The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the importance of disability inclusion in local and national infrastructure planning. I am pleased to welcome from the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, Ms Laura O'Callaghan, community development officer and Dr. Emer Begley, director of advocacy. From the Irish Wheelchair Association, IWA, I welcome Ms Joan Carthy, national advocacy manager, Mr. John Fulham, public engagement manager and Ms Rosaleen Lally, national access programme manager.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I remind members they will be afforded a six-minute speaking slot for questions and answers, with a second chance to contribute later, if they wish. I will now invite our stakeholders to make their opening statements. We will begin with the Disability Federation of Ireland and I believe both Ms O'Callaghan and Dr. Begley will speak.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the invitation to appear. As was mentioned, I am director of advocacy at the DFI and I am joined by Ms O'Callaghan, who is an experienced community development officer currently working in partnership with Wicklow County Council.

We welcome the attention of the committee to disability and note the synergy between this work and the State’s commitments under the National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030 to ensure infrastructure, services and facilities are accessible. DFI is a civil society and pan-disability federation of over 100 members. We work at national, regional and local level to support implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, UNCRPD. We have worked with disabled people and a range of stakeholders across the community including those in local authorities, local development companies and public participation networks to support greater inclusion and accessibility. In addition, we undertake data and policy analysis on disability issues of significance to our members. Drawing on these experiences, our presentation will focus on three specific areas of relevance to the work of the committee, namely, the context of disability and disabling conditions in Ireland; moving towards equity and inclusion, looking at national and international obligations; and structured approaches to disability inclusion within local authorities in realising national infrastructure plans and projects, touching on universal design and meaningful consultation.

We wanted to start by giving a snapshot on the national picture. In the most recent census, just under 1.2 million people, or 22% of the population, reported having a long-lasting condition, difficulty or disability to any extent. This included 8% of people who have a disability "to a great extent" and 14% of people who have a disability "to some extent". The census data shows the most common type of long-lasting condition reported was "difficulty with pain, breathing, or any other chronic illness or condition". This was followed by "difficulty with basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying", experienced by 31.5% of all disabled people. That was followed by "blindness or visual impairment", which was experienced by 26.7% of disabled people.

These figures are relevant as the right of disabled people to live in dignity and to participate in everyday life is enshrined in law both nationally and internationally through the Disability Act, with the public sector duty within the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 and more recently through the European Accessibility Act, which came into effect in June 2025. Internationally, Article 9 of the UNCRPD, a convention we ratified in 2018, states that for disabled people to live independently and fully participate in all aspects of life they need accessible transportation, infrastructure, information, communication technologies, access to the built environment and to public facilities and services. From census data we see this is not a reality in Ireland, with more than half of disabled people who report a disability to a great extent also reporting difficulties accessing public transport, for instance. This issue was further noted by the UN committee on the CRPD last year in its list of issues published for the Government. The committee identified a gap in how Ireland addresses the lack of accessible and affordable public transport and paratransit services and infrastructure, in particular for persons with disabilities in rural areas. A major step in meeting Ireland’s obligations under the UNCRPD, is through the National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030. Crucially, this is a whole-of-government framework that commits to mainstream first and to removing barriers that impact inclusion. My colleague Ms O'Callaghan will explain how this relates to the work of local authorities.

I thank Dr. Begley. There is acknowledgement in the national development plan that "While it is guided and co-ordinated at a national and regional level, it must be delivered at a local and sectoral level". The central role of local authorities in the implementation of the plan is stated throughout. They are key to the delivery of housing, the realisation of climate action targets and the administration of urban and rural regeneration schemes and community enhancement programmes.

To ensure and deliver equity for disabled people to be fully considered and included in these key areas of development, structured and uniform approaches to disability inclusion at local authority level are required. In 2024, the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, commissioned independent research to investigate how local authorities are meeting their obligations under the UNCRPD. We found that, despite several examples of good practice, some of which committee members will recognise from their constituencies, there is a lack of consistency across local authority areas. While the Disability Act 2005 includes the provision of access officers for local authorities, the research found that these roles were not at a senior level and were being carried out without any formal training in disability or accessibility. A significant number of access officers stated that their role is an add-on to their full-time positions, often without a defined job description which they felt limited their effectiveness.

Disability is not routinely represented on local community development committees, LCDCs, and there is no dedicated budget for accessibility projects unless approved through discretionary funds. There is also a lack of clear reporting mechanisms to assess how well local authorities are implementing the UNCRPD and the public sector duty. Crucially, stakeholder engagement and mechanisms for consultation with local disabled people are inconsistent and under-resourced. Effective models of representation which exist within local authority structures, such as the Age Friendly Ireland programme, climate action teams and local area integration teams, are not replicated for disability inclusion. There is a concern that this oversight could lead to a lack of adequate consideration for disability inclusion and accessibility in county development plans, which will, in turn, impact on the successful implementation of key infrastructure projects.

Commitment 12 of the new national human rights strategy for disabled people commits to auditing the current status of disability related matters across local authorities; co-ordinating commitments under the strategy across local authorities; creating mechanisms for sharing best practice; and ensuring there is a full-time access officer in each local authority. There is an urgency for these commitments to be delivered, with clear and robust targets and mechanisms for monitoring and reporting on progress.

To maximise the impact of the work of local access officers, they also need to be guided by the lived experience of local disabled people and for mechanisms of stakeholder engagement to be consistent and resourced across all local authorities. Access officers will only be effective if they have sufficient authority to contribute to strategic planning, ensuring that key documents, such as the county development plan and local economic community plan, which guide action and resource allocation, are disability proofed.

Working towards a mainstream-first approach requires the application of universal design principles. They must be an integral part of the design, procurement and delivery of all services. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in its list of issues for Ireland relating to the convention’s implementation, includes a query as to how the principles of universal design are embedded across functions of public bodies with regard to obligations under the public sector equality and human rights duty, and how public bodies will ensure the delivery and procurement of public services and infrastructure in line with the convention’s accessibility obligations. Key staff, therefore, require greater opportunities for resourced training to ensure a working knowledge of universal design. This is particularly important in planning, housing and engineering departments, and it must be embedded in the work of local authorities.

