Apologies have been received from Senator Nikki Bradley. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss transport for persons with disabilities. Today's meeting is a joint meeting involving the Joint Committee on Disability Matters and the Joint Committee on Transport. I am delighted to be joined by the Cathaoirleach of the Joint Committee on Transport, Deputy Michael Murphy.

On the format of the meeting, as ours is the organising committee I will chair the meeting and the Cathaoirleach of the Joint Committee on Transport, Deputy Murphy, will make some opening and concluding remarks. I will invite the witnesses, in turn, to make opening statements, limited to a maximum of five minutes. I will indicate by tapping a glass that the time is coming to a close. Once the opening statements have been delivered I will call the members in the order they indicate to me to put their questions. There is no rota in place today.

Questions and answers will alternate between the respective committees, in other words, a member of the disability matters committee will be followed by a member of the transport committee, and so on. It is important to note each member will have four minutes to engage with our witnesses. This includes questions and answers. Therefore, it is essential that members put their questions succinctly. In the event that the number of members exceeds the seating capacity I kindly ask that members vacate their seats after their questions and answers to facilitate other members engaging with our witnesses. If they wish to stay, of course they may do so, at the back. I also ask members to speak slowly, to be very clear in what they are saying, to ask one question at a time and to wait for the answer. I also propose to schedule a short comfort break at the midway point, which is 10.50 a.m., and that we resume shortly afterwards.

I welcome the witnesses to the committee. From Voice of Vision Impairment I welcome Dr. Robert Sinnott and Ms. Mena Fitzpatrick. Dr. Sinnott is joining us virtually this morning. Mr. Jack Kavanagh from Move the Needle is on the way. I welcome Mr. Ciarán Delaney and Mr. Gary Kearney from the Irish Non-Neurotypical Disabled Persons' Organisation. I welcome Mr. Padraig Hannafin, a public affairs research administrator with Rehab who is also joining us virtually. I also welcome Ms Joan Carthy and Mr. John Fulham from the Irish Wheelchair Association.

Before we begin, as I always do I will read a note on privilege and housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect 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 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 important that they comply with any such direction that I may make. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. They are well aware of this.

I acknowledge that both committees welcome the opportunity to engage with our witnesses on such an important issue. It is one that is raised with us all the time. We are particularly aware of some of the issues across the transport systems. We are eager to hear the witnesses' perspectives and, crucially, solutions that can be delivered and implemented. We look forward to engaging with them all. Once again, I thank them for accepting our invitation and coming here to share their experiences and ideas with us.

I call Deputy Michael Murphy, the Comhchathaoirleach, who wants to make some opening remarks.

I welcome this joint meeting involving both committees. I acknowledge the expertise that is in the room and online. It is so important that we hear from people who have a disability or their representative organisations. Too often, decisions are made about people rather than with them. Today is an opportunity for us as Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, and as policymakers and legislators, to listen carefully, to be honest about what is not working and to focus on changes that can make the biggest difference at the soonest time possible. Our aim this morning is clear: to identify the barriers, agree the priorities and map the actions and accountability needed so that accessible transport becomes the default and not the exception. I look forward to listening to our witnesses today about their lived experiences. I assure them that members of the transport committee, which I chair, remain absolutely committed to continuing these important discussions and advancing accessibility for persons with disabilities in all future engagements with stakeholders.

I thank the Deputy. As he said, he is Chairperson of the transport committee. I particularly welcome members of that committee who are here.

I remind everybody to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or are on silent mode. The first contributor is Dr. Sinnott, who is online.

I thank the Comhchathaoirleach. As I am autistic, ADHD and neurodivergent, I find it much easier to concentrate when I turn the camera off. After three minutes, will the Comhchathaoirleach say, "Three minutes"? We probably will not hear it online.

It is a privilege and delight for me and my colleague, Ms Fitzpatrick, to be here on behalf of VVI. When Ireland ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, there was a bit of a celebration but also a sense, unfortunately, from a lot of people of business as usual. It was like some sort of window dressing. Core to the UNCRPD is collective representation through disabled persons' representative organisations. Article 4(3) states "representative organizations". Others prefer disabled persons' organisations, DPOs, but there are also data protection officers and designated public officials, so we and our colleagues in Physical Impairment Ireland prefer the term disabled persons’ representative organisation, DPRO.

There is a big difference between DPROs and disability service providers. You would not expect your bank or local supermarket to be your customer representative. There is also a clear conflict of interest, as mentioned in paragraph 13 of general comment No. 7, which clarifies Article 4(3). What the UNCRPD is absolutely clear about is that DPROs need to be prioritised. While everybody should be included in wide consultations, close consultation should be specific to DPROs. This also mitigates against an individualised approach. If you get 800,000 contributors, it is about he who shouts the loudest gets the most. It should never be like that in terms of human rights. There needs to be continuity. We know the national development plan needs to meet the sustainable development goals. That includes disability proofing through DPROs. For the 2030 sustainable development goals, that has not happened, although general comment No. 7 mentions this has to happen.

VVI and Physical Impairment Ireland are the only DPROs specific to our constituencies, which are blind and partially sighted people for us and physically impaired people for PII. Currently, the Department of disability, etc., states it is only closely consulting with the DPO Network because it is an established coalition, unlike ourselves at VVI. We disagree with that. There are no two-tier DPO systems in the UNCRPD. We do not currently have confidence that the Department is properly living up to Article 4.3 of the UNCRPD. If the lead Department is not doing it, then it cannot be surprising that the Department of Transport, the NTA, TII, the Road Safety Authority and local authorities are not doing it either. For instance, the transport user advisory group in the NTA consider the disability service providers-----

I am sorry to interrupt, but I remind Dr. Sinnott that Ms Fitzpatrick has to come for two minutes as well. He has reached his three minutes.

I will let Ms Fitzpatrick come in.

Dr. Sinnott will have time to come in again in a while.

As Dr. Sinnott said, we are a collective organisation. I will give the committee a snapshot of the issues we get from the people who are our members. The issues can include Mary from County Kerry looking up and trying to find how to plan her journey, with the Internet not being accessible. When she tries to ring to find out about it, it takes so long that she gives up, so she cannot plan her journey or book assistance. It makes it much harder.

Another thing has happened recently at train stations where accessible bridges have been built. One of our representatives went to the opening of one, where it was decided because of health and safety to take handrails off these bridges, which is a massively big deal, not only for ourselves. It is dangerous not having a rail to hold onto if you are going across a bridge on a height. That is an issue.

When you are totally blind and using public transport, it is so important that the audio announcements are working. Problems can include them not working at all and, on suburban trains, the wrong station being announced.

Other issues can include overcrowding. To build in a bit of personal experience, I am from Gorey, County Wexford, and travel on what is probably the most overcrowded train on the network because we do not have a full or great service; that is a whole other committee. I am blind and cannot see. It is okay when I am getting on the train, but it is trying to get off the train. It is these kinds of things that are so overwhelming.

We have so many different issues. It would take a whole committee meeting. We need public transport. For people in rural Ireland, transport is getting better but there is a lot to do.

Ms Fitzpatrick is over her time. She can come back in again.

That is a flavour of who we are and what we do.

I thank Dr. Sinnott and Ms Fitzpatrick. I call Mr. Kavanagh from Move the Needle. He has five minutes.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak.

I will begin with a simple observation. Our lives are shaped by journeys and the moments they create. Journeys to family are moments of connection; journeys to education are moments of learning and friendship; journeys to work are moments of contribution and development; and there are journeys that allow us to experience moments of participation, adventure and belonging in society. Transport enables those journeys for people with disabilities and for every citizen. When transport works, people participate, but when it does not, people are excluded from the ordinary things of life.

As a health professional, I view policy through a life-course lens. As we age, every one of us experiences changes in functional ability. Disability is not a niche issue. It is a predictable part of the human experience. That is why the transport systems we build to be inclusive of disabled people are ultimately the transport systems we are building for our future selves.

I also speak from the perspective of governance, through my involvement with the National Disability Authority, NDA, and the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. From both lenses, the conclusion is the same: universal design works to enable everyone. Designing systems that work for the widest range of people as standard is the most effective route to inclusion and sustainable development of infrastructure.

Ireland has ratified the UNCRPD. In doing so, it accepted very clear obligations. These include: Article 9, on the right to accessible transport on an equal basis with others; Article 20, on the right to personal mobility, including access to mobility aids at an affordable cost; Article 24, on the right to inclusive education; and Article 27, on the right to work in an open, inclusive and accessible labour market. These rights rise and fall together.

If transport is not accessible and reliable, the rights to education, to work and to active citizenship are elusive. Transport is the great enabler of commerce and participation yet disabled people in Ireland are routinely excluded from equitable transport opportunities. Public transport is essential but it does not work equitably for everyone. Access failures, unreliable assistance, limited coverage and inconsistent delivery mean disabled people cannot rely on public transport to get to their work, education or social life with dignity and certainty. Where public transport fails, personal transport becomes essential yet State supports for vehicle adaptation and acquisition remain limited, fragmented and capped far below real-world costs. Independence too often depends on fundraising, family support or personal sacrifice, and is not based on rights. This matters profoundly because Ireland has one of the largest disability employment gaps in Europe. Whatever else we do in employment policy, if people cannot reliably travel by public transport or personal vehicle, meaningful education and employment opportunities will remain out of reach.

I want to ground this briefly in lived experience. At the age of 20, I sustained a spinal cord injury resulting in quadriplegia. My world and how I navigated it changed overnight but I have been fortunate. I returned to education just down the road, where I lived on campus. I relearned to drive using an adapted van but that van required significant fundraising. That vehicle fundamentally changed my life. It enabled work, business ownership, community participation and a full, engaged life. That life would not be possible if I were reliant solely on public transport. Prior to driving, I experienced repeated transport failures.

