Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank our witnesses for their presentations. There is no doubt regarding the high calibre of the panel nor about the high level of their CVs and experience. I speak as somebody who knows several members of the panel as colleagues and friends, but we are very impressed by the expertise they bring to the panel process. The fact they stood aside as a group when they had a doubt about the method of their selection, confirmed for me the high status they have as a group of people who are extremely well equipped to choose the new commissioners.

This committee had public hearings on 14 July on the heads of the Bill and at that hearing some concerns were expressed regarding the method of selection of the panel. The issue of the Paris Principles was raised and, in particular, the issue of the role of Parliament and of the Oireachtas committee in scrutinising appointments to both the panel and the commission. We teased that out in some detail with the NGOs before the committee and referred to it in our report. The fact the panel has specifically looked for a stronger role for Parliament is a good indication of the understanding all the panel members have of the need for democratic legitimacy.

One of the things on which this committee and all of the NGOs agreed was that the process Ms O'Reilly heads is infinitely better and more transparent than the appointments process for the previous human rights commission. Senator Zappone referred to some of the controversy around that and we are all conscious of that. There is no doubt the issue of scrutiny is very important, but if we have the power of approval - I am not sure we do - undoubtedly we approve the appointment of the five members of the panel.

The questions I have concern the future. The panel stood aside until further clarity on the issue of the UN deputy commissioner's comments had been achieved, but now it is back in and we are delighted it is here before us. We have been briefed on the fact that the process is now under way and that after this public hearing with the committee, there will be continued engagement with the Department of Justice and Equality and the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. Presumably, the panel will have ongoing discussions with these. Can we have some more clarity on that process?

Mention has been made of the interim commission and much of what has been done will require retrospective approval. Is the panel as a group satisfied with the process that has been agreed?