When accessibility is not written into tender requirements, contractors can prioritise speed and cost and access becomes an afterthought, if considered at all. This can result in blocked footpaths, unusable temporary surfaces, inaccessible bus stops or confusing wayfinding that disproportionately impacts people with mobility, vision, hearing or cognitive impairments. Public procurement processes need to make accessibility a non-negotiable part of delivery, where applicants provide details of how they intend to adhere to legal obligations for the provision and maintenance of accessibility throughout works. Similarly, infrastructure projects that require temporary outages of power, water or connectivity must ensure that timely communication, in accessible formats, with local disabled people is a priority. No disabled person should fear unexpected or long periods of being unable to charge necessary aids or devices, access water or use the smart technology they rely on for their independence.

Key infrastructure projects outlined in the national development plan, if delivered with universal design and accessibility as a priority, can offer an unprecedented opportunity to radically and positively transform the lives of disabled people. Enhanced high-quality broadband, for example, also enhances opportunities for disabled people to access flexible employment opportunities, participate in more inclusive education and use smart technology to aid their independence.

Embedding universal design and accessibility is not only essential to protect the rights of disabled people and meet Ireland’s national and international commitments but, if embraced, major infrastructure investment can move beyond compliance and become a powerful driver of inclusion, equality and improved quality of life for disabled people.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to contribute to this discussion on the delivery of the national development plan. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Joan Carthy, national advocacy manager, and Ms Rosaleen Lally, national access programme manager. We are speaking on behalf of the Irish Wheelchair Association, IWA, whose members live daily with the consequences of an infrastructure that too often excludes them. Ireland is living with the legacy of a society that was designed without people with disabilities in mind - physically, socially, and attitudinally. While progress has been made, much of our infrastructure continues to disable people rather than enable their participation. The national development plan is, therefore, not solely an investment programme; it is a test of whether we are prepared to correct that legacy.

Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2018. This creates a binding obligation to ensure that public investment in transport, housing and the built environment actively advances accessibility, independent living and personal mobility. The national development plan is a critical mechanism for delivering on that obligation. The scale of the plan is unprecedented. It has a budget of over €275 billion, with transport and housing identified as foundational to economic and social development. These are also the foundations of independent living and participation for people with disabilities. When we examine the plan through the lens of the UNCRPD, however, a significant gap emerges. While it funds the right sectors, it does not consistently commit to the right outcomes. Accessibility is not embedded as a core requirement, measured outcome or enforceable standard.

Transport is a clear example. The plan allocates over €22 billion to transport infrastructure, public transport and active travel. Yet, accessibility is not explicitly named as a design requirement. There is no commitment to step-free access, accessible stations, safe and inclusive active travel infrastructure or end-to-end journeys. Transport continues to be framed primarily through climate and competitiveness, rather than as a mobility right, despite transport being central in order to access to work, education, healthcare and community life for disabled people.

IWA's report, Getting Nowhere, highlights the consequences of this approach. Despite at least 12 Government policies guiding transport infrastructure, the Department of Transport and the National Transport Authority, NTA, operate without a single, legally binding national accessibility standard. This policy vacuum creates inaccessible stations, unsafe bus islands and active travel designs that 77% of our members report feeling unsafe to use.

The accessibility divide is stark. In urban areas, wheelchair users face broken lifts, cluttered footpaths and inaccessible buses. In rural areas, the issue is more fundamental, with an absence of services altogether. Without accessible transport, independence is impossible. Our recommendations are clear, namely, to introduce mandatory, legally binding national accessibility standards for all transport and active travel infrastructure; ensure people with disabilities lead policy design and governance, rather than being consulted after decisions are made; embed accessibility at every stage of delivery, including disability impact assessments and post-construction audits; and reform active travel policy to ensure safety for wheelchair users, people with mobility impairments and people with visual impairments. We are not asking for additional spending. Rather, we are asking that existing investment deliver infrastructure that works for everyone. Infrastructure is critical, so it must be accessible. The national development plan must be a tool for inclusion, not a mechanism that reproduces exclusion at scale.

I will hand over to my colleague, Ms Joan Carthy, who will speak to housing and accessibility under the national development plan and what its current design choices mean for independent living.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it today. The national development plan rightly prioritises housing delivery, committing to an annual average of 12,000 new social homes and introducing standardised design to accelerate construction.

While it sets a target of 30% universally designed homes over a five-year period, it does not specify any requirement for UD home+ or wheelchair-liveable housing. More broadly, the plan lacks binding targets, benchmarks or reporting requirements to ensure homes are accessible, adaptable or suitable for people with disabilities. As a result, Ireland continues to build homes that wheelchair users can visit but that very few of them can actually live in. Part M of the building regulations requires new homes to be visitable. In practice, this may allow a wheelchair user to enter via the front door and access a downstairs toilet but not to reach a bedroom, cook independently or live safely and with dignity. This is not a design oversight; it is exclusion by regulation.

The provision of wheelchair-liveable housing is not about luxury; it is about meeting basic needs and fulfilling Ireland’s obligations under the UNCRPD. When appropriate housing is unavailable, people are left with stark alternatives, namely long-stay hospitals, nursing homes or reliance on ageing parents with no sustainable future plan. This reality has been documented repeatedly, including by the Office of the Ombudsman, whose Wasted Lives report sets out the human cost of systemic failure to provide appropriate housing and supports.

The Irish Wheelchair Association is calling for a targeted, achievable reform, namely the amendment of Part M to include wheelchair-liveable universal design and UD home+ standards, with a defined percentage of new homes built to these standards, similar to approaches already in place in the UK. The national development plan, NDP, already proposes that 30% of NDP-funded homes meet universal design standards. However, there is no transparent breakdown of how many of these will be wheelchair liveable. Some local authorities perform well and others do not, and there is no consistent national accountability.

Recent reforms to standardise social housing design risk compounding the problem. While intended to speed up delivery, the current Design Manual for Quality Housing contains no standard layouts for UD home+. Without urgent correction, this will result in the large-scale delivery of new social housing that is inaccessible by design.

Accessibility also remains absent as a cross-cutting requirement under the plan. Climate and environmental assessments are mandatory, yet there is no equivalent disability or accessibility impact assessment. Disability is treated as a discrete funding line rather than a mainstream requirement across all infrastructure. This means poor value for money. Retrofitting is always more expensive than building in access from the start. More importantly, inaccessible housing excludes people from work, education, healthcare and community life.

