-14).
• Genuine DPROs should then receive core institutional funding and regular information and other supports by the State in accessing all types of funding. Also, other supports may be required from the State by DPROs which don’t involve funding, and these should be determined through close consultation and active involvement of DPROs (ibid., paras. 60, 61, 80, 94 (b).

One source of funding suggested by the UN Committee is the national lottery (ibid., para. 64).

• A policy and legislative framework is required to embed DPROs into decision-making processes, at all levels within the State (cf. ibid., paras. 94 (b, e, f, etc.), and this includes DPRO-only spaces at all branches and levels of government (ibid., para. 49).
• Building Consultation with DPROs into Budgeting of all Statutory Bodies should be an earnest objective, but for this to be comprehensive, our capacity-building is a prerequisite.

4. Funding Related to Disability-specific Services.

4.1 Additional Funding for Disability Service Providers.
4.2. Specific Services and Accountability (context and ask).

4.1. Additional Funding for Disability Service Providers.

The Dep. Of Health’s Disability Capacity Review (July, 2021), shows the massive extent to which the State currently relies on charities to provide core and essential services to disabled people. Not only is this outsourcing of responsibilities by the State to private NGOs less amenable to accountability, transparency, and scrutiny – in contrast to services directly provided by the State – for example, through integrated Universal Design –on a very basic level, Human Rights should not be dependent on charity.

Ask (4.1):
At a minimum, any additional State funding of disability services needs to be disability-proofed by DPROs (see Article 4 (3) of the CRPD as clarified by General Comment 7); and Public Sector Equality Duty in the Human Rights Commission Act (2014, S42).

Such disability-proofing must have as a precondition of State funding to disability service providers that they are not directly or indirectly interfering with the representative rights of DPROs, for example, as set out in the CRPD (see General Comment 7, para. 51).

In other words, State funds must never be allowed to be spent on anything that directly or indirectly undermines the capacity of DPROs. This includes, for example, any facilitation and funding of advocacy by disability service providers (paying the lobbyist), and ensuring that all State funded operations that inform visually impaired people about disability service providers must also inform them about their DPROs, and facilitate their joining of DPROs.

Funding of Section 38 and 39 service-providers should also be contingent on such organisations closely consulting and actively involving the relevant DPROs in their own work (GC7, para. 14).

4.2. Specific Services and Accountability (context and ask).

Braille as an Example:
There are three providers of braille transcription services in the country, and public authorities generally pay for these services when they receive requests from citizens looking for materials in braille.

Such service-provision must meet the requirements of the end-user, and not be dictated by the service-provider. For example, a coalition of braille transcription service providers, in 2013, decided that they would suddenly change from producing all documents in Standard English Braille to producing all documents in Unified English Braille. There is only two clicks of a mouse in the production software interface between the two. This wholesale and steadfast change seriously discommodes most visually impaired people who have learnt braille before 2014, and is discriminatory.

Where contracts exist with these contractors, they must be regularly reviewed with close consultation and active involvement of the relevant DPRO(s), and in particular with VVI (cf. VVI’s Policy on Accessible Communications, Section 5).

8. Braille

5. Relative Poverty of Visually Impaired People.

5.1. Cost of Visual Impairment.
5.2. Core Basic Payments.
5.3. Non-Contributory Pension.
5.4. Anomalies Between Different Payments to Disabled People Capital Disregards.
5.5. State Benefits as Taxable Income.
5.6. Blind Welfare Allowance (BWA).
5.7. Accessible Application Processes for State Benefits and Awards.

5.1. Cost of Visual Impairment.

In December, 2021, the long-awaited INDECON report into the cost of disability (commissioned by the State), was finally published. The cost of disability to those who have a severe vision impairment (i.e., who are blind), was said to be between €9,805 – €10,565 per annum.

It is important to note here that much of what was being measured was the extra costs of being disabled by lack of universal design – i.e., being disabled by disablist planning, design, and other decision-making.

Even forgetting for a moment the inflation which has hit the country since the publication of the INDECON Report, we believe these costings to be a massive underestimation for two reasons:

i). The INDECON Report did not factor in that blind people are fifteen times more likely to be without paid employment than their sighted comparitor. Being unemployed due to institutionalised discrimination not only has a clear negative impact on income, but has concomitant knock-on effects which were not covered in the report. In other words, being “unemployed” is a cost in itself.

ii). the methodology of the research inadvertently, but necessarily, excludes visually impaired people with the least resources and supports – i.e., those with the highest disability costs. For example, the quantitative side of the research was based on online surveys, which necessarily exclude visually impaired people on the other side of the digital divide (which is common, for example, when people lose their sight), as well as for those who do not have adequate internet access.