Here is a flavour. A first date involved being lifted on and off the DART by strangers because assistance did not arrive. A day out in Dublin began and ended with my sisters carrying me on and off the Bus Éireann bus because the accessible seating had not been set up as requested. Like many wheelchair users and people with reduced mobility, I have also experienced the regular indignities of flying, including the loss of autonomy, damage to essential equipment and reduced dignity at many points of the journey. These are not rare stories; they are routine. The reality is this: people are disabled by the environments we design and, more importantly, the environments we tolerate.

That reality is what led me to found The AeroFix Project, which over the past two years has worked across Europe and North America with innovators, regulators and industry leaders. Our ambition is simple: to enable an end-to-end aviation journey for wheelchair users without leaving their assistive device. In 2025 alone, I flew nearly 30 times, each journey highlighting pain points and the scale of the opportunity. The passenger segment with reduced mobility is growing globally. Access in aviation, as in every other form of transport, can be treated not just as a compliance issue but as an opportunity for innovation and leadership. Through AeroFix, we have seen encouraging progress: airlines redesigning booking systems to enable accessibility-by-design; manufacturers engaging on cabin accessibility and wheelchair securement onboard; and regulators moving toward standards that align safety, dignity, and independence. This shows what is possible when accessibility is treated as a design challenge rather than a special request.

I have three clear asks of the committee: make universal design non-negotiable in transport planning, procurement, and operations, with it being built-in, reliable and enforced; reform personal mobility supports, so vehicle adaptation and acquisition reflect real costs and treat independence as a right, not a privilege; and show Irish leadership in accessible aviation, developing legislative readiness for in-cabin wheelchair travel and supporting cross-industry collaboration to monitor and enforce existing regulations during the Irish Presidency of the European Union. Transport does not just move people; it gives or removes access to the moments that make meaningful lives. I thank the committee very much.

We are going to get straight to the business at hand. We have a scenario where we have two members of the INN DPO who are not just non-neurotypical but also have physical disabilities. We have Mr. Padraig Moran who cannot board Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead buses that service his area or a Bus Éireann bus because he cannot enter a bus through the middle doors. The buses are too narrow at the front door. We also have a scenario - and I am sure the members were shocked when they read the statements - where Ms Saoirse Smith is basically having males putting their crotches into her face while she is travelling on Dublin Bus services. That is absolutely abhorrent and it is a regular occurrence. She is also terrified she is going to get a belt of a metal bottle into her face because of the way they are going along.

When representatives from the NTA are brought in here, the committee needs some of us here at the same time. We need to ask them why it is acceptable for buses to operate without audiovisual announcements or wheelchair ramps. They are allowed to operate in this way. We have also got a situation where Irish Rail and Bus Éireann are now charging people reservation fees, which is contrary to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 782/2021, and, on bus legislation, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 181/2011.

We also have a scenario where the NTA introduced new cycle carriages and there was no engagement with the Irish Rail disabled user group. There is plenty of room in there if it had the basic cop on to put in an accessible toilet. I am sure that the Irish Wheelchair Association, and Mr. Moran, will agree with this point. The one bugbear wheelchair users have is they cannot travel together. It would have been possible to put four or five wheelchairs in those carriages. There are also issues with the sliding doors on the Mark 4 trains. They are rattling all the time. It causes severe sensory issues. If things are not put together on buses, that will also cause sensory issues for us as well. There are problems with a lack of consideration by other people using phones and that kind of thing. We also have the NTA disabled transport user advisory group. There is no one there basically in the forum. There are the Irish Rail, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus disabled user groups. A new bus is also in the midst of being developed where bikes will be allowed to travel inside. There has been no engagement with us. It has sort of been kept nice and quiet.

Turning to taxis, we will go along and deal later with inaccessible taxis. There also need to be greater things as regards wheelchair use so they are more accessible and there are also aspects concerning airports.

I am conscious of respecting the time of the committees. The members have read the speeches, so they can come back and ask me the questions. I am just going to pass over to Mr. Kearney.

There will be time to come back in anyway.

As usual, Mr. Delaney is correct. I will focus on my specific areas, which are the urban realm and public transport. These are the aspects I specialise in. I have had success. Dublin Bus, and this was not my success, is the first fully accessible bus service in the world and Bus Éireann was the second. Irish Rail just developed a new DART+ train set. I do not know if any of the members have seen it. It is in Inchicore. They are more than welcome to go and see it. I am sure it can be arranged. The new train equipment is fully accessible and that was because of us. We were brought in from the start. We were there from the design concept and that is the difference this made.

We have got the urban realm and the NTA. The bugbear is with the management of the county councils and the NTA. Designs are being created for infrastructure and the urban realm that are unsafe for the disability community. The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design is a world award-winning organisation, and it is simply being ignored by councils and the NTA. For me, it is the NTA that is the problem. We can deal with Irish Rail, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann with no problem. We have TUG groups. The NTA does not have one. It has a transport user group, which Ms Carthy is on, but it seems more like a presentation group, one where the members are shown presentations. Even then, they were outnumbered by the cycling lobby.

We are 22% of the population. We are probably one of the largest users of public transport in the country and the NTA, which is supposed to be arranging it, is not listening to us at all. It is the same with the councils. They want awards and all of that but it is very dangerous for us. Big open shared space is dangerous for people with disabilities. A bicycle, an e-bike or an e-scooter going past you at 40 km/h is not a pleasant experience. I am sure it has happened to members. It happens to everybody now but if you are in a wheelchair, blind or deaf - I cannot hear on my left side and only partially on my right - you need safe, accessible space. Councils are not giving it to us nor is the NTA. The NDA is brilliant as is the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. It can recommend but it is ignored. That is what we need - to be heard - because members are making the decisions but they have to hear it from us as we are the people with the lived experience. I have contacts all over the world.

The NTA has brought in the new buses and bus islands, which I am sure Ms Carthy will talk about and which are a disgrace. It is not even what it is supposed to be. It copied Transport for London. It almost copied the name. It copied everything from it but it did not even follow the regulations used by Transport for London. This is happening all the time. We have to be heard.

I invite Mr. Hannafin to make his opening statement.

I thank members for the invitation to speak today. My name is Padraig Hannafin. I have worked as public affairs researcher with the Rehab Group for 15 years and I have been a wheelchair user since 1999. I want to begin by sharing a few lived experiences that explain why transport accessibility is not an abstract policy matter but a daily fundamental barrier for disabled people. On 23 September, I travelled from Cork to Dublin with a personal assistant to help launch the Rehab Group’s pre-budget submission in Leinster House. On arrival at Heuston Station, the wheelchair-accessible taxi I had pre-booked informed me that his ramp was broken and cancelled my journey. A second driver arrived shortly afterwards, rolled down his window and said that his ramp was not working either. When the third taxi eventually came, my personal assistant and I had to show the driver how to reconfigure his own vehicle so that my not unusually large wheelchair could fit in. I was scheduled to speak first that day but I barely managed to speak second last.

I wish this was a rare exception but it is not. I have waited in the rain because a bus already had one wheelchair user onboard. I have entered taxis whose ramps were so short and steep, they were unsafe. On my last train journey, the ramp was so steep that my wheelchair’s safety feature engaged to stop it tipping backwards. My nursing team can always tell when I have been abroad because I return with bruised knees from the inadequate, undignified transfer onto an airplane seat. If you want to see dignity stripped away from a person, watch a disabled passenger getting to his or her seat on an airplane.

During Covid, many people struggled with a 5 km travel restriction. For many disabled people, this is normal life. I am fortunate to own an accessible van. Without it, I would be permanently locked down. I would be unable to afford taxis and unable to reach the nearest bus stop 500 m away because the route involves rural roads without footpaths and with fast-moving traffic.

These are only some of my experiences but sadly they are not unique to me. Through my role in the Rehab Group, I hear similar stories every day. In a recent survey of 600 service users across 90 focus groups within Rehab, 53% said they were dissatisfied with transport services. This is especially stark because when asked which service they could not live without, the majority answered transport. The people who use Rehab services are striving to enhance their lives through education, employment and community participation. Transport links these opportunities together. A person cannot access education if he or she cannot reach his or her college. A person cannot get a job if he or she cannot reach an interview and he or she certainly cannot keep a job if his or her transport options repeatedly fail. I want to bring in the voices of some Rehab service users. One said, "I have no rural transport. I depend on my sister to buy the groceries for me and my mam every Friday, as taxis are too expensive." Another said, "My mam has to drop me to the bus stop because it’s too dangerous to walk, we need safer footpaths." Another said, "Ringing the train ahead to book the ramp is not easy, you really have to plan in advance you can’t just decide to go." Another said, "There is only one wheelchair-accessible taxi in Castlebar, and it only operates Tuesday to Saturday. There are no options the other two days of the week."

Disabled people are disabled by the inaccessibility of the world around us. To create equal access, we need: more accessible buses, especially in rural areas, that can accommodate more than one wheelchair user; to upgrade and maintain infrastructure ramps, lifts, stations and ensure mandatory disability awareness training for drivers; travel vouchers or taxi subsidies for people on disability payments or low incomes to ensure transport is affordable when public transport is not an option; representation of disabled service users on local transport committees; and regular user surveys and continuous updates to services based on lived experience. Transport is not a luxury. It is the foundation for independence, dignity, and equal participation in society. I again thank members for the opportunity to speak today.

I was the chairperson at that launch Mr. Hannafin attended back in September. It was quite embarrassing for us all that Mr. Hannafin had such a terrible journey, so I am really happy that he is able to put the details of his trip on the official record. I am sure he was not the only one who had problems. I invite Ms Carthy to make her opening statement.