The scale of investment under the NDP presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We are not asking for additional funding. We are asking that existing funding deliver on Ireland’s legal and moral obligations. We are also asking the Government to update Part M to include wheelchair-liveable standards, set and report on clear national targets for UD home+ and embed accessibility as a mandatory requirement across all infrastructure investment, notably mandatory, legally binding national accessibility standards for all transport and active-travel developments. Infrastructure must work for everyone. If the NDP is to be truly transformative, it must transform those whom infrastructure is designed for.

I thank the witnesses for those important contributions, which have not been heard at this committee before now. The committee has been established by the Oireachtas to deal with infrastructure. It is different from most other committees in that it does not deal with any legislation. It focuses singularly on infrastructure. It is a bit like the Committee of Public Accounts. The latter does not deal with legislation; it deals specifically with the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We have a very specific remit. It is very good to have the witnesses’ information provided to us in order that we can incorporate it into our report.

I am going to call the speakers in the order in which they arrived, namely Deputy Clendennen, Deputy Cronin, Senator Stephenson, Senator Flynn and Deputy Sheehan. Each will have six minutes for questions and answers.

The witnesses are all very welcome. I thank them for joining us. As the Chair said, this is a unique opportunity to hear the voices of those in the disability community. While disability infrastructure might not have been overlooked in the past, it might not have been given the consideration it should have been given.

I would like to touch on local authorities first. I apologise as I had to step out during the opening statements. Reference was made to the consistency, or lack thereof, in local authorities. Could we be given a sense of what the interaction is like? Do the witnesses ever meet representatives from the likes of the County and City Management Association? Do they have engagements at local level? Do they ever get the opportunity to present to local councils? In my county of Offaly, there is the Offaly Disability Equality Network, ODEN, which has a very constructive and proactive approach to determining how we can address some of the concerns and challenges. Having once been chairman of a community and culture committee in Offaly County Council, I am aware we invited members of ODEN to speak at the likes of strategic policy committee meetings to ensure we were addressing concerns in our policy. How can we ensure greater consistency at local authority level? Have the witnesses any thoughts on how this could possibly be measured?

Ms O'Callaghan mentioned Bridging the Gap, the research we conducted last year. It examined what local authorities are doing to support the implementation of the UNCRPD. One of the key findings was the lack of consistency across local authorities. There are pockets of really good practice. Ms O’Callaghan works in Wicklow, where there is a partnership with Wicklow County Council and DFI. The council has a disability inclusion steering committee, which is a central point of access for disability-related issues. Ms O’Callaghan will speak more about that.

We also found in the research that access officers are not full-time in post in many areas; rather, they are add-ons to existing posts. They do not get training either. Disability responsibility everywhere and nowhere. There is no pathway for how disability is addressed. We can send on the research to the committee members after the meeting.

Did the steering committee report to a strategic policy committee, SPC, or how did it function?

The committee is almost like an SPC in itself. It was brought in through a motion to council, and it is now in place as a standardised structure. Every time there is an election, we will have a councillor from each of the municipal districts added to our disability and inclusion steering community. We also report to the community SPC because we are under that department-----

Would there be duplication of the workload of the likes of ODEN? I am giving an example from my county. Should local authority representatives be appointed to the equivalent of ODEN if the steering committee is not in place?

I do not believe there is duplication. We see that so much happens at the LCDC level. Someone involved with children’s rights will raise a certain issue regarding disability, somebody from the older person’s network will raise another, and someone working with Travellers will raise yet another. There is no one whose actual job is talking about disability. When it comes to a funding allocation, resources and a section in our local economic and community plan document or county development plan, there is no dedicated function. It is kind of everybody’s job and nobody’s job. The access officer needs to have seniority. Members, knowing very well how local authorities work, will know there has to be somebody with authority at a level that allows him or her to be at the table where strategic development is discussed. In our research, we found that there is an input or voice from the disabled community in many places but not everywhere. There can be very different approaches. In some places things will be local authority led – under the 1996 Barcelona Declaration, of which there are still remnants – while in others it might be a matter of a local partnership facilitating things through a social inclusion and community activation programme. Somewhere else, it might involve a public participation network linkage group. Somewhere else, it may be coming in completely independently and run by a disability service. We are looking for consistency across the board because, when there are so many different versions doing different things, what is required does not get funded or resourced and there are inconsistent results as well as inconsistent approaches.

The Irish Wheelchair Association's report Getting Nowhere mentions that unsuitable designs are being imported from abroad. How is this occurring? Who is not recognising the fact there is non-compliance before it is implemented? Should it be picked up in the planning process? Is it an oversight in the design manual for urban roads and streets, DMURS? What is occurring that we have a situation whereby unsuitable designs are being imported from abroad?

There are a couple of different categories this can fall into. Some of the carriage designs and train designs brought in were not up to full spec but this has started to change over the past while. We find in relation to the infrastructure itself that we do not have any mandatory standards here in Ireland. If we look at DMURS or any of the policies that are there, disability accessibility is not seen. They are guidelines more than standards.

Part M regulations for buildings do not apply to the public realm. Is that correct?

Yes Part M is very much around housing.

There is no equivalent standard as such for public areas.

There are guidelines, which is what we say the problem is.

But they are not to the same level of detail.

There are no mandatory standards and that is where the problem is.

I will comment on local authorities. We work on local authority housing disability steering groups throughout the country. We have representation on 29 of the 30 groups. This is a really good example of how people can sit around from different agencies. Ideally we would have the HSE, approved housing bodies and the various disability organisations around the table. We meet quarterly and work with local authorities on where there is a need for housing for people with disabilities. This is the idea of it but it does not always work very well. Again, there are inconsistencies. As Dr. Begley said, some county councils work really well with us but it does not work as well with others. I absolutely agree on the need for an access officer in local authorities. It is vital. I work with a lot of local authorities on various access campaigns, such as beach access and housing. Where there is a full-time access officer it is so much more successful and we can see the difference in that county. It is something we fully support the Disability Federation of Ireland on.

Is there is a list of local authorities and the resources they have applied already? It might be useful to have this so that we could then look to fill in the voids.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. I would like to ask the two witnesses who have a visible disability how they found access to Leinster House today.

