As Presented by the State in May and June, 2024.
Submitted, August 14th, 2024.
- Introduction.
- General Approach.
- NDA’s Consultation process.
- Inclusive Learning and Education.
- Employment.
- Independent Living and Active Participation in Society.
- Health and well-Being.
- Transport & Mobility.
- Closing Remarks on Consultation.
- 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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).