Since publication of the Indecon report, annual inflation has been about 7%, so the headline figures can be presumed to have similarly increased in the meantime.For visually impaired people, the yearly cost of visual impairment could, therefore, be set at a conservative baseline of €10,800-€11,500, or to round it off, €214 per week.

The extra cost ofvbeing disabled by society because of our visual impairments is universal – i.e., borne by those on all income levels. A precondition of our equality in society is that our socio-economic disadvantage be addressed.

Some visually impaired people are currently in receippt of the Blind Welfare Allowance (BWA), which is €66.70 per week on the individual rate. A reformed BWA could become the vehicle for a Cost of Disability Allowance for visually impaired people.

Ask (5.1).

• That a Cost of Disability Allowance of €214 per week be paid to all people with a severe visual impairment (i.e., those of us with 6/60 or less in sight measurement – in line with Ireland’s definition of ‘legally blind’); and that this payment be non-taxable and non-means-tested, applying to visually impaired people of all ages, equally.

5.2. Core Basic Payments.

As mentioned above, according to the 2016 Census, at least 76% of those with a severe visual impairment in the relevant age-brackets are not in paid employment. Whereas Welfare payments are generally kept low as an incentive for the recipients to seek paid employment, the institutionalised and practical barriers to paid employment are clearly too high for visually impaired people for this approach to be justifiable. As equal Irish citizens, we deserve dignity of life and equal opportunity.

Inflation:
The blind tax allowance was reduced in 2010 from €1830 to 1650 and it has stayed there since. Clearly, this is not keeping up with inflation.
Prices have been rising on an annual basis since April, 2021, with annual inflation rates of 5% or over, since November, 2021 (cso.ie). While annual inflation stood at 9.1% inAugust, , 2022, and effectively 10.8% for the most socio-economically disadvantaged, as of July, 2022 (Social Justice Ireland), core disability benefits only went up by 4.3% in the last budget (i.e., considering that the increases were not implemented until January 1st, 2023). Disabled people on non-contributory pensions got a meagre core increase of 4.9%, which was well behind inflation.

While disabled people under the age of 66 received one-off payments of €908, and the fuel allowance was raised by 32%, – as well as the €600 universal credits – these helped with energy costs during a time of exceptionally high energy inflation, but did not impact on general inflation hits to disabled people.

The annual inflation rate for August 2023 stood at 6.3%, but for those most socio-economically disadvantaged, this rate was estimated to be at

Asks (5.2):
to mitigate against the current institutionalised disabling of people from our right to employment, and our consequent impoverishment; at the very least, core disability-related benefits need to be increased to meet the increased cost of living of their recipients. This also includes a reparation of their impoverishment in Budgets 2022 and 2023, as well as future-proofing against the expected continued inflation for 2024. In effect, this amounts to a minimum of 20% increase in Blind Pension and Disability Allowance. At a bare minimum, disability benefits should be brought to match the non-constributory State pension.

• Likewise, the non-contributory Pension needs to keep pace with inflation, and similarly, a 20% rise is the minimum to make up for empoverishing budgets of the past two years.

5.3. Non-Contributory Pension.

Because of the inaccessibility of means-testing for most visually impaired people, the State’s forcing us to jump from Blind Pension or Disability Allowance to the Non-Contributory Pension as we reach 66 years of age poses a significant challenge, and one that relies on the help of third parties – which in turn compromises our security, as well as GDPR rights in conjunction with reasonable accommodation rights.

Also, forcing someone to do this based on a particular age cut-off point is surely discriminatory on the grounds of age, and quite unnecessary.

Ask (5.3):

• That visually impaired people be allowed to continue collecting Blind Pension, Disability Allowance, or other disability-related core payments, for as long as they need, without having to shut that door and go through the threshold of the non-contributory pension process.
• that the non-contributory pension rate be raised to meet minimum living standard requirements and to counter inflation.

5.4. Anomalies Between Different Payments to Disabled People Capital Disregards.

Currently, the basic capital disregard for anyone applying for or in receipt of the Disability Allowance is €50,000, counting to €70,000; but equivalent disregard for people in receipt of the Blind Pension or Non-Contributory Pension is €20,000 counting to €40,000.

Such an anomaly is unjustifiable, and appears to have arisen from oversight. Furthermore, it is at least indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability, given the practical difficulties confronting anyone in receipt of the Blind Pension if they wish to opt to collect Disability Allowance instead.

None of these capital disregards have taken account of inflation since they were introduced.

Another disablist anomaly can be illustrated in the scenario where a parent has exercised responsible duty by ensuring that a visually impaired child receives an equal share of the estate in their will. Indeed, the parent might want to leave a greater proportion to the disabled child, according to cushion or alleviate their long-term needs (such as extra costs of living and less overall independence). As things stand, perhaps in most cases, such a bequest would mean that the visually impaired child would have to give up their State benefits until they have run through the capital left to them by their dutiful parent. This might be contrasted with a non-disabled sibling who is likely to be in employment, and can invest the capital and get the full benefit of it.

