Ms Mary Van Lieshout:

I will start with an answer to some of those questions, if that is okay, and then I will invite Mr. Sadlier and Ms Ryan to join in.

The Deputy asked how we nudge forward. I will keep my answers at the highest possible level and with a note of caution and concern. Multilateralism and absolute commitment to the multilateral institutions are critical to nudging forward public policy in every single member state. My caution is that what we have seen in the past ten years is a reduced commitment to multilateralism. I come back to the Irish bravery and courage in going for the UN Security Council seat at a time when commitment to multilateralism is at a low point. I will not say the lowest ever point, but in almost 60 years of the existence of the United Nations, I think it is hard for many of us in the room to remember when support for the UN has been more difficult. I hope, through public policy at the United Nations, that we bring forward a consensus that is almost a peer pressure on neighbouring states and regions. It is through the regional bodies, such as the Organisation of African Unity and the European Union, that the United Nations mechanisms come down regionally and on to states. Of course, people can talk to the committee about what can happen on the ground in addition to public policy, but there is no gainsaying the effect of peer pressure state by state. I believe we have seen some of that.

The Deputy asked for examples of what has happened and what remains to be done. We could point to quite significant movement in public recognition of girls' access to schools. We have certainly seen much greater support for and understanding of that internationally. As Mr. Sadlier said, one can go into many schools and see at least early participation. That participation decreases and decreases as girls get older, but we have widespread and better understanding of the value of girls' education to the family doing better and coping better with scarce resources. That is one major accomplishment of the past decade.

Where do we need good, concrete work? We need it in women's participation in peace processes and women's recognition at the peacebuilding table and the negotiating table. As an example, in the past six years of peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, there have been no female delegates on the Russian team and only two female delegates from Ukraine. Yet a significant majority of those affected by the displacement and the conflict in Ukraine are women on the move. That displacement renders them extremely vulnerable to increased levels of gender-based violence. There is the excessive military presence and the displacement from their own legal frameworks. All of that renders them much more susceptible to victimisation and gender-based violence, yet there is very low import of their knowledge and their experience at the negotiating table. If we could do one thing in every peace negotiation and ensure there is representation of women of all identities bringing their experience to the table, we would achieve a significant amount in making sure that the rights of women, girls and children are protected in that post-conflict period. That is one area where I hope we can take concrete actions and watch every single peace negotiation and ask where the female representation is. That looks small. Certainly, it looks easier than some of the more complex things we have been asking for, but its impact is very significant.

The Deputy asked us about GBV as a weapon of war and talked to us about counting and numbers.

If, in any given conflict, we cannot put a number on how many women are experiencing GBV, it is very important to us that we do not allow this absence of numbers to prevent us from taking action. We can make some assumptions based on evidence from previous conflicts. We have to act to protect people in the knowledge that displacement in and of itself increases the risk. What we know in Ukraine is that even prior to this war, women who were displaced in the region had three times the level of GBV, compared with women who were not displaced. Our argument is that we cannot wait for more data to allow us to act.

Ms Ryan spoke about some of the sessions we have had with the informal expert group on violence against women and the need for Chatham House rules. In one of our most recent informal expert listening sessions, we heard from women from across the iNGO network, including Concern, Trócaire, World Vision and Goal. All of the women who spoke on our behalf from the ground spoke about a fear of reprisal when they document or report GBV. They are afraid of reporting it to the authorities due to the reprisals they and their families will experience. Documenting GBV and making it safe to report would be another extremely significant achievement if we could only do it. It is very difficult to say to a woman, "You be the first, you go across that line because we need the numbers." It is extremely high-risk for many women to take those risks for their families and their organisations, as I hope we have demonstrated. The one reason we are not joined by our colleagues from the field to some degree is because of this awareness of the dangers that attach to publicly speaking about public policy in this area in particular.

While I absolutely want to say that documenting is really important and accountability is critical, it is hard to see the progress in that area as quickly as in some other areas for investment. This is simply because it is a life of danger and it puts children in danger for many of our colleagues who are asked to do so. I cannot give an easy answer on that.

On the issue of the exploitation of children, I will look to my colleagues and ask if there is someone who is more comfortable answering on that from the basis of their work with children and child protection on the ground.