Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

I actually think that is the compelling reason we need this framework now. It is precisely when one has fewer resources that one needs a framework that very clearly identifies the criteria we use to decide how one will spend those resources. It is precisely at a time when one has limited resources that one needs really good decision-making - evidence-based, outcomes-focused and transparent decision-making. That is exactly what one needs when one has limited resources.

Human rights law does not say that states must sign a blank cheque but what is says instead is that within the limits of available resources, there is a framework which has to be applied in how states decide how they are going to allocate those resources. It is about minimum obligations.

When we talk about minimum obligations in that regard, we need to remember that this convention was adopted in 1966. Sometimes people talk about ESC obligations as if these are wildly aspirational, way off concepts. These were minimum obligations states agreed were appropriate in 1966 when the world was a much poorer place. Countries like Ireland were much poorer. These are standards Ireland signed up to in 1989. I left Ireland in the flood of emigration in 1986 and at a time when Ireland had a very depressed economy and yet in 1989, Ireland believed that it could sign up to the binding obligations.

Consequently, that argument based on limited resources is compromised for many reasons but fundamentally because it is when one has fewer resources that one needs better decision-making. One needs transparency, clarity of purpose, outcome-focused decisions and decisions that are solidly grounded in evidence. This is what a human rights framework would require. Governments decide what they can do within the maximum of available resources and the focus is on the process that is used, not the amount of money involved.