Other Anomalies Regarding Rates and Circumstances

• There are no disregards for partners or spouses on Blind Persons Pension, but some disregards for these in relation to Disability Allowance.
• While on Disability Allowance, full Medical Card entitlements are allowable up to an income of €427 per week, but with the Blind Persons Pension, no extra earnings income is permitted for a recipient to retain their Medical Card benefits.

Ages of Eligibility of Benefits

The number of recipients of the Blind Pension has decreased by 23.5% between 2015 and 2022, from €1,341 to €1,026 (Oireachtas.ie, PQ 84, 22.5.17). This can be explained by the relative advantages of the Disability Allowance, not just in terms of the capital disregard already mentioned, but also because the Disability Allowance is receivable from the age of 16, whereas the Blind Pension is eligible from the age of 18.

This anomaly, whether or not a result of oversight, can only lead to the dwindling to zero of the number of recipients of the Blind Pension. The ESRI report (2018) based on the Quarterly Household Report returns of 2017, found that visually impaired people are ten times more likely to be on the receiving end of discrimination than any other disability (apart from psycho-social impairments, which are still behind visual impairment in this regard). As such, the retention of a specific core payment to cater for the needs of visually impaired people is advisable.

Asks (5.4):

• that all capital and income disregards for visually impaired people in receipt of State benefits be changed to being uncapped or unlimited. This would cost the State nothing, but would alleviate life-long impoverishment of many visually impaired people. At the bare minimum, all such capital disregards should be equalised and substantially raised.
• that all other anomalies that put visually impaired people in receipt of benefits other than the Disability Allowance be ironed out so that they are no longer discriminated against in this regard.

All of these anomalies are unjustifiable, and appear to have accrued by neglect rather than design. In particular, the Blind Pension should be put on a par with the Disability Allowance in all respects as soon as possible. Since there are only slightly more than a thousand people in receipt of the Blind Persons Pension, fixing these discrepancies should not be onerous.

• that visually impaired people be eligible for the Blind Pension from the age of 16 (as with the Disability Allowance).

5.5. State Benefits as Taxable Income.

The Blind Pension and Disability Allowance, respectively, are classed as taxable forms of income, which effectively means that in many instances, increases in rates of such payments, as well as supplementary benefits such as Living Alone Allowance, and Household Benefits Package, are cancelled out by rent increases by Approved Housing Bodies and Local Authorities, which are calculated based on taxable income.

Ask (5.5):
No disability-related payment should be a taxable income for visually impaired people.

5.6. Blind Welfare Allowance (BWA).

BWA is provided by the HSE to blind people living independently who are “unemployed”, at a current rate of €66.70 per week for a visually impaired individual, and €120 per week for a blind couple. The potential for BWA to be transformed to becoming a universal cost of visual impairment payment for all visually impaired people is mentioned in 4.1 above.

Currently, an eligibility component of the BWA is “a letter from the National Council for the blind of Ireland (NCBI)…NCBI is the national sight-loss organisation. They can confirm whether you meet the criteria to register as blind” (hse.ie).

However, as we understand it from the NCBI itself, the NCBI is in no position to confirm whether someone meets the criteria of being blind – this being an ophthalmological determination, and because there is no longer a “register” for blindness at the NCBI or anywhere else, for that matter.

Also, the designation of the NCBI as “Ireland’s national sight-loss organisation” is self-declared, and in violation of the CRPD, and does not belong on State-produced material, such as the HSE website (hse.ie).

Asks (5.6):

• that Blind Welfare Allowance no longer be classed as taxable income, and not to be included as income in any means-testing. It is there to help counter the cost of disability, not as a luxury.
• In the absence of any other compensatory mechanisms commensurate with the cost of visual impairment, the Blind Welfare Allowance should be increased to €214, in order to meet the costs of visual impairment and to help counter the inflationary situation the country finds itself in, and it should be available to all visually impaired citizens, without reservation or condition.
• Any reference to the NCBI regarding Blind Welfare Allowance should be removed from the State’s information on eligibility criteria.

5.7. Accessible Application Processes for State Benefits and Awards.

As Visually impaired people, we have the right to independently access our entitlement to supports and services, including those relating to social protection (cf. CRPD, Article 9 (1). However, as mentioned earlier, application processes involve paperwork which is often not independently accessible to visually impaired people.

