3 6 July 2016
POLITICS
Y
ou would have to wonder who put this one in
the Programme for Government. There
seems no intention actually to do it. That,
sadly, is not a new phenomenon. This time
is different though. They don’t even seem to
know what it is. Nonetheless they said they “would
develop the process of budget and policy proofing as a
means of advancing equality, reducing poverty and
strengthening economic and social rights”.
Paschal Donohoe, Minister for Public Expenditure
and Reform, understandably brushed the whole matter
aside in answer to a Dáil question from David Cullinane
TD of Sinn Féin. He said that, “overall, the analysis and
transparency of the deci-
sion-making process has
been undergoing constant
improvement over recent
years and I envisage this
continuing”.
The problem is that proofing involves more than anal-
ysis and transparency. It requires analysis and a
commitment to change policy to further goals of equal-
ity, poverty-reduction and
implementing economic and social
rights. It requires transparency, but
also the participation in decision-mak-
ing of groups experiencing inequality,
poverty and human rights issues.
He went on about the ESRI SWITCH
model and its “distributional analyses
of budget tax options”. He bravely told
of his Department’s new Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) framework “designed
to focus on policy areas that cannot
easily be incorporated into the existing SWITCH model”.
That was it really, SWITCH and SIA to the rescue.
He could have summed it up with either “we are
already doing it” or more accurately, since they are not,
“we are not going to be doing anything on this”.
Political promises continue to depress.
The Dáil Committee on Arrangements for Budget
Scrutiny, on the other hand, appears for some reason
to be taking the commitment seriously. It held a special
session to engage with the Irish Human Rights and
Equality Commission (IHREC). However, it all boiled
down to a plea at the end from the Committee for IHREC
to provide “five or six key points against which Depart-
ments can be measured”. This was a disappointing
conclusion to what is an ambitious and complex com-
mitment to assess and improve the budget, while it is
being prepared, to ensure it contributes to advancing
equality across nine grounds, and addresses poverty
and economic and social rights.
It goes back to the question of who put this into the
Programme for Government. Ste-
phen Donnelly, David Cullinane
and Tommy Broughan seemed to
know what they were talking
about in the debate. There was
no one on the Government side,
which presumably wrote the Programme for Govern-
ment, who seemed to know what this proofing was
about, or who championed the commitment with any
enthusiasm. That explains a lot.
IHREC made it clear that the proofing had to be done
by the relevant Government Departments and not by
IHREC. It is worrying that the Dáil Committee seemed
surprised at this. Proofing policy for equality has to be
integral to the policy-making process. Corrections must
be made before the policy is implemented. Neverthe-
less IHREC indicated it might provide support, having
initially suggested its role was one of encouragement
only. There certainly needs to be support as there is no
evidence of the necessary capacity being available to
Government Departments.
Stephen Donnelly TD of the Social Democrats raised
the important issue of controlling quality during the
process. IHREC was not making any offers in this
regard. Valid fears were expressed by Tommy Broughan
TD, independent, that the process could degenerate
into a tick-box exercise. An independent and authorita-
tive setting of standards is vital and IHREC is best
We’re already
doing/not doing it
Commitment required to equality-
proofing policy and expenditure, not
just to transparency
Neither our model of
party politics, nor the
model of globalised
economics can be
relied upon to create
a ‘whole’ society
by Niall Crowley
July 2016 3 7
placed to play this role.
The Dáil Committee had to be disabused of
the notion that equality, poverty and human-
rights proofing of the budget could be put in
place in time for the forthcoming budget. IHREC
clarified the scale of change demanded by the
commitment not just in the content of the
budget but in the systems for developing the
budget. It usefully suggested a strategy of evo-
lution where small foundational steps could be
taken this year and built on over coming years
to develop a more complete proofing process.
This approach requires some clarity as to what
a fully-fledged process might involve but here
there was little clarity on this.
There was acknowledgement of the complex-
ity of a proofing process that encompasses
equality, poverty and human rights. There is no
national or international model for this and no
clear direction whether the three areas should
be integrated or addressed separately. There
was some acceptance that there are differences
between the three fields encompassing both
ambition and approach.
IHREC offered some clarity in relation to
human rights. This covers: progressive realisa-
tion of economic and social rights; ensuring
maximum available resources are invested in
these rights; protecting core basic standards in
these areas; and ensuring no unjustifiable
regression of provision in these areas. Greater
familiarity was clearly evident in relation to pov
-
erty goals of setting and seeking to achieve
targets for reducing the numbers of people
experiencing deprivation, the risk of poverty,
and consistent poverty respectively.
There was no mention of goals for equality.
This is the area where most ambition is
demanded and the silence was not promising.
Achieving full equality in practice needs to be
the policy goal for women; lone parents; carers,
lesbian, gay and bisexual people; trans people;
people with disabilities; young people; older
people; and Black and minority ethnic people
including Travellers.
Proofing should lead to substantive change
in the availability to these groups of goods such
as income, work, wealth, education, accommo-
dation and health.
Little detail was provided in the debate on the
different approaches demanded in proofing for
poverty, equality and human rights. There was
a failure to link the commitment to proofing with
the new statutory duty on public bodies since
2014 to have regard to the need to “eliminate
discrimination, promote equality, and protect
human rights” in implementing their functions.
As part of their duty public bodies must identify
the equality and human rights issues relevant
to their functions. Tracking investment in these
issues could usefully be a focus for any budget-
proofing exercise.
The true seeds for the commitment to proof-
ing in the Programme for Government
germinated following last year’s recommenda-
tions of the UN Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights when Ireland presented its
report. Recommendations made included that
the Government should: “ensure that austerity
measures are gradually phased out and the
effective protection of the rights under the Cov-
enant is enhanced in line with the progress
achieved in the post-crisis economy recovery”;
“consider reviewing its tax regime, with a view
to increasing its revenues to restore the pre-cri-
sis levels of public services and social benefits,
in a transparent and participatory manner”; and
“consider instituting human rights impact
assessments in its policymaking process, par-
ticularly relating to Covenant rights”.
IHREC too played a role in securing these rec-
ommendations and can take much credit for the
commitment to a broader proofing mechanism
that encompassed equality, poverty and eco-
nomic and social rights in the Programme for
Government. However, they face a dilemma, as
became clear in the Dail Committee’s insistence
on knowing how many staff they would dedi-
cate to supporting this proofing. There is a
classic taming mechanism for state agencies
whereby Government overloads them with
responsibilities beyond their original mandate
to a point where they cannot even implement
this mandate. IHREC showed a gratifyingly keen
appreciation of this danger.
The challenge it faces is evident in its recently
published 2015 Annual Report. IHREC, for exam-
ple, received 32 requests for legal assistance
but only granted assistance in five cases. IHREC
received 14 requests for legal inquiries but
refused all of them. Action on securing imple-
mentation of the public-sector duty was limited
to background research and work with the Insti-
tute of Public Administration on an equality and
human rights course. There was little by way of
action to support good practice by employers
or service providers. These core areas of work
must be afforded the resources to grow. As
must the potent commitment to supporting
budget-proofing.
There was a failure to
link the commitment to
proofing with the new
statutory duty on public
bodies since 2014 to
have regard to a similar
agenda
READY FOR CHANGE

Loading

© 2015 Village Magazine

Back to Top