Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the three witnesses. I am glad we seem to be narrowing down on the issue of a timeline for the optional protocol. It is welcome to hear we are not waiting for an external process in terms of the UN but that an internal set of factors, which are within the control of the State, will determine the timeline for ratification of the optional protocol. Given the Department is looking towards December or January next year with respect to the legislation on decision-making, we should seek to have the optional protocol ratified in parallel with the implementation plan in January 2022. That seems to be the natural time whereby the State will have addressed the gaps it has identified. It will have identified the gaps in implementation and addressed known legal failings. That would be the appropriate time.

I sat through the entire previous Oireachtas term during which we went from signing to ratification and ratification was delayed year after year because we were told we needed to get things in place before we could ratify. Now its seems the optional protocol is going through the same process.

There will be an iterative development to this and even in cases that are taken but the UNCRPD is already law. The optional protocol will not make it law; it is law. The optional protocol will simply ensure persons are able to hold states to accounts. It is an instrument of strengthening implementation. It is fundamental not only for the individuals but for society because it internalises that set of expectations of how we live together and treat each other. It we look to the parallels on the European Court of Human Rights on the general data protection regulation, individuals holding the State to account and reminding it of the collective commitments we have made have helped to drive implementation and create that energy for it. In doing that, they do a service to the State and the wider public body.

Professor Schefer appeared before the committee recently and I was struck by what he said. He specifically said the optional protocol is an integral part of what the UNCRPD means. He said we are used to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights creates a body of law. He spoke about how the case law under the optional protocol had the participation of individuals in reporting on the optional protocol, which allows a country to give the input it needs. Basically, it is about that collective strengthening and the building of a body of law and of case law. It is not about catching out countries; it is about working and learning.

Can we move towards a January implementation alongside the implementation plan? It seems the complaints process could be put in place in a twin-track process, as Deputy Canney suggested, during the autumn. The implementation plan will not be a set plan; the implementation will be ongoing because needs will be made evident. That is where the funding of IHREC, disabled people's organisations, DPOs, and legal aid procedures, if necessary, comes into play. We should put the multiple facets in place in the autumn to ensure we have many people looking to implementation and monitoring if it is working on ongoing basis. We will not get to a point where Ireland has everything right but we will get to point where we have a vision for it and that will evolve. Those are key aspects. Do the witnesses believe we should move towards that January date? What should we have in place in respect of an ongoing, empowered monitoring of development post-implementation plan and the raising of ambition? Another aspect is the extent to which the Department is looking to case law emerging from the UN committee and taking it on board.

The recovery and resilience strategy was mentioned. I am sure the Chairman will be able to confirm if the committee is writing to ask how disability is being reflected in that. Regarding the making of a statement to the Dáil, interestingly, we had sought an equality statement in parallel with the equality budgeting process. That proposed statement reminds me of that. I would appreciate if Mr. Lynch would advise how the Department intends to press to ensure the budgetary process specifically reflects the duties on equality and human rights because we are entering a budget cycle.

We have heard about a new Department taking on a new brief. The key issue is every Department needs to take on this brief. They should already be doing it under the public duty to an extent and should scale it up.

What measures is Dr. Lynch's Department taking with regard to the gaps between other Departments? We have had quite a few experiences as a committee of issues getting kicked from one Department to another and gaps emerging, for example, between education and health. That is a very clear example of where we have new health services being developed but the diminishment of educational supports and services at the same time. Is, for example, Dr. Lynch's Department part of the bridge in that regard? Could he give us an example of how he is navigating the gaps between Departments and, indeed, perhaps bridging some of the areas of ambiguity within Departments to make sure they are held to account?

There are so many interesting points. I thank the witnesses very much. Apologies that I probably went over time.