Ms Jacqui Browne:

I will do my very best to address Deputy Cairn's questions. I thank her for her insightful questions that show a depth of understanding and respect for the position in the Irish Thalidomide Association, which is most helpful. The Deputy hit the nail on the head regarding the optional protocol. What that would do for all disabled people, including Irish thalidomide survivors, is allow any individual to follow up and take a case or an issue to the UN, but only in the event the individual had exhausted all options in the State first. One still has to go through all the mechanisms for seeking a resolution. The optional protocol would be hugely helpful.

It would also allow for people to come together, although there is no such thing as class actions under the Irish legal framework. The Deputy knows that better than I do. At the same time, it would allow people to coalesce and work together. We were promised originally that once the first State draft report to the UN convention was issued and presented to the UN, the optional protocol would be signed. That was issued last year by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and we are still waiting. It has not happened yet. It is hoped that will happen soon. We are waiting on the Minister to sign the optional protocol. That is a game changer for all disabled people, including Irish thalidomide survivors, but people must appreciate one has to start locally before one can avail of it.

To come back to the gaps in the list, it would be great if we could give the committee the rest of the list with the services we need. Ms Cassidy highlighted several times in her presentation and answers that our needs our unique. One cannot come up with a shopping list that applies across the board to all 40 of us, but the number is small. This is why we emphasise the issue of non-discrimination. While our needs our unique, the solutions can be found and provided within this country. However, it is not a one size fits all. That is for sure. Different people have different impairments and restrictions in day-to-day life.

Some of them are very easily dealt with but we need people to sit down and talk to us, meet us and respect our lived experience of 60 years. We know the way we have lived for the past 60 years and what the issues are, where and how we get pain and what causes more pain for us, such as not having a piece of equipment, a motorised chair or the right adaptations in our houses. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

To come back to where the Deputy started on equality before the law in Article 5.1, it is still the case in this country, and rightly so, that any settlement made in favour of a minor has to be adjudicated upon by the High Court. An arrangement was issued before the High Court but the problem was that it was never ruled upon. The "settlement" that was offered and given to our parents, albeit small lump sums of money, was never ruled upon by the High Court. That is one of our big issues.

We cannot speak any more to that issue today but those are the historical facts. We, as adults now at the age of 60, do not believe we have yet experienced equality before the law. They would be the main factors I would like to bring to the committee's attention. I would point to inequity, including geographic inequity, and lack of access. Ms Cassidy rightly stated that there are other experts in the world to whom we need to have access, as appropriate, for both the acknowledged and unacknowledged thalidomide survivors.