Mr. Laurence Bond:

To answer the Deputy’s broader question of whether it was just about budget proofing, clearly it is not. That is what we are discussing specifically in this context, along with actioning the commitments in the programme for Government. For instance, there is the public sector duty commitment in the legislation which requires all public bodies, including Departments, to take account of equality and human rights and the impact they have, and the need to assess the impact of their policies on service users and others. We argue that there is a broader requirement for Departments and public bodies more generally to develop policy which takes account of equality and human rights. One way to bring that about is through budget proofing but that is not to the exclusion of taking other reviews into account.

On the issue of budget proofing, the model laid out in the budget scrutiny report last year was the idea that this oversight committee would have a broad oversight role, especially regarding how the process was being developed by some of the lead Departments, primarily Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. Much of the finer scrutiny of how Departments address this issue would have to be through sectoral committees. As we outlined last year, rather than all responsibility for scrutiny lying on the Oireachtas, the onus should be on the Departments to carry out the proofing and it is then for the Oireachtas to scrutinise that to ensure they deliver. Departments themselves would have to come to committees and show where they had addressed the requirement to equality proof. Deputy Calleary made the point that people on the housing committee might not necessarily think of gender but that is something that needs to be addressed and taken into account when we consider policies. That is what budget proofing in equality and human rights means.

A key issue underpinning that is the role of the independent parliamentary budget office which has not progressed as quickly as it might have. We think it should be a key part of the institutional architecture into the future and we want to see it move ahead quickly. Among the things we want to see is a clear statement in the budget regarding the commitment for budget proofing in the programme for Government, and to ensure that it is meaningful. We recognise it is a long-term process but we need to see steps taken each year, which would be a sign that progress was being made on this commitment. If, prior to the budget, this committee and the line committees could take this into account in questioning their Departments, it would be an important part of the architecture. We feel the independent budget office must be brought about sooner rather than later.