I thank the Chairpersons and members of the committees for the opportunity to address them today. Accessible transport is not a discretionary extra for people with disabilities. It is a core public service and a prerequisite for independent living, equal participation and full citizenship. Ireland has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, yet as the Irish Wheelchair Association's 2024 report entitled "Getting Nowhere" shows, that right is still not being delivered in practice. Across bus, rail, air and active travel infrastructure, accessibility is inconsistent, unreliable and often unsafe. While there are examples of good practice, accessibility is still treated as optional rather than fundamental. This results in discrimination by design and reflects policy failure and not a lack of solutions.

Ireland has no mandatory national accessibility standards for transport infrastructure. While the national human rights strategy for disabled people commits to reviewing and strengthening standards, this has not yet resulted in legally binding requirements. In the absence, the Department of Transport, the National Transport Authority, NTA, and local authorities rely on guidance rather than obligation leading to fragmented delivery, poor value of public investment and ongoing exclusion. People with disabilities continue to encounter broken lifts, unreliable ramps, inaccessible bus stops and advance booking requirements for rail travel, particularly outside urban centres. Many active travel schemes, including shared spaces and floating bus islands, have reduced safety and accessibility for wheelchair users, older people and people with visual impairments. In air travel, passengers with reduced mobility still experience inconsistent assistance and limited enforcement of their rights.

The consequences are immediate and personal.

Members tell us they avoid public transport because it is unsafe or unpredictable. They miss medical appointments and education and are excluded from work and community life. This is not just a rights issue. It is a failure of governance, oversight and accountability in how public money is planned and spent. The National Transport Authority plays a central role in funding and approving transport projects. Yet, accessibility is still not treated as a non-negotiable baseline. Disability proofing is inconsistent, post-delivery evaluation is weak and meaningful codesign with people with disabilities remains the exception. People with disabilities are still waiting for buses to arrive, lifts that will work and streets they can navigate safely. Ireland cannot credibly claim inclusion while people with disabilities are left at the roadside.

I will now hand over to Mr. Fulham to talk about the lived experience.

I thank the Comhchathoirligh and members of the committee for this opportunity. This statement accompanies the Irish Wheelchair Association's Getting Nowhere report and brings forward the lived experiences of people with disabilities who rely on public transport every day. These experiences show how inaccessible transport continues to restrict independence, safety and equality across bus, rail, air travel and the public space.

On bus services, people with disabilities regularly encounter broken or unreliable ramps, bus stops without raised kerbs and pavements that make boarding physically impossible. One wheelchair user told us they ring ahead to check if the ramp is working but when the bus arrives, it is broken. That means waiting another hour in the rain for them. Even when buses are technically accessible, the surrounding infrastructure often is not. On rail, accessibility frequently depends on advanced notice. Many wheelchair users must book 24 hours assistance ahead, meaning spontaneous travel is simply not possible. Lifts are out of order, assistance is inconsistent between stations and people are sometimes left stranded. As one of our members put it, accessibility should not be a reservation.

On air travel, people with disabilities continue to report damaged mobility equipment, rough handling, long delays waiting for assistance and unclear accountability when things go wrong. One person described waiting six months for a replacement wheelchair after it was damaged on a flight. These experiences undermine freedom of movement and dignity. In active travel and public space, many recent schemes have introduced new risks. Floating bus islands, shared spaces and continuous cycle paths force wheelchair users and people with visual impairments into unsafe crossings. As one member told us, what was meant to make their town nicer has made it harder for them to get around.

The emotional and social impact is profound. People describe anxiety, isolation, loss of work or education opportunities and exhaustion from constantly having to plan and advocate or apologise for needing access. Equality, as people with disabilities describe it, is simple: boarding a bus without special arrangements, arriving at a station knowing the lift will work, crossing a street safely and flying without fear of losing essential equipment. These experiences are not isolated failures. They reveal a systematic pattern, where accessibility is treated as a courtesy rather than a right. The Irish Wheelchair Association asks this committee to centre these voices in its scrutiny of the National Transport Authority and the Department of Transport. Every inaccessible bus stop or train station tells a story: not of disability but of design and policy decisions that have failed to include people with disabilities. The next chapter must be written with us, not about us.

I thank Mr. Fulham and Ms Carthy. Senators had to leave because a vote was called in the Seanad. That is why the three of them left. That is just to let the witnesses and people watching online know in case they were not aware of why they suddenly got up and left. The intention is that they will come back once the vote is over. It should take about ten minutes for them to get over and back so, hopefully, they will come back.

I will open the floor to members. I am not sure whether we have the constraints we had earlier but the constraints are four minutes allocated for questions and answers. Deputy Gillian Toole is first and has four minutes for questions and answers to any of the witnesses. We will alternate between the different committees and we will allow for answers as well. There will be plenty of time to speak. If witnesses want to answer a specific question, they can indicate to me.

I wish everyone a good morning. Everyone is very welcome. I appreciate the challenges that have brought the witnesses here today, such as early starts and navigating everything they have so eloquently told us in their written statements and verbally this morning. I thank them for being here. For those of them who have been here before and have made suggestions, and the implementation has been slow, I hope that we can actually move things further along within the lifetime of this committee and work with people with disabilities rather than just for them.

I will keep my questions very general. How should accessibility failures be monitored and reported? What consequences should apply when obligations are not met, given the current model is based on guidelines rather than strict legislation?

The answer to Deputy Toole's question and almost everything is there in general comment No. 7 and the UNCRPD itself. In paragraph 65 and 66 of general comment No. 7, which is all about consultation, it says that if there has not been proper consultation with DPROs, one of three things should happen. They should be told to go back to the beginning, or a project should possibly be pulled. There is no other way. They will just brazen it out otherwise. This is what we have signed up to. This is in general comment No. 7. It also suggests either an ombudsman for Article 4(3) and making sure consultations are done properly or else have what they call a parliamentary committee. I will let Mr. Delaney in.

In support of what Dr. Sinnott said, there is actually a very simple solution. The NBRU, which I strongly advise either the transport committee or the joint committees bring in, does not want to bring buses out that have faulty wheelchair ramps. Unfortunately, they are not classified as important enough to pull a bus off the service. The attitude is that the wheelchair user can basically toddle off. They can wait and they are insignificant. There are supposed to be fines available to the NTA. As regards what those fines are, nobody knows. As regards how many fines have been issued, nobody knows. As regards wheelchair taxis, it is very simple. I will pass over to our four wheelchair-user colleagues here. I am sure they have experience or have heard anecdotally that at weekends, taxis will basically not pick up wheelchair users because there is more money in using it as a bigger taxi.

On design and finding people, the problem is there is no joined-up thinking. The NTA does not want to talk to us. On the council management, people misunderstand and say it is the councillors fault. It is not. It is the council management who make the decisions on the urban realm. Very little of it goes through the council. It is like the committee. It does not get a vote on everything. It is the same in councils. Council management has brought it in. It is a thing called tactical urbanism. The NTA is into it and the council is into it. It is about shared spaces, bus islands and continuous footpaths, which are the worst of all. We have to complain about it. We need the committee, as our politicians, to stand up for us. We have councillors doing it but they do not have the power because it is a management thing. The people who can change that are the Oireachtas Members.

On the buses, which Mr. Delaney is 100% correct about, the problem is there is category A and category B. While a category A fault will take the bus out of service, a category B fault will not. I could be wrong on the order but you get the idea. A broken lift, a non-working sign or a voice over not working is not category A. They leave it in service. The other problem is they do not have enough buses or drivers. Everybody thinks they do but they literally do not have them anymore. There is the problem there. If they take a bus out of service, it is the whole trip for the whole day.

We have run out of Deputy Toole's time but people can come in very briefly on what she said.

As Dr. Sinnott suggested, I would advocate possibly for an ombudsman where there is one location if people have a complaint, no matter what form of transport they are taking. If they have an issue with it or they have experienced issues, there could be one place to report their issues to and that that central organisation then has powers to impose fines or remove service.

That is a good point. Does Ms Carthy wish to come in?

Yes. We need to have mandatory standards which are backed with sanctions and fines. Obviously, the consultation at the very beginning has to be a very meaningful consultation at design stages. However, if they are not backed up with mandatory standards, we are not going to go anywhere.

I very much agree with that. If we do not have standards we can expect or hold people to account to, it is very difficult to make a complaint that can be enforced in any way.

I thank Mr. Kavanagh. We now move on to Deputy Daly from the transport committee.

Mr. Delaney mentioned in his opening statement the difficulties with booking and how he is being charged for it. Will he expand on that? If anyone else wishes to comment, they can.

Sure. In the Deputy’s area of Kerry, if a person wants to travel from Tralee to Dublin and back, they have to pay €2.50 from Tralee to Mallow, transfer on to a Cork to Dublin service at Mallow, pay another €2.50 and vice versa back from Heuston to reserve a seat. EU legislation specifically states that is not permitted. When we raise it, the attitude is, tough. That is it in a nutshell. We were also given an excuse but in order to respect the committee's rubrics, we will not identify the person. They tried to state that it was to stop people reserving seats and not taking them up. It is basically a money-making exercise. The same thing happens with Expressway and commercial operators, and it is totally contrary to EU law.

Mr. Delaney raised it with Iarnród Éireann.

We raised it with everyone. The attitude is they are not interested. It is basically a handy few bob. With some companies, it is even more. It is €3 back and forth.

Are some other operators charging-----

With commercial operators, it is €3. With City Link, it is €3. Down the Deputy’s way, the only way people can get to Dublin is on a train. To be blunt, €10 will change whether a person puts the heating on or how they eat. There is a total disconnect. Politicians should be hauling the NTA and the operators in here as part of the commercial licence. There is a previous report the committee should use as the basis for this. I was responsible for the hearings. There were 16 points. Nobody has come back on the 16 points, even though the decision was made that there will be a report back to the transport committee every six months. To use a Tim McGarry expression from BBC Northern Ireland, it is an absolute cluster buck. I use the word “buck”.