For me access was fine in relation to getting parking. I have been allowed to park inside the gates and getting down here was fine. We brought up an issue the last time we were here, with the disability matters committee about one month ago, that when people are sitting here they cannot reach any of the buttons. I know this has been brought forward by the Cathaoirleach and it will be looked into. Today is fine but there are a lot of things around Leinster House that are issues. We have been invited into the audiovisual room on a good few occasions but it is really inaccessible for wheelchair users. We cannot get behind the desk.

It is really inaccessible for everybody, to be honest.

Specifically, we cannot get behind the desk. If we are going to speak we have to sit at the very end and we do not have access to a microphone. A report was done last year and there are a lot of things in Leinster House that are issues. Getting in here today we had no particular issues.

That is interesting. I know the table in the audiovisual room has very little room if somebody is sitting down. It is hard if you are able-bodied to walk behind somebody.

It would be very easy to rectify it.

Yes, absolutely. That is interesting. I want to ask about the ad hoc nature of accessibility officers. In Kildare County Council we have Michael Hurley and Fiona Doyle, who are brilliant. A lot of the towns, such as Maynooth, Naas which was one of the first, and Celbridge, have great committees that have been formed locally with local activists who have the experience. When things are improved for people with disabilities they are improved for everybody. The first day of bringing a new baby into town is terrifying, and I remember going into town for the first time with my baby son, who is now 35 years old, trying to get into the bank which had one of those round doors. This is something that affects people with wheelchairs also. If things are improved for people with disabilities they are improved for everybody. Will the witnesses speak about the ad hoc nature of this? As Deputy Clendennen said, we can list the local authorities to see what counties are doing well. There is healthy competition between local authorities also and it would be no harm to look at this. Will the witnesses speak about the need for full-time accessibility officers?

Kildare is one of the leading lights, which we mention in Bridging the Gap. Michael Hurley and the team are doing brilliantly there. As Deputy Cronin said, there are regional teams with access groups in Maynooth, Naas and Kildare. They come together on a countywide team, which is the gold standard we are looking for. What the DFI has been saying for the last number of years is that it should not be a postcode lottery. It should not be great for people in Kildare while somewhere else down the country has absolutely nothing, with no group I could join or no way to have my voice heard at local authority level.

Do the local authorities meet often so they can share what they find to be working?

They do not. Some efforts have been made in the past by the LGMA to bring these people together but what they found, and the feedback from some of the access officers themselves, is that the same couple of faces were there every time. In counties where not much has been happening and it has not been resourced by discretionary funds, those people are not there and they are not at the table. We want a structured approach across all local authorities, in the same way as we have age-friendly or local area integration teams. They are there and there is a line in the local economic and community plan and the county development plan. We want it included and for everything to be disability proofed. If the message does not come from the top down in national policy that it needs to be there and that there need to be mechanisms at local level, it just does not happen.

Will the witnesses speak about any experience they have had where there has been meaningful engagement at the start of a project and where it has saved money in the final phase?

We are seeing it a lot more with festivals and events in particular. People are coming at the beginning stages to access groups such as ours. In Wicklow we have had changing places facilities and sensory buses at local events. This means the whole family can go along and there is no worry that, if people come with a sibling with a disability, they will not be able to be included or that somebody will have to stay at home. We can definitely see it there. Families are coming to us with feedback. One example in Wicklow that has been very successful is the Avondale Forest Park walk. There is a massive tower and people can get all the way to the top. We have done it with people with all different levels of mobility. There is a big changing places facility there. We were there from the very beginning, looking at it and the plans with Coillte. We have had amazing feedback from school tours, such as that a child went on a school tour this year who had never been able to go on a school tour before.

I know about changing places and there is a great activist in Kildare who has been brilliant on this.

It really does pay off. People might not have visited had it not happened, or come back with complaints that they could not get through a door or go on a path. It is happening at local level but it is so patchy and we want it to be consistent throughout the country.

I want to ask about bus stops. We received extra information here on making bus stops accessible.

It costs on average €48,000 to make a bus stop wheelchair accessible. That seems a bit Irish, to be honest. Why would it cost that much money to make a bus stop wheelchair accessible? Do the witnesses think that seems reasonable?

A lot of things go into that. It depends on where the bus stop is. Sometimes it is a big build-out, a piece of infrastructure has to be built so that the kerb is the right height, there is messaging going into the real-time information to the bus stop so you know when your bus is coming and it all adds up. With the general cost of building anything, that cost usually does not surprise me when they start from scratch in some places.

If they are starting from scratch. I would hate it to be used as an excuse for not providing it. Every bus stop should be wheelchair accessible and accessible to everybody.

That is what we are pushing for. There is funding from the NTA to local councils for accessible bus stops. There is an extremely slow roll-out. It is understandable in some cases in that some towns and villages are so small it is very hard to have an accessible bus stop in the village so they have to do them on either end. Sometimes it is difficult to find a space where it will work. It is the planning piece and talking to people with disabilities. We are finding that sometimes they are put in places that do not work for people at all. It could be too far outside and people have to try to find their way from home. It is the whole door-to-door journey people have to take. Sometime the bus stop is too far away from them and that makes it inaccessible in itself.

I thank the witnesses for their interventions. It is horrifying and deeply depressing to hear about the state accessibility and inclusion are in with regard to infrastructure. It was mentioned that there are no indicators or design requirements for accessibility in the national development plan. Were the witness organisations consulted as part of the national development plan development process?

No, we were not.

I note the point about the cost of not including accessibility in the first design, that the additional cost to adapt things after the fact is much higher than having those accessibility requirements in the original tender. In the Getting Nowhere report, the Irish Wheelchair Association spoke a lot about how the Government commits to things and we have the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but that we are not seeing any tangible follow-through. What would the Irish Wheelchair Association like to see more of in the procurement piece for accessibility as defined in procurement guidelines and bound through legislation so that we can see that output, at least for public bodies? On the planning piece, Part M was mentioned, but more generally in terms of unsuitable designs in housing or other forms of infrastructure, is that due to gaps in the planning requirements? Accessibility is not actually required in legislation.