This means that not only do visually impaired people find it incredibly difficult to apply for their Welfare entitlements (as already mentioned), but they are also far less likely to avail of more specialist or one-off supports for the same reasons. Examples of such specialist or one-off application processes include:

• Medical Card application and review/renewal
• Reasonable Accommodation Fund
• Back to Work Enterprise Allowance
• Short-term Enterprise Allowance
• VJT 61A (Revenue Commission’s form for tax-back on assistive or accessibility-related products regarding visual impairment).
• Technical Aids Grant
• Disabled Persons Grant Scheme
• Housing Adaptations Grant
• Mobility Aids Grant
• SUSI (third level education grants)

Ask (5.7):

In close consultation and active involvement of VVI, all relevant public bodies to create a system based on Universal Design, which builds reasonable accommodations, as a default, into their regulations and standard operating procedures.

• Also, many visually impaired people – especially where there has been recent sight-loss – will not be able to access information on what they are entitled to. Statutory bodies need to have incorporated into their budget a social work service that will let visually impaired people and other disabled people know what benefits they are entitled to, and to assist them in such applications with regard to that public body. This may be more efficient as a one-stop shop within the Department of Social Protection (DSP).
• Public bodies should study our Accessible Communications Policy carefully, and embed the contents of this document in its structure and operating procedures:
  https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

6. Mobility & Environment.

6.1. Free Public Transport.
6.2. Active Modes of Transport.
6.3. Consultation on Sustainable Development Goals.
6.4. Visually Impaired Passengers.
6.5. Accessibility as a Precondition for Public Transport Licensing.
6.6. Removal of VAT on Guide-Dog Costs.

6.1. Free Public Transport.

The more that public transport fares are reduced to encourage the general public to use public transport, the less justifiable become the costs of ticketing and revenue protection on such services.

As things stand, ticketing is generally inaccessible to visually impaired people, and visually impaired people cannot independently identify revenue protection officers in a secure manner. Furthermore, some of our members have not been able to obtain the Public Services Card because they have found the application system to be inaccessible.

Ask (6.1):
We recommend that public transport be free at the point of use for all passengers. This not only makes the entire public transport system much more accessible to visually impaired people, but makes it more accessible for everyone. The savings in ticketing, revenue protection, and time costs, should ensure that the overall cost to the commonwealth is decreased, and by the same measures, that the greater public good is being served through encouraging more environmentally sustainable modes of travel. This remedy will require much higher investment in public transport infrastructure to meet the extra demand.

6.2. Active Modes of Transport.

Very often, it is not safe for visually impaired people to cycle, and for obvious reasons, driving a car is not legally or morally possible. As such, we depend on “lifts” from friends and relations (especially if living in the country); on walking, where possible; and on public transport. Walking requires safe and accessible streetscapes; is limited in terms of distance; and can make it more difficult to find one’s destination (e.g., a first-time specialist’s appointment and No. 83 Main Street, etc.).

As such, cycling and walking (active modes) are not remotely adequate in journey completion for visually impaired people as compared to the general population.

Like you, we have a Human Right to access our community and environment on an equal basis with everyone else. This means that we must be able to access all areas, whether by blue badge private vehicles, taxi, or bus, etc. Anything else (e.g., pedestrianisation) necessarily constitutes a disablist planning zone.

Ask (6.2):
As is our right as a DPRO under Articles 4 (3) and 9 (1) of the CRPD, we request that all funding on active Travel modes be contingent on accessibility audits that conform to Article 4 (3) of the CRPD – namely “close consultation and active involvement of…representative organisations” (i.e., DPROs).

A useful starting point is our Manual of Accessible Planning for Pedestrians (MAPP):

https://www.vvi.ie/mapp

This precondition will have long term cost benefits, since it will facilitate the independence (economic and otherwise) of our ageing population, as well as fulfilling the State’s obligations to our DPRO members.

6.3. Consultation on Sustainable Development Goals.

The UN Committee points out that part of the States obligations to “closely consult and actively involve” DPROs (as per Article 4 (3) of the CRPD), relates to, for example, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (2030) (General Comment 7, paras. 9, 92, 94 (r)). So far, in Ireland, this obligation has been neglected or otherwise ignored, across this entire area, including the Climate Action Plan.

Ask (6.3):
In line with the State’s obligations under Article 4 (3) of the CRPD, and with the Public Sector Duty (IHREC Act, 2014, S42), disability-proofing, through close consultation and active involvement of DPROs, needs to be a precondition of any funding related to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

6.4. Visually Impaired Passengers.

The EU Parking Permit scheme for disabled drivers and passengers means that blind passengers (along with severely physically impaired passengers/drivers) have disabled parking rights.
However, particularly in rural areas, where visually impaired people do not have adequate access to public transport, we are often totally reliant on being driven to doctors’ appointments, to community events, to work, etc. Unlike our sighted comparitors, we do not have the option of cycling. Similarly, in a household, where both parents would be able to co-ordinate school-runs etc., where one parent is visually impaired, the availability for work of the other partner is often compromised by having to make such school-runs or drop children off to bus-stops etc.