I note that.

I will be honest. We are fed up of being treated like second-class citizens. The NTA - it was mentioned about booking, and this is very important-----

That is fine.

If one rings the NTA to try to book, you are not automatically guaranteed it is going to be there. We have a fantastic team in Irish Rail, including Ronan Murphy and a new lady, Michelle Carey, who has taken things to an entirely new level. She is the best we have ever come across, bar Paul Slowey. The NTA has centralised inquiries and it is an absolute nightmare to interact with.

A quick thing-----

Before Dr. Kearney comes in, Ms Fitzpatrick indicated much earlier.

I will be as brief as possible. The booking is causing a major problem in our area because there is a shortage of public transport. What is happening is people are having to book. You cannot just turn up, say in Dublin, and get a bus. Bus Éireann costs €2.50 each way and if one wants to get a morning bus, in particular, you have to book at least two or three days before. There is a private bus company that is not obliged to have as many rules and it charges €3 each way to Dublin. I do not know how it is getting away with it but it is like an apartheid thing where people are left on the pavement.

With the train booking, our members are having a problem because they are left sitting there and have no way of seeing the screen on the side. If you have not booked and just get on the train, you could be moved from seat to seat. That is very scary. It is a double-edged sword. A person in Dublin can get on a bus. If I had to come up to Dublin every day for my work, I would have to pay an average of €30 or more a week to get up and down. I have no other way of travelling.

I thank Ms Fitzpatrick. I call Dr. Kearney.

The first time I met Irish Rail it was about the £10 charge. That was cleared and the NTA came back with this €2.50 thing through Irish Rail. There is another thing with the centralised call centre. I fought that tooth and nail because I said exactly what would happen, and it happened. You have to have the knowledge. I worked in An Post and the local knowledge topped everything. Mr. Delaney was talking to somebody who had never actually been on a train and they were talking about booking people onto trains. Another person could not figure out how to go via Mallow. They do not know the network. Ronan's or Michelle's team could be in Connolly Station and they would talk a person through it. It is so much simpler. This centralisation in the NTA has been a major problem.

I will move on to Deputy Ó Murchú who has four minutes for questions and answers.

I thank the witnesses. You might include that in the recommendations.

Tá fáilte roimh na finnéithe go léir. Unfortunately, none of this is particularly shocking. As constituency representatives, a huge number of people contact us about bus stops that are not accessible, buses and taxis with ramps that should work but do not work and so on. On some level, the witnesses have already dealt with what the solution is, and we can call it what we will. We spoke about the issues in relation to local authorities previously, and every local authority is different. It would really only make a difference if the person who was the disability officer had any sort of real teeth and responsibility and was properly engaged with those who require their service.

Even beyond that, at this stage we are talking about mandatory rules, regulations, etc. I would be happy enough if there was a checklist and guidelines, which I do not believe there has been. How do we get it to a different place? If we could also get into the ins and outs of the witnesses' engagements, particularly with the airlines and transport companies. How do we improve on that? We need to have decent proposals because we could do this every year and keep having the same meeting.

That is something I have observed. I have used the different transports and the airports. The Comhchathaoirleach can tell me if I am out of order by mentioning this but a big problem for us is the accessibility has changed.

The Government provided funding for a so-called "centre of excellence" to advise companies on accessibility and how to implement it but in my considered opinion and that of many others, it has made it worse. An amount of millions was pumped into one thing, in a central location that none of us can really access. Its specific purpose is to train people but when I meet people, they say they knew this already and this does not actually change anything. When the Government is going to do something like this for transport, it needs to go back to the people who are represented in this room. We are the experts in our own lives. There is a lot of experience here and the Government could have saved itself an awful lot of money by listening to what we are saying. I use public transport and air travel, of all modes, has gone down the most. I have no idea why. I use the service in the airport and for some reason, it has disintegrated. One of our members has been seriously injured on several occasions getting on and off planes.

My brother was nearly killed on a plane. He is a wheelchair user because of blood cancer, so I understand that. The Deputy is dead right about the disconnection between the various levels of government and the disability access officers. I have the most recent list from the Department. Dublin does not have one. Cork does not have one. Most of the councils around the country do not have a disability access officer. They may have a name but they are not actually doing the job and that is the problem. We need the disability matters committee to chase up the relevant bodies. I will have a chat with the Deputy after the meeting and explain it in detail.

Access officers need to have standards to work to. Currently there are not many standards, apart from European standards which tend to be a bit vague. Some colleagues speaking here today have had experiences working with transport service providers. For instance, in any consultation, we rarely if ever get accessible documents on station designs, even though we constantly ask for them. We are always asked along to the opening and that is where we discover things like no rails, bad way-finding and so on. None of our suggestions are implemented but we have them in stock and have them published. We are full of solutions and full of good faith. We have bilateral meetings regularly. We go along to all of the disability user groups and meetings with the public transport crowd but we are not being heard. In terms of meaningful consultation, we do not even get accessible documents. Some of these stations have been long built and we have been asking for accessible documents for them for five years and have not got a thing. When we are at bilateral meetings, we hear "We'll look into it". It is not the same experience for all when dealing with the service providers. From the perspective of the visually impaired, they cannot even give us accessible communications.

Dr. Sinnott took the words out of my mouth in terms of access officers having standards to work to, and that is across all forms of transport. What we are noting here is that people's lives are majorly put on hold. This could be any one of us. It is not an us and them scenario. Many people in this room acquired disabilities and we all acquire disability as we age. Those who have the levers of power and those who are in decision-making positions within the local authorities, the NTA and so on should consider this in terms how they would want their son, daughter, ageing parent or themselves in a number of years to engage with the services of the State. Thinking that this is outside of oneself is anathema; this is all of us. That level of consideration is required and empathy building is required in order for any action to take place. If it feels outside of oneself in the context of compliance, then minimum standards will be applied, if any. I would very much agree with Dr. Sinnott that we need standards that are clear, and that we can look to and say our experience of engaging with and using this service did, or did not, meet that standard. There must be a clear path for complaint resolution in the absence of the standard being met.

The Deputy asked about accessibility. Here is one that will blow everyone's minds. A disabled person went for an access role in a Government agency and she was told that she could not go for the role because she was not of a high enough rank. They put a non-disabled person in the access officer role. That is what is currently going on. In relation to the way-finding centre, a number of us in this room were present when the following happened. There was a meeting in the DFI office with the former Senator, John Dolan. I was his researcher. It is rare that one gets unanimity in a room with disability activists. The CEO of Vision Ireland was present. Every single person told him that they did not want it and that it was not going to work. I outlined my journey, which involved two buses, two trains, a tram and then a walk across a bridge and up. There was unanimity that we did not want it and that it would be better to have regional funding.

He is not here to defend himself but I thank Mr. Delaney for his comment. We will move on to the next member.

I commend the two chairpersons. I never saw this in the last Dáil but it is a great idea to bring the committees together. It is also great to have the witnesses here today, who are all very welcome. I have a few questions, the first of which is on motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. We are seeing a lot of them on footpaths. Have they insurance cover? Have any members of the Irish Wheelchair Association, in particular, run into any difficulties or insurance problems? They were always interfacing with pedestrians and people on the footpath but now there are also e-scooters, people whizzing along on e-bikes and so on. What we thought was safe on the side of the road is not as safe as it might have been some years ago. As we improve infrastructure, it is being shared by more people. Have the witnesses encountered any difficulties with insurance? Are there any court cases or settlements that they are aware of?

My understanding is that people do not carry insurance for using mobility scooters. They are used in the same way as a motorised wheelchair. What we need to be looking at is the interaction and the fact that there are e-scooters there in the first place. There needs to be a much stronger push in relation to monitoring the interaction between e-scooters and everybody else. They should not be allowed on the footpaths at all. Legislation was recently introduced on this but that legislation has not been strong enough and a lot of the recommendations that we made at the time were not taken on board. It is really about making sure that the onus is on e-scooter owners, with insurance being made mandatory for them rather than for the person using a mobility scooter.

I should know the answer to the next question, but I do not. When there is infrastructure like a footpath and a cycleway in place, as there is along the quays in Dublin, for example, is the guidance for an electric wheelchair user to use the footpath or the cycleway?

The footpath.

It is always the footpath.

One needs to be very clear in differentiating between the e-scooters that were recently legislated for and mobility devices. The legislation makes a clear differentiation between them. We advocated that insurance and tax requirements be brought in for e-scooters for the very obvious reasons that people with disabilities, particularly those with vision and mobility impairments, are placed in a vulnerable position. Electric wheelchairs or power chairs, as they are correctly called, and mobility scooters do not require insurance. They are mobility devices. The Deputy needs to be very clear in the question he is asking and he needs to differentiate. E-scooters should require insurance because what we are faced with now is potential injuries for which there is no cover.

The key piece in all of this if we are looking at the infrastructure the Deputy was talking about coming in is enforcement. The laws are there. E-scooters should not be on the footpaths. They should not be in the shared spaces, yet they are. As with everything, enforcement is a key problem.

Mobility scooters and power chairs are under 16 km/h and they are mobility devices. Mobility scooters that can go over 16 km/h are a different story. E-scooters, e-bikes and e-motorbikes are illegal and they break the law everywhere. The problem is that the Department did nothing about it. When the legislation was brought in originally, it was extremely weak, and now they are trying to beef it up. The problem is that the legislation is very flawed.