Yes is the answer to the last question. Our report identified that of the 12 policies, access is not a mandatory requirement. We are left with guidelines and regulations that are open to interpretation. Transport infrastructure involves people picking and choosing what they believe are the pieces. The consultation piece is so poor that often it takes place once a design and plan has been put in place. There is no mechanism for audit or control afterwards for that type of infrastructure because it is not mandatory and not enforceable. That is where the real challenge lies. We have mechanisms, as we pointed out, like disability assessments in the planning stage. There are only five questions. In our audit, those five questions are not appropriate to assess whether something in planning stage is accessible. Often it does not even take place. That is just looking at transport infrastructure. Ms Lally will be able to talk about part M, housing and accessibility requirements. That is that side of it already.

Have the witness organisations even been consulted on any of the new planning regulations in the past few years? A big planning amendment came in last year. Before that, there was the big planning Bill in November 2024. Are they regularly or have they ever been engaged by the Department of infrastructure and housing on transport with meaningful consultations and engagement on design?

I would say not meaningful consultation. We sit on different committees. I sit on the NTA user group and it is consultative but it is nearly death by presentation. A lot of decisions have been made before you get an opportunity to have your say. With the planning Bill, it was more that one of the Opposition parties came to us to put something by us. From a planning point of view and the legislation going through, there was no consultation.

I would like to highlight the point around exclusion by regulation - that language is important - and what was said about the test of whether they were prepared to correct the legacy and failures of the past. In the NTA document it has updated its strategy. It talks about how it has reduced the waiting time for advance notice for assistance to one hour in 15 of Ireland's busiest stations. In most other stations, it is 12 hours' advance notice. Will the witnesses describe the impact that has on their organisations' members in terms of their daily lives concerning inclusion, accessibility and equity and what it means for people to have supported employment opportunities and engage in communities?

On a personal level, coming in here, I live beside the train station in Donabate, County Dublin. It is unmanned. I have to give four hours' notice. To be in here for 3.30 p.m., I would have to leave at probably 11.30 a.m., providing everything goes well. For many of our members regarding what is put in place, leaving aside unmanned stations or the giving of advance notice, is that when they arrive, frequently the lifts will not be working but there can also be a breakdown in communication. Even if they can get on the train, they may want to get off at one of the main stations and there is nobody there to take them off. At a practical and personal level, what is removed from people is personal choice and independence. I should not as a human being have to be dependent on someone if I want to take public transport into Dublin to come to a committee here today. It removes independence, dignity and respect. There are so many piecemeal elements to the plans. They are reactive because they are trying to address a situation of legacy infrastructure. Concerning consultation, we have often received comments that they consulted but all the people in the room could not come to a conclusion on what was right. That does not necessarily excuse them from working harder to come to a conclusion. It is not acceptable for people with disabilities to be the collateral damage for trying to accommodate everything. There has to be a way. That is a personal experience of how that affects me and by default our members.

The onus is on us as a committee to feed this back to the Department, particularly that interest groups have not been consulted correctly when it comes to the national development plan. That is really shocking and appalling, especially considering the sums of money we are looking towards investing in infrastructure delivery over the next few years.

On the question about universal design from the outset rather than retrofitting, an interesting figure is that between 2014 and 2024, €934 million was spent on housing adaptation grants. That is a staggering amount of money. For the majority of those, if universal design or UD home+ was input from the outset, that would have saved the Exchequer an enormous amount of money plus it would have made life an awful lot easier. We were in here last week at the housing committee. The Department was in before us.

It was quite stark to hear the officials state that if the building regulations were amended to include universal design, all homes should be built that standard. That is not a fact, and it is not true. The UK has three categories of universal design in its building regulations. One category is the same as our Part M and the other two relate to adaptable housing and wheelchair-liveable housing. A local authority in the UK can look at a planning application that comes in and, on the basis of what is housing waiting list looks like, can decide how many homes in each category it would like the developer involved to provide, and can allow commission for that. That is what we would be looking for in any amendment to our building regulations.

We do not want all houses to be wheelchair liveable. We know that is not practical. We do, at least, require 8% to 10% of all homes to be wheelchair liveable in order to provide people with a choice. The Department speaks of bespoke and once-off homes for people with disabilities. That is all fine and well, but what if a young person who has just qualified and who wants to move to Dublin or who gets a job in Wexford and wants to there? People with disabilities are entitled to a choice in the context of their rights. We do not need just once-off bespoke specialised housing. This is the language that is being used. There needs to be a stock of wheelchair liveable housing right across this country in every development. That is what we are calling for. I just wanted to make that clear in case anyone was misled last week.

I thank our witnesses for being here. When I said "Yes" to becoming a member of the committee, I was thinking that "infrastructure" is such a big word and that you have to understand buildings, money and all the other stuff I am not very good at. I looked at it through the lens of equality for children, disabled people, members of the Traveller community, blind people, deaf people, etc. This probably one of the most important committees that a TD or Senator can be on, particularly when we are looking at infrastructure for disabled people.

In the previous Dáil, one of my biggest challenges was around playgrounds for children and the fact that when local authorities are building or refurbishing playgrounds, they should be made to fit every child. In most communities, there are some disabled children and children with additional needs. Every child has the right to play and the design of playgrounds should recognise that.

To go back to the Planning and Development Act, I remember in July 2024, that was shoved through the Seanad in two or three days. The Civil Engagement Group, of which I am a proud member, spoke to organisations that represent disabled people. That Act was one of the biggest pieces of legislation that ever went through the Houses of Oireachtas. We put in 107 amendments. A lot of them related to people with disabilities and building regulations. As true as God, not one of our amendments was accepted. That how our group that the Government back then did not include people with disabilities in its national development plan. That was a failure of the then Government. We cannot just go back and fix that legislation. We have to put up with what we have. That kind of shapes the future for our children and for people with disabilities.

I have about 40 questions in front of me. The first is for the Irish Wheelchair Association. It argues that disabled people should lead on policy designs and not just be consulted at the end. It would be interesting to hear from the witnesses as to what that would look like going forward. As a member of the Traveller community, I know that local authorities will say they consulted with us. They also refer to the NTPs and liaison officers. I am not criticising them, but they have no knowledge of the Traveller community. It is no different when it comes to people with disabilities. How do the witnesses see that working? What can the committee do? If we could put three things forward on behalf of the Irish Wheelchair Association, what would its top three asks be? Will the representatives from the IWA think about that while I put questions to some of the other witnesses and give us the three recommendations to which I refer in order that we can leave here today with something that we can take a wee a bit of action on.

