Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who has contributed. Yet again, it has been a powerful engagement. As part of this theme, there is nothing like the lived experience to bring home the gaps in equality across all aspects of our society.

Last week a witness used the term "ableist privilege". I cannot help but sit and think that this is another example of ableist privilege. It would appear, at a very basic level, that some sort of checklist was created and the view was that if we ticked all of the boxes we will have done enough, rather than making a seismic and paradigm shift as a society to ensure all of our society should be inclusive.

I am very struck by the words of Ms Smith about being able or unable to do ordinary things in ordinary places. For me, that is the strongest message across this meeting. There must be an ability to do ordinary things in ordinary places at all times.

There is no doubt that this committee will take a mandate from all of the witnesses to start hammering the drum very loudly regarding the regulations. That is not enough. It is only one aspect of this. We have talked about the census and lack of metrics. I would be a little bit concerned that if we were to put a question into the census we would end up with an answer that means a percentage of our population would be catered for in a percentage way, rather than moving to a position whereby all of society must always be inclusive and accessible. We should not think that the only disability issue or lack of planning for everyone involves inclusion. I would value some guidance on that.

Witnesses spoke about minimum standards. Mr. O'Herlihy and Mr. Cunningham spoke about the publication of the guidelines and said there is a minimum and maximum or a stepped level of provision. From that point of view, would it be useful to have one level of provision that should be inclusive? Knowing that there will be bespoke additions for individuals moving into accommodation, should we put in place a mechanism that meets those particular bespoke needs while ensuring there are no cost implications for the person who needs to access such accommodation? How do we ensure that the position is the most inclusive possible?

Ms Smith touched on the Equal Status Acts. I am an employment services lawyer by trade and have brought cases under the Equal Status Acts on a number of occasions. The nature of the Acts is access to a service and whether someone, by implication, is discriminated against or there is secondary discrimination. Have there been any successful prosecutions with regard to the lack of toilet facilities or facilities in the likes of supermarkets and public spaces that are privately owned and controlled?

My main question relates to Norway. Was there a time when it was where we are now? What was the transition to where it is now? Was it always inclusive at an incremental level and has simply now achieved a very high benchmark? I am curious to know what sort of transition period we are talking about. There is an historical background and structures within our society that would take quite some time to move across. Can anything be learned from the Norway experience that could accelerate that and which we as a committee can advocate for?