I will very quickly make the point that the other thing is bicycles. I cannot count the number of times that a good friend of mine, Padraic Moran - we are like adopted brothers at this stage - and his assistance dog have nearly been hit by idiots going through traffic lights when the green man is on. I am sure the other witnesses have anecdotal evidence showing that cyclists have no respect for them. It is widespread at pedestrian crossings and zebra crossings. For wheelchair users, it seems to be a case of "let's see how we can scare them". That is the reality.

The reason I asked the questions is that half of us are from the transport committee and we are talking about how we improve all of this, but from what I see, when the infrastructure is there, it seems to be almost more dangerous for wheelchair users because they are sharing a space with pedestrians, in particular in towns and city centre environments, as they take over footpaths. They often do not see a person coming towards them in a wheelchair and they do not give them enough courtesy. A lack of dipped kerbs forces the person down onto the cycle lane. On the quays in Dublin I see e-scooters and e-bikes, which resemble motorbikes, all interfacing with people with disabilities and mobility impairments. We might think the infrastructure is there but it looks even more dangerous. Dipped kerbs, which are the most old fashioned way of all, are probably the most effective because they allow people to get up and down where they need to do so without having to go onto the main thoroughfares.

I respect what the Deputy said. Dr. Kearney and I will get in touch with him and talk about the issues, just to save the committee's time.

From my own lived experience that I have been forced into cycle lanes from time to time. I have been forced to travel on the road because of the lack of dipped footpaths. On other occasions I have been forced to go in and out of traffic because I could not access the footpath. There are situations as well where people who travel in their own van may park in a wheelchair spot but to access the footpath they have to cross through the cycle lane to access the dipped kerb, which is a hazard and a danger for people who are in wheelchairs.

I also back what Mr. Fulham said. A mobility device such as a power chair is essential for somebody to be able to get around the place. There should be no onus on us to get insurance. The onus to get insurance should be on people who use other forms of transport as an option. Mobility devices are essential.

Just in terms of the improvement of infrastructure, our members would generally disagree with that. In the past five years we have had an avalanche of disimprovements. As for active travel, we used to be able to walk confidently and now we cannot with the likes of island bus stops, but in particular continuous footpaths or raised crossings. There was no disability proofing through DPROs on active travel, BusConnects, the design manual for urban roads and streets, DMURS, updates nor on the national cycle manual. For us to have capacity building there need to be incentives. We are being ignored. What do we say to our members when they say they have been walking outside their house for the last 40 years and now they cannot leave their estate? Our members generally find that things have got worse since the 1980s and not better. It was easier to travel in Ireland in the 1980s than it is today.

I thank Dr. Sinnott very much. We have just run out of time. We were well over time with Deputy Crowe. We now move to Deputy Quaide who has four minutes.

I welcome all the witnesses. I also welcome the focus on transport. As with our recent sessions on employment and entrepreneurship, this is an area that has not really received political attention yet, as Mr. Kavanagh said, it is core to the daily lives of the witnesses and connected to pretty much everything they do.

We finally have political attention on disability services, mainly child services, additional needs and education. We are nowhere near making the progress needed on those issues but at least the massive problems in those areas are being acknowledged. We must fully reckon with what the witnesses have talked about today before we stand a chance of addressing them. There is a huge human cost to the shortfalls they describe. The opening statements alone, which are just the tip of the iceberg, shame the political system, not just shame us but galvanise us to action. I acknowledge the vast and varied experience of disability in the room and online.

Could any of the wheelchair users set out how disabled people can be more meaningfully involved in designing and evaluating transport services? Do they have a sense of what that process would look like in practice, so that it has a lasting impact and is not just a box-ticking exercise?

A simple starting point is that we have the centre for excellence and universal design within the National Disability Authority. It provides excellent guidance on any number of elements of universal design from public spaces to infrastructure and so on. That is an excellent starting point. Direct engagement with the DPOs and people of varied lived experience of disability is essential in any of these consultations, and doing it from the ground up not as a last-minute check box. The reason that is important is that in addition to it being a compliance piece, when we are designing for the public, there is a range of citizens and we need to design holistically for them. If we design with inclusive practices and those that have different requirements for using the space in mind, we design for everyone else in the middle as well. It is just good practice.

With the advent of the national human rights strategy, there is a focus from the Government but it has to be a cultural shift across the Government and the Civil Service. The question refers to wheelchair users. In its own way, that is discriminatory because we have got vision impairment and neurodiverse impairment, so as Mr. Kavanagh said, we have to take an overall holistic approach. The structures are there but oftentimes the cultural shift needs to take place as the outputs do not reflect the inputs that we give. Time and time again the inputs that we give are serially ignored by State services so there is a need for that cultural shift. Hopefully, with the advent of the strategy we might start to see that. The evidence of what we have seen from the Government since the strategy was launched has been very disappointing.

I will expand on that. Something struck me when the question was raised – it is something all members need to be very aware of when they are dealing with every group but our group in particular – in that a question was asked of one constituent group in particular and left out the blind, partially sighted, neurodiverse and other disabilities. There needs to be a full approach but we also need to consider the uniqueness of the different people. In all our statements we focus on the uniqueness of where we are coming from and who we are representing because we must have a balance. We have to think of all people with disabilities and their experience and be mindful of that.

It is great that we are getting this opportunity, but when members are thinking about their questions, they should be careful with the way they construct them.

It is really about going back to the very beginning. There is no point in coming to people with disabilities with your plan and then saying, “Let’s consult on it”, or “Let’s have a conversation”. At that stage, it is almost impossible to reverse any decisions, which means the time and money spent have been completely wasted. Projects then get the green light because the tick-box exercise has happened. It has to be at the design and planning stage that we include people with disabilities.

There is one thing that I will say about Deputy Liam Quaide. In the time that I have known him, he would have followed up with other questions, and he basically wanted to get a feel for everything. He is one of the most inclusive people I know.

With regard to Irish Rail, we went along when it opened the new infrastructure and we referenced the Glider project in Belfast. Irish Rail brought us in and showed us the prototype. We demolished the Irish Rail prototype. What has come out is as a result of engagement with all disabled stakeholders. Jim Meade was brilliant; he is a good Clare man. The Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Verona Murphy, is the exemplar when it comes to how to engage with disabled people.

There was a question about the Government. Our organisation went along to apply to be part of this new consultation group. We were not good enough to be there or be part of it. The Department with responsibility for disability, with respect, needs to basically be dragged in by the committee and asked what the hell it is playing at because it does not have a clue how to engage with its community in a respectful manner.

Mr. Delaney mentioned Irish Rail. I worked with Irish Rail for a long time. They actually listen. The lifts have a call button because they tried to fix it. I happened to come up with the idea, and now there are lifts everywhere. For the DART+ steps, there is a full-size mock-up over in Inchicore, which I requested. I am sure the committee can arrange to go over there. It is a fully accessible train set, the only one of its kind in Europe. The Belgians and Germans have put in billions of euro worth of investment into trains, but they are not accessible. In little old Ireland, the DART+ is. That is because they listened to us. That is what you have to do. Nothing about us without us. Us. Not one section, but all of us. We are stronger together. That is what people have to realise. We are 22% of the population. There are a lot of us.

We have solutions. We have had civil engineers who are representatives but have lost their sight, as well as architects and so on. We have put together sophisticated, long documents for professionals, with 25,000 words on the page and with best-worst examples. We have also come up with basic stuff about checklists and so on, which are much shorter. They are all just being ignored, although the professionals who have used them find them brilliant. It is no wonder, because it is their own fellow professionals who have shaped them from a visually impaired perspective.

We do not have the same experience with DART+. Again, it might work for one impairment in a constituency but not for another. We did not find that our opinions were taken on board in that situation. From one to the other, it depends.

Thank you. As it is past 10.50 a.m., the midway point of the meeting, we will suspend for ten minutes.

Members should indicate please if they want to speak. I remind them that they have four minutes for questions and answers. I will have to be tighter on this than I was earlier. Members or witnesses attending remotely please use the raise hand function to indicate a wish to speak. I do not want to miss anybody. The next speaker is Deputy Grace Boland.

I welcome the witnesses. Accessible public transport is a real priority of mine. I am conscious of the time, so want to give the witnesses as much time as possible. Are there any countries who have got this right? If in charge, what would be the one big thing the witnesses would do? I will start with Mr. Kavanagh and move along.

I had an experience in June 2024 when I flew to Oslo. From the moment I arrived, to the moment I got to my hotel, it was a strange experience. I arrived at the hotel and I said to myself that something felt odd and strange and I then realised that I had had a seamless journey. It was the first time it had happened since I had become a wheelchair user. There were no barriers to any part of my journey. It was very straightforward in every way and certainly the train infrastructure was fantastic to engage with. It was point to point from the airport to the city centre. Navigating through the city centre was fantastic as well, so certainly on train infrastructure they have done a really good job.

I would like to say that I have had a seamless journey in any of the countries I have gone to but I have not. The Deputy asked about one big change and it is really about going back to consultation with people with disabilities to try to make that change. I mentioned earlier that I have attended Oireachtas committee meetings on disability and transport over the years and we have still not seen any change. A report was brought out six or seven years ago that went through all of the different areas of transport and all the recommendations that needed to be made and nothing has changed for people with disabilities. The hope is that the committees will produce a decent report out of this session. However, after the report it is necessary to try to implement the things that the committees have heard today. We really need the Department of Transport to listen, which has not been the case in the past. We need the NTA to listen and to be very open to people with disabilities, which has not been the case in the past either.

I do not think there is a country that is a utopia for accessibility for transport. There are elements from each country that I would point to that stand out. For example, in London, each black cab is required to have a ramp, so it is a novel feature to be able to go down the street and just hail a taxi like anybody else does. Aside from that, I would say that gives an opportunity for Ireland to perform that utopia. As Ms Carthy, Mr. Fulham and Mr. Kavanagh have pointed out, the standards are already there. Universal design exists. If these standards are implemented and people with disabilities are involved from the very beginning, as Ms Carthy said, from the design point, that is the opportunity for us to become the utopia for accessible transport.