Ask (6.4):
Visually impaired people have a comparatively restricted ability to engage in “active modes” of transport, and as such, it is an anomaly (and discrimination on the basis of disability) that we are not also eligible for the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme, which provides a range of tax reliefs linked to the purchase and use of specially constructed or adapted vehicles by drivers and passengers with a disability. Visually impaired people may not need adapted vehicles, but the necessity of their being driven should be reflected in the same tax reliefs and toll exemptions, i.e., as set out in the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations 1994 (SI 353/1994) as amended.

6.5. Accessibility as a Precondition for Public Transport Licensing.

There has been a trend, in recent years, towards the further opening up of public transportation to private operators. It is essential that such licencing by the National Transport Authority (NTA) is dependent on accessibility to disabled people in general, and from our perspective, to visually impaired people.

Ask (6.5):
That all future license-granting by the NTA to private operators be dependent on disability proofing in line with Article 4 (3) of the CRPD.

6.6. Removal of VAT on Guide-Dog Costs.

A guide dog is an aid to visually impaired people, both for independent living and mobility. As such, the costs of maintaining them should be vat exempted, as is the case for adaptive technology, which also can be seen as an aid to independent/living/mobility.
Currently, users of guide-dogs must pay 23% VAT on everything necessary for the maintenance of the guide-dog (such as dog-food which is of prime quality for working dogs).

Ask (6.6):
VAT should be removed from all purchases (including payment of services) necessary for the maintenance of guide dogs (both working and retired).

7. Housing and Independent Living.

7.1. Needs of Visually Impaired People in being Allocated Housing.
7.2. General DPRO Prioritisation in Consultations.
7.3. Housing-Related Data.
7.4. Minimum of 2-bed Allocations for Visually Impaired Individuals.
7.5. Homelessness.
7.6. Home Supports.
7.7. Caution Regarding Individualised/Personalised Budgeting Strategy.

7.1. Needs of Visually Impaired People in being Allocated Housing.

Currently, there is no agreed standard as to what constitutes Universal Design in State-supported housing – notwithstanding an out-of-date paper by CEUD, in 2013). The prevailing ethos (e.g., DHLG, Disability Housing Strategy, 2022), concentrates on accessibility for wheelchair users (which, of course, in itself is essential). However, Universal Design must also take account of the needs of visually impaired tenants, and to that end, Article 4 (3) of the CRPD is once more a statutory obligation. In other words, it is an obligation under international law that the State prioritise DPROs, in general, regarding the compilation of a Universal Design standard, but that in particular, with regard to visual impairment, VVI is prioritised on all levels.

Also, the designation of Approved Housing Body status to any disability service provider in this respect, against the wishes of DPROs, is necessarily repugnant to the CRPD.

Ask (7.1):

• That the Housing Agency “closely consult with and actively involve” VVI in a statutory minimum standard on “Universal Design” as applied to public and private housing, with regard to new builds, and state-subsidised retrofitting.
• That no AHB status approval be given to any disability service provider without this first being agreed with the relevant DPROs. In this case, since VVI is the national DPRO concerning visual impairment, specifically, VVI must be closely consulted and actively involved, as well as our views and opinions prioritised, in such consideration.

7.2. General DPRO Prioritisation in Consultations.

Currently, there is no provision for prioritisation of the “views and opinions” of DPROs (General Comment 7, para. 23), nor distinction of DPROs (ibid., paras. 13-17) in the Disability Housing Strategy (2022-7).

As with section 2, above, it is an obligation on the State to make sure that DPROs are afforded those rights, including in what is often referred to as ‘stakeholders’ in the area of housing, and this must be remedied in order for Ireland to be compliant with its obligations under the CRPD (Article 4 (3) and 19). This will also involve an obligation for Local Authorities to capacity-build DPROs.

Ask (7.2):
That the DHLG, Housing Agency, and Local Authorities have distinct and prioritised consultations with DPROs regarding housing and disability.

7.3. Housing-Related Data.

Currently, the DHLG have shoe-horned Deaf, Deaf-blind, hearing impaired, neurodiverse, and visually impaired people into the one category, i.e., “sensory impairment”, and even worse, the medical model language of “people with a sensory disability”.

Impairments in sight and hearing have totally different consequences. The impacts, apart from the general disabling by society, are chalk and cheese. Lumping these categories in together might be handy from a disinterested statistician’s perspective, but not where one is interested in the actual differences in housing take-up and subsequent results.

Ask (7.3):
That the DHLG be required to separate its statistical categories according to the various types of sensory impairment (Deaf, hearing impaired, deaf-blind, and visually impaired), as well as a separate category for neurodiverse people. This will allow additional funding, where necessary, to be targeted, not only in usual housing services, but also in terms of homelessness services.

