Dr. Mary Murphy:

I will start by saying that we will not be the proofer. I will end up being quoted on that in all the wrong ways. In any event, what I meant was that it is not really an issue of our capacity - to some degree that is not relevant question - rather, it is simply not appropriate for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to be the proofer. The proofer should be the Department that is considering the development of the policy and that is responsible for building the proofing mechanisms as early as possible into that policy process - right from the very start in fact. That is why we should not be the proofer. There may be instances - for example, learning-by-doing or enabling instances - whereby we would be perfectly willing to engage in partnership exercises with specific Departments at certain stages in the development of the skillsets they may need. Some of these are in-house in any event and it is a matter of using them in a different way or perhaps sometimes in a different spirit. That is why we should not be the proofer. The aim is to embed the process of proofing as early as possible in the Department's process and to make that information available to all the actors in the policy process, preferably as early as possible. That is the reason. It is not about our capacity. The IHREC orients its capacity and tries to play a role in giving support to the process rather than the execution of it. That is what I mean about building up networks, providing quality training, information, briefing sheets and so on. In other words, our role is an enabling role as well as serving as the body that calls out when it is appropriate.

I thought it might be useful to comment the other question by reference to the Scottish process. Those involved took the view that it was important institutionally to drive forward the process and keep it on the road when it was sometimes a little shaky using what they called EBAG. I would not particularly recommend that acronym but it stands for Equality and Budget Advisory Group of the Scottish Parliament. That is the term they use but this committee might think of a more creative name for it. They try to get together relevant people such as, for example, the Chairman of this committee, senior civil servants of the lead Department and perhaps organisations like the IHREC, as well as one or two others. It brings together the central actors and tries to keep the show on the road in the most tactical and strategic way. That group minds and nurtures the process over time. It engages in problem-solving, troubleshoots and tries to anticipate where things may need to be called out. As far as I know, it is a sensitive group and the people on it are charged with minding that area and behaving maturely. The various actors have to co-operate because they will have a different range of interests. It seems to work well and it may be a model worth looking at, especially now at this formative stage.