The Deputy asked us what would be the one big change we would make. There are sometimes very easy wins. In Rehab's transport survey, service users pointed out the lack of affordability of public transport for people with disabilities, despite having a free travel pass. The committee has heard about the charges for booking travel but we also have to take into account the extra cost for taxis if a person cannot access public transport. Some Local Link services do not accept the free travel pass so more standardised acceptance of the free travel pass would be an easy win that would make at least any transport that is accessible, affordable for people with disabilities.

To echo Mr. Hannafin, there is a danger in looking for utopia elsewhere. I agree with him that there are very good elements of public transport.

We need it to be bespoke to Ireland and for Ireland to show how it is has been inclusive in its thoughts and in taking best practice from elsewhere and implementing what works for us. As we are focusing on transport, I would love the air industry not to be let away with it. When we talk about public transport, we tend to focus on bus, rail and taxis. I would love to see the air industry brought into the spotlight.

I am going to make a wish as if I had a genie. I wish to be elected a TD, become a Minister and have power in the Government to get pretty much everything to do with disabilities into the one Department rather than having different elements tagged on to different junior Ministers' remits all over the place. I would also have consultants who have lived experience. From the ministerial position and with my previous Civil Service experience, I would get all my people. That is what I would do.

The one thing that is constant is putting about without us and making people aware. The able community think they are aware and that they know what they are doing. They tick boxes. We have all said it, we have all seen it and we have all suffered it. You have to be aware of us as people. To do that, you have to talk to us as people, as equals. If you do that, we can fix anything. We are the most ingenious group of people you will ever meet. We have to be because we live in an able world but are disabled. Listen to us; we know what we are doing.

People were talking about the Department of Transport. In fairness to Deputies Darragh O'Brien, Seán Canney and Jerry Buttimer, they are actually engaging with us. We heard nothing from Eamon Ryan during his entire term.

He is not here to defend himself.

I am just stating a fact. Going back to Deputy Roderic O'Gorman's term as Minister responsible for disability, along with Senator Anne Rabbitte, the mobility loans were supposed to be resolved. At this time, people are losing their existing mobility allowance. The Department is trying to remove it. A final thing that could be done would be for the members to basically hold welding torches to the feet of Ministers and spokespeople in their next parliamentary party meetings to actually get the budget. It seems money can be found for everything except disability.

Looking at places like Nice in France or Amsterdam with a view to copying them is a total mistake because the question that is not asked is how disabled people are managing to navigate these towns. That is all I say. A lot of presumptions come along with these things. They are thought to be the great white hope for everybody but they are not.

I will focus on the journey and ask each witness which part of it tends to fail the most. A journey has many stages, from the initial booking to travelling to the bus stop or station to accessing the particular mode of transport and so on. There are also the questions of the quality of announcements on the transport, interactions with staff and disembarking before completing the journey. What part of that journey tends to fail the most in the witnesses' lived experiences?

Rather than discussing which parts fail the most, I will note that two biggest pain points from my perspective. One is the administrative overhead in making a booking in the first place. There is additionality to booking a journey compared with what is required of other passengers. It is not integrated into the standard booking flow. That is the biggest thing. The other issue is reliability. When relying on public transport, I cannot trust that the required accommodations, such as ramps and so on, will be available when I need them.

Mr. Kavanagh nailed it on the head. No matter how many times you use a particular service, there is still a huge lack of trust as to whether you will get to your destination. A lot of things are happening. Depending on the mode of transport, ramps can be a huge issue. We are supposed to have a fully wheelchair accessible bus system but, when you arrive, the ramp is broken and you are given some sort of strange excuse that it has only just broken down. They will not admit they allowed a bus in that condition out in the morning. That is stopping people with disabilities from gaining employment and other things. It is about that trust issue. We could name a great many issues, including tax and strange booking systems. There are so many issues. People just cannot trust the system to work.

This is my chance to say something personal. My biggest failure in my journey is that the local county council will not give me traffic lights so I cannot safely get from my house to anywhere in my town apart from the main street. That is a massive obstacle to my independence. I have to get my partner to walk me to the train or the shop. I really wish I could go to someone in my local council and ask them to please give me my independence. That is a big thing for me.

The one thing is planning. I have three journeys in my head. For every journey I make, I plan three different routes because, as Ms Carthy said, anything can go wrong at any time. When doing anything, I have to plan three routes. It is exhausting. I should be able to do the same as most people but I cannot. I have to have it all set up because there are too many failures. The real-time app from the NTA is very poor, to put it nicely. It is the simple things that make the journey nightmarish and these simple things are constantly failed on.

To follow up on what Mr. Kearney was saying, some service users have pointed out that the real-time information is a big barrier when they are trying to get through their journey. They do not have information as to whether a given bus has an issue, if its ramp is out of service or if another one will be with them in the next 15 or 20 minutes. Some have called for smartphone enabled free travel cards and free prebooking for cardholders. Technology can be of great assistance to people with disabilities. That could be brought in to provide more real-time information.

We cannot use air transport. My son is a wheelchair user and is partially sighted. Every time we try to use an aeroplane, the questions are different. How old is your wheelchair? What weight is it? How old is your dog? What weight is it? What is its breed? Will you send us a list of the injections the dog has had? When you get to the airport, you do not know if there will be someone to lift him onto the plane and to lift him off. I have had to lift him onto the plan and then, when I turned around to get the wheelchair, I was told I could not leave the aircraft once I was on. The captain of the plane came out and started giving out to me, saying that you cannot leave the aircraft once you get on. I was asked whether he would need the wheelchair when we got to Barcelona. I said that, unless Jesus Christ was on board and we had a miracle at 33,000 ft, of course he would need it. We do not use air transport because of the trauma. Ms Carthy talked about trust. It is the trauma. You cannot look forward to anything because you think about what is going to happen when you get to the airport. For the last 20 years, we have gone on holidays by ferry. I have driven with Eoghan to Berlin, Barcelona, Faro and Seville. You arrive there to meet the rest of the family, and all the Dubs getting off the plane see you in the disabled parking spot outside arrivals and ask whether you are a taxi and do you know you can fly here. I say, "No, we cannot fly here."

Three of the witnesses mentioned vans. We have a Ford Transit van. That costs the best part of €80,000. My colleagues on the transport committee should be aware of that. The hydraulic ramp is another €12,000 and having it fitted is another €3,000. To echo what Mr. Kavanagh was saying, could the transport committee work on reform of the adaptation costs?

We do not use the DART because it is humiliating for my son to have to ring Pearse Station or to make advance planning. No other category of citizen has to look for permission to travel like that. Then, even if Eoghan does make a notification, what if he is delayed and cannot get to Booterstown DART Station or Clontarf DART Station? Will there be somebody there with a ramp? We cannot rely on the lifts as they do not work. Lately, what we have noticed is that his personal assistants come from Kerala and Mali and there is an intersectional thing where they are being racially abused on public transport, as well as the disability issue. There are two categories of transport that are closed to us.

I was really struck by what Mr. Kavanagh said about it being non-negotiable and if there should be more compellability. It should absolutely be compellable. Has he noticed any change since we ratified the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Has there been any change in compelling people like the NTA, TFI and Dublin County Council to consult with us? I am sorry for the big, long preamble but I feel so strongly about it. As a community, we are completely boxed off.

No. The reason is that while people see it is really important to have the optional protocol in place, it is such a long drawn out arduous piece of work that you have to go through it to get as far as the optional protocol. The Departments know that. All the different systems know that and that is why nothing is changing. It is not being used as a deterrent at all.

Do the witnesses think we are flagrantly in breach of the UNCRPD as it applies to access to transport and all that means for participation, inclusion and equity?

When I was speaking to the European Commissioner for transport last year, one of the points I made was that we know the extent to which egregious things are happening all the time that should not happen, in particular with air transport for passengers with disabilities. They are very commonplace, but we do not see it reported. The reason we do not see the level of complaints that we should see, based on the level of mistreatment that occurs and things going wrong, is due to the arduous and hidden nature of the complaints process and the lack of ready information on how, when and where to complain. Complaining for complaint's sake is not helpful but it is a very important process, in terms of it being a constructive tool in the arsenal of understanding what is going wrong, why, and how we resolve it. In any and all forms of transport, it is very important to have clarity on how we submit constructive complaints when things go wrong.

At the core of the UNCRPD is consultation with DPROs. That is in Article 4 paragraph 3. Without that happening, it will just be business as usual. That needs to be enforceable then going back to paragraphs 65 and 66 of General Comment 7 and nothing should be allowed that has not gone through close consultation with DPROs. The incentive should be for people to join DPROs. That is Article 29 (b)(ii) of the UNCRPD. It is not reinventing the wheel. We have already signed up to this process. It is being totally ignored.

Just very briefly, I travelled with the Disability Federation of Ireland to the 5th European Parliament of Persons with Disabilities. A member of our group sent the information about her wheelchair to the airline before travel. At the last minute the airline changed the type of aeroplane that we were going to travel on and that lady was lifted into her seat on the aeroplane, having been measured at the gate by people in high-vis jackets. Once onboard, somebody came to tell her that her wheelchair would not fit and that she could either get off and stay in Dublin or travel without her chair. She travelled and was forced to try to find alternative mobility equipment while she was over there. That comes back to the level of trust that Ms Carthy was talking about earlier. The airlines pulled the rug out from underneath her feet at the last minute. Those are the kind of last minute changes to suit the airline, forgetting people with disabilities.

