Dr. Clíona Saidléar:

To answer the question as to whether it is too late, like everyone else here, I think the earlier we start the better. It is also never too late, however. I have specialised in sexual violence for a very long time. I am still learning.

Third level is an appropriate point at which to start intervening and doing this work.

On the issue of reach and the mandatory aspect, I agree with Dr. Gormley. There was a query about IT Tralee. It is a question of embedding and normalising this content in, for example, induction and orientation processes. I apologise for flying through the issues raised, but this goes somewhat to the question of cost. If there is an existing orientation and induction infrastructure, the content could become a normal and embedded part of that and, consequently, would not require a new infrastructure.

Another aspect of the question on who gets to have this conversation on campus is covered under the national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. A gold standard of content is being developed across the various subject matters at third level. In this context, I am referring to training in areas where people would in their professional capacity need to have interactions about and some knowledge of sexual violence. For example, a gold standard would be developed in respect of what every nurse should know about sexual violence when graduating. That development is happening in parallel with this work, with the latter being about all students, with some specialisation and targeting of information around domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.

A part of the slightly tricky question of who volunteers is addressed by embedding and normalising it and changing the culture. It is a matter of trying to surround those who are not engaging to the point that they are inevitably engaged because the context around them has changed. It is a multilayered response, not one where people simply turn up to a workshop in order to tick a box. There must be visibility of the multiple layers of response throughout so that the wagons surround those who are reluctant participants in change, as it were.

As Dr. Gormley alluded to, the standardisation of some aspects would be helpful. Most higher education institutions would welcome some standardisation of, for example, response protocols. It is often a crime that is being responded to, which requires a multi-agency set of protocols to be devised in order to help guide every higher education institution. There are other types of standard response that we would like to be accessible to students. Ms Cahill has spoken about some of those matters. Response protocols would be an important element of standardisation.

Regarding the content of the curriculum, I would be cautious about locking it down as we do at primary and second level. As we move up in cultural sophistication, the question of locking down a curriculum becomes counterproductive. We need an evolving curriculum because our culture is evolving. In our experience regarding developing and delivering these types of programme, they go out of date very quickly. However, criteria would be locked down and standardised. For example, one would want to standardise what a learning programme is and whether a measurable capacity to evolve is built into it.

Several members asked for data and inquired about how we are counting, tracking and monitoring things. This is an important aspect of standardisation. We count badly at the moment. There are little data and visibility and a great deal of unevenness. Institutions count differently even within their different locations. ITs are doing the counting and taking responsibility for it. It is a hotchpotch, so we cannot answer the question of where we stand as regards data. It would be good if we standardised how, what and when we counted and who was counting it so that we could begin to understand what we were looking at and to measure impact. Doing it together would make it more possible and productive. A question was asked about collaboration. There is a great deal of collaboration. The universities and ITs have organisations that work on building shared and standard responses for them. As programmes and initiatives have grown, most of us at this table have engaged in organic collaborations. There are a number of structures. There has to be a collaborative, inter-agency and multilevel response from administrations, academics, students, NGOs, the Department and the HEA. It is through this type of approach that we will get there.