Dr. Clíona Saidléar:

The Senator's first question was about capacity and the third national strategy coming on stream. I echo what Ms Blackwell said earlier. We have this new agency coming, but the strategy in the draft form we have seen was just empty on describing what the process is going to be regarding how we get to this new agency, which will take the next two years. That is somewhat anxiety-inducing because we are currently way beyond our capacity in terms of what is being asked of us in advocacy. Yes, we are being asked. We are here and we are very grateful for all the times we are asked and included for our advice and our best thinking, but we are certainly put to the pin of our collar and stretched in being able to give all those the time they need. We do not have the resources and capacity to do the work that is being asked of us at present, not to mind the work that will be asked of us in the next two to three years as we build into this.

As part of our thinking in looking at sexual violence as a structural issue in terms of part of the infrastructure that will change and address gender inequality, we need to look at taking seriously the analysis, thinking and advice that are available to us and the sustained specialisation that is available. I can speak for the RCNI organisation; we really have struggled to sustain and to build. The three of us have been in the sector for a long time, working and focused on this subject. The type of specialisation being looked for here, and the type of commitment and investment in individuals to build up the skills and the specialisation, require security of employment and organisations that are able to support the focus on those issues. That is always precarious, and it continues to be precarious for us.

In terms of service delivery and not just the advocacy piece, obviously in the service delivery for us part of our commitment to every survivor who walks through the door is that we will take what we understand from them and bring it to the committee, and that requires the translation. We did a mapping halfway through the year last year and, at that point, there were 1,000 survivors on waiting lists somewhere in this country waiting to start counselling in a rape crisis centre. There is that aspect of capacity as well.

Moving to the courts question, there are some concrete things. I echo, and emphasise we are seeing it as well, a concern about instruments such as the invitation for people to undergo psychiatric assessment, for example, as part of family law cases. It is an invitation but if one does not take it up, it is kind of coerced. There really is not much by way of choice there. We know of people who have been subjected to psychiatric assessments multiple times. We see that as coercive and as a punishment. When the wrong outcome has not been found, they are put through the cycle again. There is something there about the professional standards of the professions involved. I draw the committee's attention to the assessors who are not necessarily psychiatrists at all. In fact, their professional qualification is uncertain. It is an area that is unregulated. Again, people are sent to these assessors. It is unregulated and perhaps the Oireachtas could look at the regulation of the assessors and the protection of people going through that system in terms of how they are referred to it.

I reiterate that the issue in respect of sentencing guidelines is we need transparency, which is very lacking. If we have that information in the database and out in the open, we can at least have the conversation. That conversation is part of what makes our democracy robust. Let us not be afraid of the data. Let us get the data out there and have the conversation.