7.4. Minimum of 2-bed Allocations for Visually Impaired Individuals.

Many visually impaired individuals in public housing have no choice but to remain in hospital when recovering, thus, inadvertently “bedblocking”, since they live alone in 1-bedroom dwellings, and as such, cannot have full-time care from extended family, community, or professionals in their own home. Generally speaking, also, visually impaired people living alone may require more room to house assistive technology, guide-dogs, and more room to avoid trip-hazards, such as placement of clothes-dryers etc.

Ask (7.4):

• That Housing allocation for visually impaired individuals allows them a minimum of 2-bedroom dwellings.

7.5. Homelessness.

Homelessness is a terrible situation at the best of times, but 26% of people suffering from homelessness are also disabled (ESRI-IHREC, Discrimination and Inequality in Housing in Ireland, 2018). This over-representation, as with other inequalities, is not coincidental.

Asks (7.5):

• that visually impaired and other disabled people be fast-tracked out of homelessness as a priority.
• that in close consultation with VVI, that homelessness authorities identify those homeless accommodation facilities which are most accessible to visually impaired people, and that placements be made, as priority, accordingly.

7.6. Home Supports.

Many people with a visual impairment require additional assistance with tasks that others might think as straightforward, such as cleaning of rooms, assistance in travelling, and even simple DIY tasks such as safely changing a lightbulb, the railing or re-railing of curtains, replacing a fuse in a plug, etc.

VVI has published a position paper on traditional home support services (December, 2021):

Position paper on Home Support Services Standards

However, there are two areas which need more investment from the State in this regard: namely, personal assistance for visually impaired people; and the provision of tradesperson-related assistance.

In terms of personal assistance, visually impaired people may require assistance, such as in browsing in their local library, including more specialist possibilities such as the need for a personal assistant to be proficient in a second language, such as Irish. Such additional support requires more investment in personal assistance provided by the State. In terms of assistance to visually impaired people, in particular, remote personal assistance, such as that provided by AIRA, should be seen as an intrinsic option supported by the State, where preferred by the visually impaired person.

In terms of tradespeople, some tasks are more specialist. For example, the pressure on the water may be low, but a visually impaired person cannot access the interface on the boiler to raise it; or on some makes of washing-machine, the filter is at the back, and cannot easily be removed when required to be cleaned –causing a breakdown in the washing-machine.

Asks (7.6):

• That more investment be made in PA hours for visually impaired people, including, where sought, remote PA services, such as those provided by AIRA.
• that a system of State-subsidised trades in the home be organised with a view to providing solutions to emergency and daily needs of visually impaired and other disabled people.

7.7. Caution Regarding Individualised/Personalised Budgeting Strategy.

In its prebudget submission (July, 2022, p.9), the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Disability Matters writes:

“The Committee believe that funding strategy needs to move to individualised funding and a needs-led system where an assessment of people’s needs would be undertaken to allow for direct resource allocation to meet the needs of each person. Those could be personal care needs, social inclusion needs, etc. The Government must implement the personal budgets pilot to enable a model of delivering disability supports as a personalised budget which has autonomy, independence, and community inclusion for people with disabilities at its core”.

We have concerns about this approach, from a visually impaired perspective. Apart from the bureaucratic costs in determining individual budgets, which can be arbitrary and be a fiasco, as with the PIPS in Britain, visually impaired people are often denied access to the so-called free market by virtue of the fact that advertising and availability of services is not communicated in a form accessible to us. Also, clearly, different parts of the country will have varying qualities and amounts of service-provision if things are left to the ‘free market’, and indeed, if a Regulator, down the line, is necessitated, things get even more bureaucratic in terms of wasted resources.

Ask (7.7):
That nothing be done regarding a change of funding strategy to personalised budgets without prior close consultation and active involvement of DPROs (including VVI).

8. Health.

8.1. Accessible Health Services.
8.2. The Medical Card.
8.3. Medical Prescription.
8.4. Public Eye-Care Services.
8.5. Basic Health Needs for All.

8.1. Accessible Health Services.

Throughout Ireland’s health service, there persists basic and universal inaccessibilities and disablist practice. For example, we often hear of hospitals complaining about ‘no-shows’ of outpatients for medical appointments; but it is our experience that accessible communications from hospitals to visually impaired patients (e.g., as per the Disability Act, S28), are the exception rather than the rule, and have to be fought for by the outpatient, on each and every occasion.

Similarly, medical staff rarely appear to have received adequate training in how to safely guide a visually impaired person or to understand other access needs.

In terms of systems, The systems set up for vaccination and antigen-testing for covid are intrinsically inaccessible to visually impaired people – with VVI’s offers to advise on our needs from the outset being effectively ignored by the HSE and Dept. of Health.

