Dr. Aoife Price:

We welcome the opportunity to address the committee on political representation. The research we are discussing today was funded by the National Disability Authority under its research promotion scheme. I am joined online by Professor Eilionóir Flynn, a member of the research team. Unfortunately, Dr. Vivian Rath is unable to join us as he is in hospital at the moment.

Disabled people, who make up 22% of the population, are identified as having extremely low participation in political and public life in Ireland. The potential consequences of this marginalisation are that they do not have the opportunity to contribute to decision-making processes on issues that concern them. Those who identify as holding multiple intersecting identities often find themselves facing greater levels of marginalisation. Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities outlines the importance of disabled people's right "to stand for elections, to effectively hold office and perform all ... functions at all levels of government, facilitating the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate". The research we are discussing today focused on the experiences of disabled candidates who identified as holding intersecting identities and stood in the Irish local and European elections in 2024. Intersecting identities for this research were taken primarily from the nine grounds of the Equal Status Acts, including gender, marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion, race and membership of the Travelling community.

While the Acts do not explicitly include socioeconomic status as a protected characteristic, the research team included this as a further intersecting identity within the scope of the research.

This is the first research in Ireland on the impact of intersecting identities on the political participation of those with disabilities. Seven disabled election candidates with intersectional identities participated in the research. Five were disabled women and two were disabled LGBT men. We also interviewed eight organisations representing marginalised communities in Ireland, including those representing disabled people, disabled women, Travellers, migrants and LGBTQI+ people. All the candidates who participated in our research were contesting the local elections and two of the seven were elected, one being an incumbent. Several systemic barriers emerged within this research. These included barriers related to inaccessibility of the built environment, which candidates experienced when postering, canvassing and finding accessible venues in which to host campaign events. Access to information and communication was also challenging, especially for disabled people getting their message out through print, broadcast and social media. Candidates experienced negative attitudes from some members of the public and even from political colleagues and opponents. Candidates’ fears of violence were evident, especially during canvassing, and were heightened in some situations by the challenges of exiting risky situations in an accessible manner. A widespread concern was insufficient financial resourcing for the candidates to contest the elections. Candidates described the challenge of balancing personal commitments, including caring obligations, with political work, and the lack of support they received from political parties and from organisations representing other marginalised communities. As a result of these findings, the research team developed recommendations for the State, civil society and political parties to ensure more accessible pathways into political life for disabled people from under-represented communities. Our recommendations focus on three different categories of actors relating to their roles, including the State, political parties and civil society. They are as follows.

First, the State should be responsible for collecting self-reported data on disability and other identities from election candidates. This should be published in a disaggregated form that does not identify or endanger candidates. In principle, this work could be carried out by the Department responsible for elections, local authorities that administer the electoral process or the Electoral Commission. However, meaningful consultation is required with disabled people’s organisations and organisations representing other marginalised communities, as well as the relevant State bodies responsible for elections, to determine the body best placed to collect this data and how that would be processed. Second, specific supports, including additional funding, should be made available to disabled people with intersectional identities, given the extra costs associated with standing for election. Other equality measures such as quotas should also be explored to increase the levels of representation of disabled election candidates with intersectional identities. Third, communal postering via billboards and joint debates that host all election candidates should be considered. This is a norm in many European countries and addresses accessibility, visibility and equality of opportunity. Fourth, our research represents a starting point and demonstrates gaps in the research landscape. Further research concerning disability, intersectionality and political representation should be prioritised and funded nationally.

As regards political parties, they should dismantle structural barriers to the participation of disabled people with intersecting identities in all aspects of their work. They should develop inclusion guidelines at the branch level, for example, that venues chosen for party meetings and modes of communication with party members are fully accessible and inclusive. Parties should also build intersectionality into existing supporting structures, for example, within the role of development officers. Political parties should seriously consider the need for greater diversity when proposing candidates for election and co-option, including disability and other identities.

Regarding civil society, civil society organisations should be funded and supported to establish and run regular training and mentoring for disabled people, including those with intersectional identities who want to explore the idea of putting themselves forward for election. Civil society organisations representing marginalised communities should consider how they can support members of their communities, including disabled people, to become politically active, including through running for election. Disabled people’s organisations should more seriously consider supporting their members to contest elections. In doing so, they should have regard to the need to prioritise diversity beyond disability among those supported. There really is a need for further funding for disabled people's organisations to support their work. I thank the committee for its time. We welcome questions, comments and feedback.