Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I apologise for arriving late; I was attending another meeting. I can stay for the remainder of the meeting, however, as I do not have to leave at 3 p.m.

It was valuable to hear the emphasis on disability in international development. I commend all the witnesses and Dóchas on co-ordinating the briefings we have received. We were all glad to hear the references to A Better World, the Irish aid policy. The committee fed into the development of the policy and held hearings on it. It was extremely useful for us to hear how much work is going on in so many areas under the umbrella of Irish Aid. I note Irish Aid funds all sorts of programmes run by different NGOs and development organisations, which is positive. I was also struck by the witnesses' emphasis on the practical implementation of and approach to policy.

I have a couple observations or questions, partly because last week I was honoured to be on an Oireachtas delegation to a conference of women political leaders at which over 80 countries, both developed and developing, were represented. The delegates were all women parliamentarians. Our focus was on how to work with the UN as women parliamentarians to implement the sustainable development goals. One of the key points that came out of that conference was the intersectional nature of inequality and the importance of having an intersectional approach to working on sustainable development and on the goals. Obviously, we talked about goal 5 on gender equality. However, many references were made to the intersection of gender and disability, the particular challenges faced by women with disabilities in developing countries and the need to ensure that programmes recognise the intersectional challenges. How do we all ensure not only that we are disability-proofing and gender-proofing but also that we are recognising all those different ways in which people experience inequality or oppression? It is difficult to achieve that in a practical sense. If only one of us had the answer, it would be great.

At the conference, we learned from many other countries, including in respect of best practice in some countries. In Sweden, for example, the Government is explicitly feminist and every programme, including international development, is gender-proofed by somebody in-house in the relevant department. It was useful to learn about that type of practical model. I ask the witnesses to comment.

Another issue to emerge at the conference, one that is increasingly evident if one looks at UN programmes under the sustainable development goals and World Health Organization programmes, is the emphasis on public private partnerships. This is interesting. As parliamentarians, our focus is on the State response and what the Irish Government and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are doing. According to the delegates from developing countries at the conference, developing companies are increasingly working closely with big corporations to try to achieve practical implementation of poverty eradication programmes, programmes tackling disability, etc. Two examples we heard about were a big pharmaceutical company funding a major maternity healthcare programme in India and, probably better known, the major announcement by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation only two years ago of a plan to eradicate river blindness. Will the witnesses comment on that? Obviously, ethical issues arises, particularly where a pharmaceutical company is becoming involved. That would certainly have been my view prior to the conference. However, having listened to women MPs who were delegates to the conference and who have been trying to work practically and with limited funding in their home countries to eradicate river blindness or ensure that women do not die in childbirth, this type of programme has major attractions. I do not know whether the witnesses can comment on that from their own experience.