Ask (8.1):

• Adequate funding must be identified for the adequate training and setting up of accessible communications systems by medical staff and institutions, as well as public authorities, themselves.
• in all funding and contracts, a stipulation must be the provision of accessible services and communications: cf. VVI’s Accessible Communications Policy
  https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

8.2. The Medical Card.

Context and ask: Given the extra costs of being visually impaired, often involving greater need to use health services, all visually impaired people should be eligible, by default and without means-testing, for a general services medical card.

Because restoration of lost vision is an infinitesimally rare occurrence, and because renewal processes are intrinsically inaccessible to many visually impaired people, visually impaired people should have indefinite entitlement to the medical card.

8.3. Medical Prescription.

Medical prescription charges of €1.50 are charged to medical card holders getting items on prescription from pharmacies. Such a tax is regressive, since it cuts at the poorest in society; and it is also cruel, since it penalises medical card holders for their reliance on essential medicines or medical products. This latter point also means that by its nature, the charge is disablist.

Prescriptions regarding medicines for long-term conditions are currently required to be renewed by the service-user every three to six months, creating much unnecessary bureaucracy, as well as unnecessary hassle for the person with the long-term condition.

Ask (8.2):

• That all medical prescription charges be dropped for medical card holders (which would, effectively, be a return to the situation as it was in 2009 and before).
• that prescription-renewal obligations for medicines pertaining to long-term conditions be got rid of. When the patient dies (and the prescription comes to an end), the pharmacy concerned can be required to refund the State the amount it has received from the State in lieu of the medicines acquired, but unused, for that particular prescription.

8.4. Public Eye-Care Services.

A VVI member has a congenital eye syndrome (microphthalmia), but was also diagnosed with cataracts in 2016. The pre-existing syndrome means that a cataracts operationis not a straightforward procedure, and requires very experienced and specialist consultants. However, he remains an outpatient at a regional hospital, and appears to have been forgotten about. In the meantime, the cataracts is embedding itself in his eyes, making it more difficult to successfully remove without bleeding, infection, or detached retina. The prognosis for him saving any sight is not good.

Ask (8.4):
that Ireland’s Third World public system for eye clinics be properly resourced to meet the First World expectations of our ageing population. Such investment will necessarily save money in the long-run as it helps to prevent life-changing experiences of total loss of sight, and the distresses and need for support services which accompany that loss.

8.5. Basic Health Needs for All.

Our members find that if they are on the Medical Card, they may be charged by their local General Practitioner for basic blood tests. As such, many of our members are being discouraged from getting tested for conditions such as diabetes, or cancer etc.

Similarly, visually impaired people, especially those on medical card, find it difficult to access adequate dental care.

Asks (8.5):

• that funding be made available so that all blood-tests of Medical Card holders are free of charge.
• that there be close consultation with VVI in the provision of adequate dental care for visually impaired people.

9. Education & Culture.

9.1. Habilitation and Rehabilitation.
9.2. Accessible Educational Texts.
9.3. Third Level Education Supports.
9.4. Talking Books should be VAT-free.
9.5. TV license exemption to all visually impaired people – whether in receipt of State benefits or not.

9.1. Habilitation and Rehabilitation.

In keeping with the concept of Universal Design (CRPD, Article 2), visually impaired children have a right to receive a full education that meets their practical needs (as well as academic needs), as an integrated part of the education system. This means that the State should be providing education of life skills specific to visually impaired children (such as mobility and orientation, as well as other practical skills such as use of assistive technology, braille, and summer courses such as cooking, for visually impaired children. Similarly, but separately, the same services should be provided, as a right, to adults who have lost their sight later in life.

Ask (9.1):

• That for any visually impaired person in the education system, that visiting teachers (from the NCSE) be adequately trained in the provision of education involving life skills specific to visually impaired children and young adults; and that in terms of rehabilitation, that the State closely consult and actively involve VVI in the establishment of a State-run rehabilitation service, under the auspices of the DCEDIY.
• since the most cost-efficient and accountable provision of such services are where they are functions of the State, where NGOs are currently providing such services to some extent, such provision should be seen as a transitional support while the State establishes its own standards in close consultation and active involvement of DPROs, and in particular, in this instance, with VVI.

9.2. Accessible Educational Texts.

We know anecdotally from third level institutions disability support units and from what data there is from AHEAD, that attendance at third level institutions by visually impaired students – and in particular, blind students – is the lowest of all disability constituencies (although, since there is nothing on deaf-blind participation, we would presume this to be very low indeed, if there is any participation at all).

From our own experiences in the education system (in all levels, up to FITAC Level 10), accessibility to even core texts is difficult, or non-existent. Often, where access to even core texts is provided, it does not happen in a timely manner, further disadvantaging the visually impaired student. Given this discrimination, which is intrinsic to Ireland’s education system, it is no wonder that there is such a relatively poor success rate among visually impaired students.