On the NTA, the briefing lists many positive steps, such as accessible buses, bus lifts, new stops and so on. Yet the IWA and DFA still describe daily failures on the ground. How does the witnesses measure if these investments are actually working for disabled people beyond just counting projects? I have heard it all before. We are not including disabled people. Will the witnesses outline how can we do it differently? Again, being a member of the Traveller community, before I ever came here, I had local authorities making the same comment, namely that it is everybody's job and nobody's job. It is everybody's job to meet the needs of disabled people, disabled children, etc., yet nobody is held accountable. What can the committee do to hold local authorities to account and to get the right people in these roles in order to bring about a better quality of life for children and adults who have disabilities? I apologise, because the witnesses have only got 36 seconds to answer.

To come in very quickly on the final point about it being everybody's job and nobody's job, having that central focus in local authorities that are accountable around disability is important. I refer, for example, to something like the disability and inclusion steering committee and having an access officer who drives things forward. One of the big issues relates to who they are reporting to versus what they are doing. In other words, what data are they collecting on disability inclusion and who are they reporting it to? At the moment, there are no mechanisms around that. It is very hard to capture what they are doing. Somebody said earlier that there is a competitive nature among local authorities. If we had that and were able to say that this is the state of play, it would create change and improvement.

There are two pieces to the national human rights strategy for disabled people. The first is implementing the roll-out of access officers. The second involves a review of the guidelines relating to transport infrastructure. The strategy gives a list of organisations, companies or Departments that would be involved in that. However, it does not say anything about disabled people's organisations in that space. We need to be there at the very beginning. We need to be working alongside them when they are doing that review. We have a huge amount of the review done already in our report, but we need to start at that early stage. We can work from there right through all the different guidelines to make them mandatory standards and to ensure that the measurements and guidelines that are going to be used to, hopefully, turn them into mandatory standards are worked on from the very beginning with disabled people. That would be real consultation happening at that level rather than them doing a full review and coming back to us and telling us what they have. It is very hard to change things at the point where it is all written down in a policy document. We need to be there at the review stage.

I have a follow-up question on that. Do local authorities' annual reports include a section on disability in the context of what has been done in the course of the previous 12 months?

Again, it is very ad hoc. It depends on the local authority you are looking at. Some will and some will not. In the context of county development plans, guidance came out from the Department regarding what areas to include. It did say that the list provided was not exhaustive.

As part of that they would have said there needed to be something on the age-friendly committee, and it needed to be said what is being done around climate action. However, there was no requirement for a section on disability and what was being done around that. We need to embed it at the reporting mechanism stage when people are asking what is being done in relation to this and somebody should be responsible for knowing and reporting on that. A lot of the time I hear of amazing stuff happening in councils that nobody knows about. I am there responsible for making recommendations on disability. I happened to chat to someone in the corridor and they told me they have a disabled intern who is making them realise that the office is not that accessible. I did not even realise that this was happening. This is great work. It is about recording the good stuff that is happening and trying to replicate it as much as we can.

I will finish with this question. In the local authorities is there one director of services whose title specifically includes disability services? Some have I think.

It would be individual to each local authority-----

Ad hoc.

-----but a lot of them would sit under the community, social end of things.

Okay, we will take note of that point.

I think I came across really negatively and I apologise for that. I know that in Dunloe they have a great park for all children, including those with disabilities. It can be done. There are great examples and great work has been done. The question is: how we follow through on that and make local authorities accountable?

I will come in on the reporting mechanism, from a housing point of view. The Department has instructed local authorities to set targets in their local housing delivery action plans on delivery of UD homes and some local authorities have that in their plans. They have 30% targets and they have to report on those every quarter, I think. The problem is that while that looks great, some local authorities just said they would "strive" to include UD in developments, others actually are very specific and say 20% or 30%. Out of that 20% or 30% UD homes they do not specify how many of those would be UD+ homes.

Will Ms Lally explain to the public what is meant by a UD home?

A UD home is a lifetime-adaptable home. It has wider doors and it can be adapted easily as a person grows older. A UD home+ has on average 10% extra floor space. There is more circulation space within the home for a wheelchair user. There are wider doors, a downstairs bathroom and a bedroom. It is wheelchair liveable, whereas a UD home basically is not really wheelchair liveable. It is more that it is adaptable.

Potentially, wheelchair liveable if it was-----

It would not have the space really. It may be for somebody with a child with a disability but an adult with a disability would require a UD home+. That is the second one in the centre of excellence guidelines. There is a huge difference between the two and this is where the problem lies. Lots of local authorities are delivering UD homes. There is no external circulation space but they may have wider doors. They may have adaptations for older people but they are not wheelchair liveable. The local authorities will report on the allocations and the number of people with disabilities who received houses in that quarter. They do not specify how many of those allocations are actually for people who got houses that are wheelchair liveable. This is where the confusion comes in. We are asking that each local authority must set out clear targets in their plans for the delivery of UD homes and UD homes+. This must be reported and the Department must have oversight on delivery of those targets on a quarterly basis. It should not just be numbers of people; these are houses that are delivered to a specification and that needs to be very clear within the plans.

I want to follow up on what Ms Lally said about UD homes. There is another issue that goes above and beyond this and I would love to get her insight on it. From the CAS funding that is available, someone may need a home with a higher specification than a UD home. I am thinking about people with quite profound needs, for example, adults who live in a residential setting and have quite severe physical disabilities, who may need piped oxygen, for instance. The CAS funding per unit available from the Department has never been upgraded in line with construction inflation, so there is a CAS figure per bedroom. A four-bedroom house may now cost about €400,000 but to build a four-bedroom, high-spec house for somebody with profound needs would cost €1.2 or €1.3 million. Organisations like Rehab Ireland, etc., have no way to backfill that gap. We have an example in my constituency. Rehab Ireland was operating a home for three children with quite profound disabilities. The children have now aged out and because there is no place for them to move to, the children's service is essentially gone now. This really needs to be addressed. Is there an example in other jurisdictions of best practice in relation to this?