I have two specific questions. I read Mr. Hannafin's submission and I am interested in the point he made about people for whom public transport simply is not an option and how a voucher system for taxi use could be developed. Could he take us through his thinking on that a little bit more, in particular in terms of how we would link it, either directly to a disability payment or if it would be available for everybody? I would like to get a bit of detail on that.

Mr. Kavanagh clearly illustrated that we do not have enough universal design at the moment. If we were to introduce more, how could we get lived experience built into how local authorities design homes and communities? I am interested in how the actual lived experience could get fed in?

Does Mr. Hannafin want to come in there?

Yes, just to come to that point, it comes back to what I was speaking about earlier, the affordability of accessible transport. If you are a person with a disability, in particular for those living in a rural area, the feedback we are getting shows that to try to get to a bus stop is a barrier in the first place because there are no footpaths in a rural area and you are trying to travel on narrow, dangerous roads. In many cases, people are forced to take taxis. In particular for people who have no other option but to take taxis rather than public transport, even to access public transport, the idea is that it could be an addition to the free travel pass and it would be worked in as part of that.

I thank Mr. Hannafin. Does Mr. Kavanagh want to come in?

The National Disability Authority has a centre for excellence in universal design. The statutory role of the National Disability Authority is to deliver evidence-informed advice to the Government on disability matters. Similarly, the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design is to educate and provide information on how and what to do.

Extensive consultation occurs with DPOs and those with a wide range of lived experience in all publications that come out from both of those organisations specifically with the universal design protocols in mind. They are robustly researched. They are very much evidence informed and the centre is recognised as world leading in the work it does. You can log onto universaldesign.ie and pull up design guides within 30 seconds for universal design for housing, public spaces and all forms of infrastructure and building works but the challenge at the moment is that it is guidance and there is not an obligation to use it. This is not the place for a discussion on housing; we can have that separately. It is guidance and not binding at the moment and until we have universal design principles baked into procurement, design and delivery we are not going to see a meaningful difference.

To round that out, designing upfront for the widest cohort and having meaningful consultation with those who have lived experience allows for that infrastructure, of whatever type it is, to be used by everyone else in the middle. The second piece is that we design in an inclusive way upfront. There may be a slight increase in upfront costs but it mitigates the necessity for downstream retrofitting which costs exorbitant amounts in any area that it is required.

The members have asked about how we get things right. First of all, the National Transport Authority, NTA, is supposed to have a disabled director as per what I basically arranged with the former Minister, Shane Ross. There has not been a disabled director for the last four years. That is it basically. There is nobody there. There is no voice of lived experience at the NTA. We also have scenarios within Irish Rail and Bus Éireann, but especially Irish Rail, where they brought in an independent chair to chair the disabled user group. We did not have the capability among ourselves to actually select a chair. In relation to taxis, there is a very simple solution whereby the Minister or the House orders the NTA that every damn taxi and small public service vehicle, SPSV, is wheelchair accessible. That has been available in London since 1990. Have the political will to do it. There may be pushback but, guess what, it is our right. There is also a scenario with aviation. Aer Lingus has engaged with one of our members, Padraic Moran, who is also director of the Irish Wheelchair Association. They have designed a video, which is now completed, as to how ground handling staff pack a wheelchair. This is already up and running.

Reference was made to the EU. The EU actually described people with disabilities in training documents for a certificate of professional competence as people with peculiarities. That is how disabled people were referred to in anything. We have asked to sit in on training so that we can sense check the training. That has been refused. It is very simple, and as everybody has just said: nothing about us without us. With regard to transport, and being blunt, get your backsides in gear. Pardon my bluntness but I will just say it is autism. There is a mechanism where people are supposed to have VRT and VAT free so that they can get cars at a cheap rate. Members can find it for everything else, so start bloody treating us with the respect we deserve.

I thank all the witnesses for being here this morning and for their contributions. I apologise that I missed the start of the meeting as we were debating the Mental Health Bill in the Seanad earlier.

A lot of what was said has struck me. I know the witnesses have had discussions on a number of topics already this morning so I do not want to get into too much repetition. The key thing, as was said, is that nothing about us without us is essential. We need to absolutely ensure that all of our transport systems are accessible, that there is discussion in terms of universal design, and that there is consultation at every step of the way. One thing that struck me on the active travel schemes is that there are huge deficits in funding by local authorities, footpath repairs, kerbs and roads in general, which does affect mobility and accessibility for everyone. For example, I was reading that for the first eight months of this year, Cork City Council has had to pay out up to €100,000 every month in claims. This is affecting the wider population. In order to fix all of the footpaths in Cork city, it would cost €375 million. In my view the Government has to invest in capital spending in relation to this. Does the panel have a view on that?

On the additional costs in terms of transport, if there are not accessible options available, what kind of burden is that placing on individuals if they potentially have to look at alternative transport or taxis? How does that play out? Do the witnesses have international examples of countries or cities around the world that they think are doing things well that we should be modelling?

I will answer the active travel question. Active travel is able travel. It is not for people like us. It is for healthy, able people who can walk for ten minutes or cycle 15 km. Urban realm design is my specialty and Cork is a black hole. It is horribly designed. It is a disaster from St. Patrick's Street to Merchant's Quay. Tear it up and start all over again. The people to blame are Cork City Council management and the councillors who pushed for all of these cycle lanes and shared spaces. They say Grand Parade is safe. I would say that the scariest places in Cork are Grand Parade or St. Patrick's Street. Vehicles are going past at huge speeds. It would not kill me like a car but it would certainly hurt me. This is what they are designing when they design a shared space, shared footpaths, shared crossings and bus islands. These are all dangerous designs for people and not just people with disabilities but all pedestrians. There is a certain cohort that insists it is great and we are going to save the world by terrorising people with disabilities. I am sorry but it does not work for me.

Mr. Kearney has already spoken about active travel. It does not work for people with disabilities and people with disabilities were not consulted. It is a huge problem for people with disabilities in trying to get around and trying to negotiate around the whole active travel piece. We are hearing back more and more that people are more afraid. I said this in my opening statement. People are more afraid to go out of their homes, to try to get around the place and to try to use public transport.

On the cost piece, people with disabilities have an extra cost to everything that they do and transport is one of them. That comes in lots of different guises. One is the money that has to be paid for pre-booking. Some of the costs come when people need personalised transport. What we hear back quite often is that there is this grant or that grant. Actually, the grants that are given do not come anywhere near the cost if the person has to buy a vehicle. Then people can also be pushed into the cost of using a taxi, especially those in rural areas who do not have any other options.

We hear constantly that people are missing medical appointments. Besides the social aspect, which is hugely important for everybody, if we pare it right back, this is somebody who cannot actually get to a medical appointment. This then becomes an extra cost on the State, let alone the impact it has on that individual.

We are constantly talking about this extra cost of disability payment. That needs to be brought in by the Government. We have been told it will be brought in over the space of the Government term. People cannot wait that long. We are running into the winter now and it is costing us more and more.

There are two things in particular that our members have problems with. The first, which has started to be implemented in Dublin under active travel and maybe it will be coming to a town near us, is continuous footpaths. A person who is blind and is travelling or myself as a cane user need cues on our route for us to get anywhere. Say Jimmy wants to get home. He will know, "Okay, I have to cross three roads, turn left and I am there." With the continuous footpath he does not know because those cues are taken away. It is like the rug being taken out from under you. That is a whole example of not being consulted and not being listened to. This seems to be a continuous issue with BusConnects too. There has been nothing but problems with BusConnects in Dublin - we could go on. They are doing BusConnects in Cork and they are proposing the island bus stops that are dangerous for people. It is nearly like they just keep bulldozing it through.

Active travel is a thing and people have to put up with crossing a cycle lane or going across traffic lights to get to a bus stop. There are a lot of messages for members to take away from today, but they include listen, consult and - they are in a unique position - try to implement legislation that gets these people to have to stick to what they say. There is a radio ad about the TV licence telling people they have to pay it because it is it the law. Things have to meet disability standards. If it is the law, it will have to be done.

I apologise for my delay in coming in. I thank all the witnesses for making time to come today. This is an area I have been learning more about for the past year and a half and my eyes have been opened to the challenges and deficiencies in our transport infrastructure and services. My main questions relate to how to make this better. I am keen, in the first instance, to learn whether the witnesses have seen examples of best practice by local authorities or in town or city centres where their needs have been taken on board properly and adequately. If not, what is the closest example of a service getting to that?

I had a good meeting with James Casserly, who some people might be familiar with from Jimbo's Accessible Adventures. We went through a lot of issues relating to accessibility of transport but one simple one which blew my mind because of how fixable it is was that there is no provision in the NTA app to tell people whether lifts are in service in a train station. Wheelchair users can rock up to a train station at 11.30 p.m. and discover the lift is out of service. That strikes me as something that could easily be fixed. I am keen to get the witnesses' view on whether they see other easy fixes like that. I am not taking away from the importance of the main strategic issues they have been speaking about, but I want to get a handle on this. We need to get the big stuff right, but we also need to get the small stuff right. Can I get thoughts on the examples they have seen that are the nearest to best practice? Where are we deficient in the use of apps and the general things we should be getting right?

I will be quick. On the first question, there is none. On the second question, Irish Rail is developing an app at the moment. It will introduce an app and will be working with people in the new year to make it a reality.

There are many things. We could have had a list of 100 things or more our members experience that all relate back to general issues. However, one example is the flat screen point-of-sale machines that are everywhere. A blind person getting a taxi home at night will not be able to use that. We need to have physical PIN pads. That goes back to European design standards under the European Accessibility Act, but the loopholes are being used by the banks. They say it does not say they cannot do it, at least at the moment.

