Dr. Mary Murphy:

In building our capacity it very much depends on where we believe we could play a potential role in the various institutional spaces that will emerge to support the roll-out of the range of proofing mechanisms that may emerge. It would probably be useful to make clear from the start that, by necessity, a vast amount of this work can only be done within Departments. As Ms Logan stated, a large part of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's legal mandate is to encourage, but it is also to assist and support. We do not put ourselves forward as the proofing mechanism because, by necessity, the policies that are known and need to be proofed are within Departments, particularly at the most sensitive stage of the budget cycle when one would like to see an engagement with them before they become policy. That is ideally where one would like to eventually place the heart of one's proofing mechanisms, but we do not believe that is necessarily our role. While there may be instances when we may be called in to assist in that role or around the edges of it, there is already the skills capacity to some degree in Departments and it is being used in various ways to engage in proofing. The issue is bringing together these mechanisms to make more sense of them in order that they have an input into the budgetary process to good effect. We are not putting ourselves forward as the proofing mechanism.

The capacities we have been trying to draw up internationally are primarily through the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions, ENNHRI, and Equinet, the European network of equality institutions. These networks have subgroups which engage with information sharing and expertise networks on proofing mechanisms. We have also networked into the New York-based Centre for Economic and Social Rights which is probably the most effective organisation globally for advancing a range of mechanisms centred on bringing human rights principles into proofing mechanisms. Deputy Hildegarde Naughten also referred to the Latin American specialist centre which engages, in particular, in revenue proofing and tax or fiscal proofing and has at its disposal a range of mechanisms it has developed. What we bring, in the first instance, is knowledge of what mechanisms are being used globally and who is using them to good effect. We also know, for example, that when training and experts are required or specific enabling or mentoring is required, we can tap in and quickly make these resources available through our networks. We view this as very much part of the process.

The Deputy asked a question about the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's in-house capacity. Section 18 of the legislation allows us to set up a statutory research advisory group, which would include international legal and policy experts with some experience of proofing. The group has already met. Let me give an example of what it is doing. Having scoured the British Isles to some degree, we will on Friday next, 24 June, bring together a range of actors from academic, legal and policy practitioner circles with experience of the various aspects of proofing.

We are bringing together a range of the actors from academic, legal and policy practitioner circles who we believe have had experience of the various aspects of proofing. We are doing a technical workshop with them in the first instance to find as quick and as effective a way as is possible of drawing out that learning and then shaping it to make it available to these processes as they emerge. We are not saying we have a staff member who can do a proofing exercise in a Department. Neither do we think we should because we do not believe that would be the most effective way of ensuring proofing impacts on the policy process.

In terms of human rights principles, there are several policy guidance mechanisms which help guide policy. Some of them are about the progressive realisation of particular human rights, some are about protecting core basic standards which should not be undermined, and others are about looking at tax policy to ensure the maximum available resources are being progressively realised. The Deputy referred specifically to the principle of non-retrogression. In that context, the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights drew up a series of advices for governments when they are operating in the context of austerity or some type of economic crisis. It advised a policy process akin to proofing and asked governments to engage in this to justify the degree to which any retrogression of an existing human right could be justified. Some of the processes include asking the government in question if it has exhausted all possible other remedies or has it put in place mechanisms to ensure ways to redress the policy once resources become available again.

These processes are quite practical at one level in saying that a government should only regress a right that has already been progressively realised in the event of having gone through particular safeguards in terms of policy process. On the other level, they must ensure the cut has been made in a way that it can effectively be restored. There are a range of principles about how a government does not retrogress the right to the degree that it cannot be brought back once resources become available again. These are all practical, in some respects, in giving guidance as to how policy might better protect rights in a period where they would be perceived to be under threat, perhaps through no fault of a government. It gives almost a governance process through which it can be managed, be more accountable or transparent.