O transport and transport infrastructure, the thing that really galls me is that the new DART+ trains are the first we have ever ordered with level boarding. I could be wrong in saying that but I think I am right. In 2019 we ordered a number of new intercity carriages which were completely inaccessible for disabled people, with ramps up to them. In the UK, for example, one of the train operators has ordered a new fleet of high-speed trains and they are saying that because the infrastructure is Victorian they cannot do the level boarding. They have spent billions of pounds on these new state-of-the-art trains but because they do not have level boarding they have baked in lack of access for disabled people for 35 years, which is the average lifespan of a train. I just do not understand that and I would love to hear what engagement the witnesses have had with the NTA in terms of making sure that all trains we order from now on are accessible for disabled people. The new enterprise fleet is coming. That should have level boarding because it is going to be in service for 30 to 35 years and if it does not, an issue is being created for what could be the next 40 years.

On the disability housing strategy, are the witnesses concerned that this will just be extended as opposed to a new, more up to date one being implemented because they extended the previous one? How do we bake in meaningful consultation? Is there an example of best practice internationally when it comes to things like the NDP? Senator Stephenson has left but she made very good and salient points. We have a situation at the moment where the consultation comes too late, things are effectively done and designed and then people get a response back that does not address any of the issues that have been raised.

I will come in on that last point. The National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030 published by the Department of Children, Disability and Equality had extensive consultation. We were extremely busy for 12 months. I think all the disability organisations were very busy but there was very good, early stage engagement with key stakeholders, including disabled people and disabled persons organisations.

So that has the framework that needs to be baked into the planning process.

Everything can be improved but it was a positive framework. I even think that the consultation on the housing strategy for disabled people was quite positive. It was a positive change but things can always be improved. Principles of co-design and co-creation are really important and that means that people are not just consulted but are part of a process of development

I would like to come in on that as well. We are talking a lot about consulting with disabled people, almost like as a separate group, but there is also a really important thing that needs to happen in terms of cultural change. My experience is with local authorities. We have talked about access officers being there as a point of information for people and to be at that table and asking about access and disability all the time. Likewise, that needs to happen with public consultations. When a public consultation is being held in the local library or wherever, access to the venue for disabled people must be ensured. Can they read what is stuck up on the walls? Can they download the PDFs from the website? Can disabled people actually engage with the public consultation? It does not have to be a separate consultation for people with disabilities but the mechanisms that are there at local level now need to be considered.

It is really important and a cultural change that needs to happen. Whoever is responsible for doing those public consultations, at whatever level, needs to think about where we are with this and whether it is being put up in an accessible format and if everybody can get it.

Going back to what I said about the NTA, I would be very interested to hear what level of engagement there has been with it, for example, when the transport fleet is coming up for renewal, whether that be buses or train carriages, in terms of suitability. I refer to the whole idea that somebody has to ring 24 hours in advance and get a fella down with a ramp, if somebody is lucky and he is there. That is not conducive to using public transport.

As I said earlier, we sit on the NTA user group, so we would have input at that level. Part of the problem does concern retrofitting. As the Deputy said earlier, the infrastructure in England is Victorian and we are the very same here in Ireland.

Yes.

Even when we do get a fleet in, the infrastructure does not match it. We are always pushing. It goes back again to early consultation and really listening. A lot of the time, the consultation with the NTA is a tick-box exercise. Whether it is buses or trains, a fleet is then brought in, and then it has to be made to work after that.

Something is bolted on for you.

A lot of money is being spent on looking at the gap dividers. That is supposed to take away from the individual having to come out with the ramp. They are being trialled across a couple of different stations, and that will help.

Even when we are looking at buses, like in England and up in the North, it is possible to buy buses that would have two wheelchair spots in them. Like every other organisation, we have brought this to the NTA’s attention but it is outright refusing to get them. We are back to the whole thing of only one person, as a wheelchair user, being able to travel on a particular bus. This means that if another wheelchair user is there at the bus stop before you, then you cannot get on. If you want to socialise with your friend who happens to be a wheelchair user, then you will have to take two different buses. There are lots of things that have become tick-box exercises with the NTA. There has not been full-on, good consultation and a lot of decisions have been made.

I think Ms Carthy summed it up really well when she said that if she wants to go to meet her friend who is also a wheelchair user, she has to get one bus and her friend has to get-----

The next bus.

That is mad.

Yes.

I thank Ms Carthy.

Very quickly, I will say that we work very well at a lower level with Irish Rail and Bus Éireann on the user groups. The DART example given was a very good one. We do not want to be all negative.

Yes.

It is a really good example of where consultation has worked. I have been in the mock-up design in the Irish Rail yard down in Inchicore and it is very successful.

Yes, so was I.

For me, that is very welcome. What we are not seeing, as Ms Carthy referred to, is the policy. The NTA is the overarching body that drives this. We will work very well with the people on the ground, and we try hard and they try hard, but if the policy does not align with them, we are fighting an uphill battle.

The Deputy asked a question about the CAS funding. I am not overly familiar with it but I do know it is absolutely not fit for purpose. The Deputy is right that it needs to be completely overhauled. We are a small approved housing body and the bigger issues that even we are finding with our houses that have a lot of assistive technology within them are the maintenance costs and the ongoing costs of keeping that technology serviced and upgraded. It is all that stuff and everything like that. There is such an additional cost to supporting people in these types of homes, so there needs to be a sinking fund or some kind of fund set up. It needs to be completely overhauled. It is just not working at the minute.

I will make one brief concluding point. I think part of the issue regarding what was said about CAS is that these homes are, in many cases, almost like a cross between a home and a hospital. They have all this medical equipment, in some cases, with specialised equipment. If it were a hospital or care facility, there would be a maintenance budget. It is maintained in those situations, whereas when it is within the context of an approved housing body, it is left with a piece of equipment that is initially state-of-the-art. As I understand it, a decade or a decade and a half later, the equipment is clapped out and the approved housing body does not have the money to repair or replace it. It is constantly operating hand to mouth. I will be taking up this CAS issue with the Minister because I think it needs to be addressed. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

I thank everybody for coming in today and putting across their cases in their opening statements. I compliment them for the work they do for the groups they represent and for people with disabilities. It is very important we have such groups.

I speak here having come from a background on Offaly County Council. I would always have worked very hard with the local council, especially when housing schemes were coming from approved housing bodies and other things it was doing itself, to make sure we had a certain percentage allocated for people with disabilities. I am very aware of this need. I understand this and keep fighting for it.