A second example is the kerbs. Research in the UK said that a minimum of 60 mm is needed for a guide dog not to walk out in front of traffic. People would not know that by the amount of shared spaces and flat surfaces that are around and local authorities building like there is no tomorrow. We would say there has to be 100 mm or 125 mm, as recommended in the North.

Another example is having audio accessible timetables, accessible apps and screen-readable, accessible websites. There is no such thing as 99% accessible because the 1% can make something 100% inaccessible to a screen-reader user. Audio does not work across any amount of things. People get on the Luas not knowing what the destination is. We could go on. All our positions are online, but they are constantly ignored. The service providers, including the NTA and others, do not know. I think they have contempt for the UNCRPD. The NTA does at least.

On what Dr. Sinnott said, I hope I am not putting him in an awkward position. We have had several conversations. On a scale of one to ten, how seriously does he think the NTA takes accessibility for people with disabilities?

It does not take it seriously at all. It has told us it does not intend to do anything with the UNCRPD unless it is directed to by the Minister or the Department of disability. It just has no interest. It claims to be following the National Disability Authority's 2022 guidelines, Participation Matters, but it is clearly not. Pages 18 and 19 prioritise DPROs in committees and the NTA is not doing that. It just seems to be that one or two people in the NTA decide what they think goes and they have some sort of hotline and are not interested in general conversation.

I mentioned that the NTA is a problem. It is a major problem. Dr. Sinnott, Mr. Delaney, Ms Carthy and I have all seen it. I asked it about the UNCRPD. It changed the livery from the famous yellow and blue and red and white. It showed us a white one and made us choose one. Then when the buses came, they were dark blue. That is the sort of lack of consultation and lack of knowledge. Anyone could tell you dark blue is the worst colour in the world because it is so quickly lost in the visual spectrum. Green is the second worst.

I welcome all the witnesses. I apologise for being in and out to other meetings. The committee needs to take seriously the point the witnesses made about the NTA. If it is not taking this on board, how will we make the changes? That is something the committee needs to look at strongly.

I agree on scooters. They are constantly being used on footpaths and they are a danger, particularly for wheelchair users. I work closely with and have been involved in supporting the Irish Wheelchair Association in Kenagh, County Longford and I praise the work it does at a local and national level.

I was recently at a presentation by Rehab in the audiovisual room and Mr. Hannafin came to speak at it. I was taken aback that he was late - it was not that he did not come on time - because he could not get a wheelchair-accessible taxi to bring him to Leinster House.

He explained that.

We need to look at the regulatory authority for taxis to make sure there is availability. It is not acceptable in the current day and age to see a situation like that, so I would like the committee to address it.

It has been highlighted that there has been no consultation with any of the organisations here about active travel. That is not acceptable. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money has gone into putting in infrastructure for cycling and walking and the witness organisations, who are equally entitled to use the facilities, were not consulted. There is a lot of learning for the committee in the points the witnesses have brought up.

I chaired the Joint Committee on Autism and we have an all-party group pushing, advocating and looking for supports, changes and ultimately legislation to support the autistic and neurodivergent community. With regard to hidden disabilities, parking and so on, will the witnesses comment on the lack of facilities?

I do a presentation for An Garda Síochána. I could do it for the committee, but it would take 40 minutes. That is the problem. I tell them the story of when I was nearly arrested for assaulting a garda because of being drunk and disorderly. I have traumatic vertigo. It cannot be seen. I am also completely deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the other ear. Between vertigo, deafness and brain injury I am all over the place. That is how I lost my teeth. I fell on the garda. He assumed. I use the line "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". The kerbstones are assumptions. People cannot see me. When they see the stick, they can see me and that I am disabled. Harry Potter needed a cloak for invisibility. I do not. Mr. Delaney does not. We cannot be seen. If people see the stick, they know I am disabled, but without it, I am an old fat drunk or a junkie. That is the problem. People do not see it. They are not aware. It constantly comes back to being aware. People have to ask questions and not assume. That is the big problem with invisible disabilities. I have numerous disabilities, quite a number, but they cannot be seen. Therefore, I am invisible.

The Deputy raised something. I came to him about how I was treated when he was Chair of the autism committee and I am still waiting for him to come back. Again we were invisible. I was told that because I was autistic, I was not good enough to train for a paralympic sport.

The scenario in a nutshell is that there needs to be advertising. The HSE has got advertising all over the place. Millions of euro have been spent on broadsheet, YouTube and mainstream media. Start investing that in educating the general public. If we go along and are on a train, the rattling on a Mark 4 train drives us bananas. It is like a teacher scratching their nails down a board. It is also basic respect for us as human beings. There are people with physical disabilities who have no respect for some of us because they can be seen, and we are not. They make no allowances for how we interact or we are a joke. We can be belittled and besmirched. I was made to feel millimetres small up in the Public Gallery in the Dáil not so long ago. Unless we get our own act within the disability community and treat each other with respect then we cannot expect elected officials and civil servants to treat us with respect.

I apologise; it is just one of those mornings. I was voting and had two other meetings. I apologise for being in and out. I welcome all the witnesses. I know some of them and I am meeting others for the first time. I thank them all very much for coming here, giving up their time, their very good opening statements and the work they all do. I apologise if some of these questions have been covered already. They can tell me, and I will move on.

I will start with Mr. Kavanagh. He called for a reform of personal mobility supports. How does he see this being structured? I am a big believer in ensuring that independence is a right, not a privilege. How does he see that working?

The point around that is in absence of appropriate public transport infrastructure, particularly in more rural areas, personal vehicles become a significant enabler. That is if a person has got access to them. As was alluded to by Senator Clonan earlier, they are very expensive. We could be looking at €80,000 for an adapted van before some of the adaptions go into it. It is somewhere between €50,000 and €100,000 for a lot of vehicles that are adapted to a significant level. Current grants relieving VRT and so on certainly do not go a fraction of the way towards the real-world costs of acquisition. People are left fundraising and different things like that or are reliant on family.

The knock-on downstream effects of enabling someone with their own mobility are significant. The necessity on family or local support services is reduced. The person is given an opportunity to be an active member of society, engaged in the workforce and independent in the world in lots of ways. When it comes to personal mobility, there may be a means testing required but I call to significantly increase the threshold of means-testing. The cost of disability is real. It is something that every person with a disability lives with. It is estimated to be €15,000 per year. That is before we look at the acquisition of a vehicle or anything like that. We can look to likes of the motability schemes in the UK. They seem to have worked reasonably well over the years.

It is better anyway.

Did Mr. Hannafin want to comment on that?

I echo what Mr. Kavanagh said about the cost of personal transport for some people with disabilities living in rural areas. The only option is to have private transport. The VRT grant often does not even cover the cost of the VRT. The applicant does not find out what the cost of the VRT is going to be until they have bought the van and made the adaptions. They have already outlaid a huge amount for that then they get lumbered with VRT that may not be covered by the grant. Another issue is that if I own my vehicle, I have difficulty insuring it because I own it but I cannot drive it. I am not a driver because I need my personal assistants or other people to drive the van for me. My disability is too great that I am not able to drive it. I am not able to insure it myself. That is a huge barrier because I have to find somebody else who will be the named insurer.

That is interesting.

Mr. Kavanagh referenced means test. The figures have not changed since 2018. We have had people contact us and I have permission to mention their names. Saoirse Smith is a civil servant because she got a new increment she has lost it. Former Paralympian Padraic Moran - to use his words - he is "cured." That would be his words if he was brought in here or if it was Googled. He says that he is cured. Mr. Fulham has heard him say it as well. Padraic feels that the State feels like he is "cured" because he is working. Taxis are allowed to charge while a person is being secured in a taxi. The Cathaoirleach of the transport committee, Deputy Michael Murphy, may be a new TD, but the time he invests in talking to people about disabilities to learn and get knowledge has to be acknowledged. He is an exemplar to all cathaoirligh in this House.

Mr. Hannafin spoke about the rural isolation in the absence of public transport. His own vehicle would solve that, but there is the cost and extra cost if he has to get another person to drive it. Is there anything else that can be done to improve rural transport with regard to accessibility in the short term?

The Local Links have improved it, but the issue with them is that not all of them are accessible. A number of our service users have reported as well that some of them will not accept the free travel card. Those are still barriers. I spoke about subsidies or an addition to the travel scheme that we would be able to incorporate funding for the use of wheelchair accessible taxis if the user does not have personal transport available to them and cannot access public transport.

I completely agree. I got a job a year ago. It feels like we are nearly being discriminated for starting to pay taxes but that is a whole other thing. There is a need for the cost of disability allowance to include taxis for people in rural Ireland. I live on the edge of a town. In our area, Local Links need to be improved. Some kind of allowance towards transport costs could be something that could be included.

I am urban. I travel all around the country doing various things and see the state of the urban realm. There is a campaign called Make Way Day, which is about keeping the footpaths safe and clear for people with all disabilities. It is that simple. People are not thinking. They are blocking footpaths and parking on footpaths, and they are chaining their bikes and e-scooters to lamp posts. These are the sort of things that spoil our day. It is people just being selfish, not being aware and not being educated.

Their actions can absolutely destroy our day.

It is a lack of awareness, I think.

We have run out of time. I thank everybody for attending today. It is great to have two committees coming together to show the respect we have and what we are trying to do on this to deal with some of the issues that have been raised here.

I propose that we publish all the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank the witnesses for attending, either in the room or remotely, and for providing the various briefing materials in advance, which assisted the committee in its deliberations. The insights and expertise provided by the witnesses are critical to the committee's deliberations. It is important to consult those who have first-hand knowledge. We also need to shape and try to understand what we can do on the issue of transport for people with disabilities. As this is the last meeting before Christmas, I wish everybody a happy Christmas. I thank the members of the Committee on Disability Matters for all for the help and support over the past year. We worked really collaboratively and I appreciate that.