Asks (9.2):

• all publications which are subsidised by the State must be compliant with VVI’s Accessible Communications Policy
  https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/

• and in particular with the production of accessible Microsoft Word versions of texts. https://vvi.ie/our-policies/accessible-communications-policy/6-electronic-documents/

note also that Duxbury (the software currently used by all Irish service-providers in braille-production, works from Microsoft Word, and so, production of braille texts from materials is really only practical when an accessible Microsoft Word version is the transcription-to-braille source.

• the “Copyright Library” status of Trinity College Dublin should be extended to the National Library of Ireland, and as such; all books published in Ireland be required to lodge an accessible Microsoft Word version, and a .pdf version, of the book with the NLI, so that visually impaired readers can access such materials on demand from their local library.

9.3. Third Level Education Supports.

In the United Kingdom, visually impaired third level students are guaranteed a minimum of 20 hours personal assistance supports, which is totally separate to their data processing (text) supports. This personal assistance not only means that lectures are more accessible to us, but also that we can go for lunch and participate more fully in college life.

In Ireland, standards of accessible text provision as well as of personal assistance hours vary from institution to institution, but personal assistance tends to be only provided for taught courses, which excludes many post-graduate courses.

Visually Impaired students in Third Level may require very specialist personal assistance, such as knowledge of a particular language other than English, or knowledge of STEM abbreviations and charts, etc. The current rates of PA-pay for Third Level education supports is quite close to the minimum wage, and so, is not generally compatible with particular specialist needs.

In Section 4, we have already mentioned the evidence of systemic impoverishment of visually impaired people in general, and visually impaired students are no different in this regard.

Apart from the extra costs by Third Level students, generally, such as living away from home, etc., visually impaired people incur additional costs related to Third Level education, such as extra need for taxi services, more dependence on eating-out facilities, etc. Furthermore, since courses are more likely than not to be inaccessible, the drop-out rate of visually impaired people can be expected, reasonably, to be much higher than the norm.

In short, the current SUSI criteria for funding looks at previous Third Level experience as a negative marker where courses have been dropped. In the case of visually impaired people, this is disablist, because it is blaming the victim.

Asks (9.3):

• that Third Level supports be standardised, including the provision of a minimum of 20 PA hours per student (including for all postgraduates).
• that educational support workers (i.e., personal assistants) be directly employed by third level institutions, which will afford a much higher level of pay for their work, and attracting Pas with higher skill-levels.
• that visually impaired students not be penalised by previous third level attendance in the awarding of SUSI grants.

9.4. Talking Books should be VAT-free.

Ask and Reason: 21% VAT needs to be removed from talking books (to match print book counterparts). This helps to address the difficulties in educational and cultural access experienced by blind people, especially having lost their sight later in life, and recognises the barrier to purchasing talking books caused by the systematic impoverishment of visually impaired people.

9.5. TV license exemption to all visually impaired people – whether in receipt of State benefits or not.

De facto this is the case anyway, since An Post has been thwarted in the Courts for trying to chase down blind people who had not officially been exempted. But visually impaired people should not have to worry about such things.

This is a good time to remind the State that the vast majority of television programming in Ireland does not have Audio Description, and so is inadequately accessible to visually impaired viewers/audiences.

Asks (9.5):

• for all visually impaired people to be entitled to a free tv license or to be exempt from the requirement to have a license.
• for State broadcasters in particular to have a minimum audio description output of 30% in 2023.
• for such broadcasters to have accessible interfaces on apps and websites.

10. Assistive Technology Scheme.

VVI calls for Seed Funding for an Assistive Technology Scheme which would act like a lending library, where visually impaired people could test out devices to see if they would be suitable as long-term purchases.

as a basic step to using technology to empower visually impaired people in society, this national scheme would also be engaged in research, such as into the practical application of accessible digital signage, in close consultation and active involvement of VVI and other national DPROs.

Whereas, before, such technology may have seemed too expensive and not universal enough for widespread application, this landscape is rapidly changing, and Ireland should be at the forefront of utilising such technology to improve the lives of visually impaired people.

Possibilities not only include a national assistive technology library where visually impaired people can test out devices, but also to be considered should be individual accessible technology grants from lottery funds.

Currently, grants are available for visually impaired people to obtain technology once they have been offered a paid position by a public or private body, but given the scandalous unemployment rate of visually impaired people, most of us will not be in a position to be well used to such technology, at present, until entering the work-place, causing a catch 22 scenario. In keeping with Articles 4 (1) and 9 (2) of the CRPD, communications technology as a Human Right, needs to be seriously addressed by Ireland with regard to visually impaired people of all ages.