Nem Kearns:

I thank all speakers. I specifically thank Deputy Cairns for asking the question about the commitments on resourcing. I want to add to what my colleagues have said to highlight certain aspects. Because our State bodies tend to work in silos, we have a very piecemeal and ad hocapproach. It is great to see more consultation happening, but it needs to be better thought-out and done together. For example, recently, Disabled Women Ireland, DWI, was asked to make a submission to the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, GREVIO, on Ireland's implementation of the Istanbul Convention. As other witnesses have highlighted, we were very constrained by the complete lack of data available in Ireland and the fact that the little data available in Ireland are not comparable internationally because we are not following international best practices. Race, ethnicity, disability and sexuality are known to be huge risk factors and contributing factors in sexual violence, but we do not collect that data. We do not really collect data on disability. Those were all things that constrained us in our submission. At the same time as we were doing that, we are also submitting to the CRC. That is the period that the CSO held its public consultation in. We, and many other DPOs, were not able to submit to that consultation. I am not saying that to criticise anyone, but it is just that there is not yet an understanding of the work and role of DPOs and the multifaceted identity of disabled people. There have also been several times in the past where public consultations on specifically disability-related schemes or legislation have occurred at the same time, without checking to see what commitments that would put on DPO resources and if it could be better timed. The foundation of accessibility is flexibility. I know that there will be restrictions on how consultations can be carried out. However, I think we need to reframe, be ambitious and look at a more ongoing forum for consultation rather than having these two- or three-week periods for consultation whereby if an organisation is not able to submit in that timeframe, its views go unheard. We need to have a better mechanism for consulting on those issues. It can be done and we are able to do this. The Irish are a very inventive people.

In reference to Deputy Tully's point, and this is not actually an attempt to flatter, but an example of good practice that I have seen in public consultation was actually the the call for public submissions by this committee when it was convened. We were supporting a number of individuals who wished to make submissions to do so. There were accessibility barriers in how the consultation was set up and worded originally. When that was raised with the clerk of the committee, it as resolved within 24 hours. That is what we need. We need that adaptability and listening. We need to ask whether something can be changed rather than saying that we have what is written here, and we will look into making the change the next time we review it in five years, ten years or whatever. I just wanted to highlight that as a very good example. I would love to see more of that. It is not that we expect everything to be exactly right for every person the first go round. If that is the reality, we need the adaptability of noting that there is something that we did not think of and it can be changed.