I think it would be very easy for the Government to put something in legislation or even make sure that the county councils had as part of their remit a certain percentage in this regard. I think somebody mentioned 10%. That is not a big deal. It is something that should be done, and it is very important it is done. Going forward, I will be pushing to make sure it happens.

On consultation, I have a little story. I met the Muíriosa Foundation in Tullamore, along with some of my previous county council colleagues and some of the county council engineers. We went in, sat down with those people and talked to them. They told us about the issues they had moving around in Tullamore, Clara and other areas in County Offaly. Some of them were very practical issues and easy to solve. Making places accessible does not take a huge amount of work or effort in a lot of cases. It just needs to be communicated and for people to sit down with the organisations and groups and, most importantly, the people who have disabilities, so they can put across their points.

We have decided to take it year by year. The local government term is five years. We have got maybe 16 to 20 different issues in those areas in the different towns, and we are going to do four or five per year, which means it is not costing the county council a fortune either. The work is getting done, however.

I want to make sure there is inclusion everywhere. In the organisations the witnesses are advocating for-----

A vótáil has been called in the Chamber just now.

I would say I still have a couple of minutes.

Two minutes.

Okay. As organisations advocating for inclusion, how many people with disabilities or serious long-term illnesses do they employ and what percentage of their workforces do they represent? What provisions are they making for them? Are they reflected at senior decision-maker level? I see we have two wheelchair users here, so that kind of answers that question for me regarding the Irish Wheelchair Association. I would like a more formal answer as well.

Thinking about what was said earlier with regard to the new universal design, UD, and UD+ houses, if the Government does not act on the organisations' recommendations, what will the real life consequences be for the people with disabilities and those living with serious illnesses over the next decade? When I am talking about this, our population is living longer and we are going to have more older people who will require these supports. The organisations are talking about UD+ units, which have 10% more floor space and footprint required for a site. Where do they see us going in future?

Submissions not being accessible to some people with disabilities was also spoken about. How could they be made more accessible?

I will take the question on employment. While the Irish Wheelchair Association has a staff count of about 2,500, about-----

I am sorry but we have to go for a vote now-----

Okay.

-----so we are going to have to suspend for the duration of the vote.

We will come back.

We will resume. Deputy McCormack has 90 seconds left. Another vote is due in the Dáil within the next 20 minutes. When it is called, we will have to complete the meeting at that stage because there will be another long adjournment. If it happens quickly, we will just have to wrap up the meeting. If we get the extra few minutes for everybody, that is fine too. What happens in the Chamber is out of our control. I call Deputy McCormack.

I have finished my questions. I will hand over to the witnesses to come back with the answers.

The question was on the employment piece. I was saying that the Irish Wheelchair Association has about 2,500 staff members. Over 2,000 of those would be personal assistants, so the disability side does not come into it. I do not have an exact figure. We employ quite a number of people with disabilities in our head office, who would work right across IT, finance, the senior management team and the board. I do not have an exact figure.

That is okay. Thank you.

From our point of view, given the figure of 300,000 homes for the next five years, if a percentage of those are not wheelchair-liveable, we will be going back in time rather than going forward. It would mean people with disabilities going back into congregated settings and back into nursing homes. Many of our members are living with elderly parents, who are very concerned about what is going to happen when they pass away. It is then an emergency situation, where there is no option but for somebody to move into a nursing home. Unfortunately, at present, there are 4,000 young people living in nursing homes, which is costing the Exchequer many thousands every week. We need to ensure there is a supply of wheelchair-liveable housing out there. It is not just housing. We need wraparound services from the HSE to support people to move into those houses. That is crucial as well.

We will have to wrap up because another vote has been called in the Chamber more quickly than we expected. Deputy Neville has one minute to put his questions and the witnesses can send the answers to us in writing. We will have to finish. My apologies.

I was a councillor for longer than I have been a TD. In Leixlip and County Kildare, I feel we do quite well on this. As a councillor, it was something I was quite conscious of. Councillor Íde Cussen did a huge amount of work in the Leixlip and Celbridge area. It shows what individuals can do. Michael Hurley, the disability officer in Kildare, is a brilliant operator. That is my background. Senator Eileen Flynn spoke earlier about playgrounds. Leixlip has a new playground that is open to all. We have done a lot of work on this.

My overriding fear is that because this is done through people's advocacy, there is no specific plan across the country. How do we do that? What changes do the witnesses feel are needed? I know it is quite a general question. How can we ensure that the good things we are doing in Kildare are copied elsewhere? Will they show us the examples?

What we have been asking for is a structured approach. We look at the age-friendly programme as a very good example of something that has a national, regional and local remit. That is included in all of the plans - it is in the LCDC committees, in the LECPs and in the local county development plans. It is there. The Deputy is right that if you do not have a Michael Hurley, you are in trouble. It comes down to personalities and individuals a lot of the time, and it comes down to the councillor level, where councillors will sometimes put in for discretionary funding to do something around disability. However, there is no fund or programme there, and it is not routinely included in the different strategic planning documents for local authorities unless it comes from the Department.

My colleague, Councillor Íde Cussen, would have been more familiar with this and she highlighted it to me, so I learned and carried on from there. Everybody learns from an individual. However, if that person carrying the flame is not there in the first place, the rest of us probably do not learn in the same way. I would say to the Chairman, Deputy Fleming, that if Kildare is an example and is highlighted as doing something properly, maybe it could be asked to put a paper together to be sent out to the Department of local government, and then issued to all local authorities. Maybe we can utilise the learnings we have. Do the witnesses think that is a good idea?

The Bridging the Gap report that we published last year includes a number of local authorities. Kildare, Wicklow, Sligo and a few others, which have a partnership with us, are good examples.

They are regional champions.

Exactly. It is about making sure it is not a postcode lottery, whereby people are really lucky if they are living in one county but if they are living in a neighbouring county that does not have the structure in place, the services and facilities are not as good. It is about making sure that it is coming from a top-down level, that the funding is there and is included in all national plans, and that there is an obligation at the local authority level to include it in everything they do.

It has been over five minutes since the vote was called. At this stage, I thank the witnesses for their contributions. On any issues that came up that they did not get to fully answer, they can send the information to us in the next fortnight. I thank them for their assistance today. It is very important from the committee's point of view that all the issues are taken fully into account regarding the major infrastructural developments that are going to be carried out.