David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in public session. We are here today to engage with members of the selection panel for the new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. On behalf of the committee I thank everyone for coming and welcome them to the committee - Ms Emily O'Reilly, Dr. Mary Keys, Ms Sylda Langford, Professor Gerard Quinn and Professor Gerard Whyte. They are all welcome and I thank them for giving their time to be here today.

I ask everyone to turn off their mobile phones completely. Silent mode is not sufficient, as the telephone phone signals interfere with the sound recording system.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are also directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite the members of the selection panel to make their opening remarks.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

We thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the invitation to appear here this afternoon. I will make a brief opening statement outlining our position on the selection panel and the appointment of the members of the proposed new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. My four colleagues, Professor Gerard Quinn, Dr Mary Keys, Professor Gerry Whyte and Ms Sylda Langford, shall in turn make individual statements about their professional involvement in the field of human rights and equality generally. We will then answer any questions that members have which are within our capacity and remit to answer.

Each of us was approached individually by the Department of Justice and Equality over the last number of months to serve as a member of the selection panel for the proposed new IHREC, and each of us agreed to so serve. Our understanding was, and is, that the appointment process would be fully independent and that only in exceptional circumstances, and with reasons given, would the Government refuse to accept a selection panel nomination to the commission. The committee is aware that this marks a significant change from previous practice, under which the Government could pick and choose from a slate of candidates proffered by the selection panel. We had also noted the Minister for Justice and Equality's stated intention to abide by the UN Paris Principles in ensuring the independence and effectiveness of the future commission.

In late July, we met for the first time as a group with two Department of Justice and Equality officials and discussed in general terms the selection process and certain other issues around the proposed creation of the new body. Some of those issues were not within our strict remit but were of interest none the less because of our individual and collective interest in the need to create a well-functioning and effective new institution. Some concerns were expressed by the panel about the absence of any public announcement of our appointment and the senior official at the meeting said that would be done in a number of days, which it was. We concluded the meeting by agreeing a date in early September when the work of the selection panel would formally begin. The Department would have no role other than to provide an official to a panel secretariat. I had also agreed to appoint an official from my office to the secretariat.

On the following day, we came into possession of a letter that had been sent earlier in July to the Minister for Justice and Equality by the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights in response to the Minister's request for observations on the general scheme of the IHREC Bill. The letter, inter alia, expressed concerns about the transparency of the appointment process for the selection panel. In view of those concerns, the panel members decided unanimously to step aside until further clarity on this matter had been achieved. We wrote to the Minister accordingly.

On 6 September, at his invitation, the panel met with the Minister, the Secretary General of the Department and a number of other officials. The Minister expressed his concern at the delay in making appointments to the interim bodies and stated that the process of consultation with the UN Deputy High Commissioner was ongoing. He stated his commitment to the creation of an independent, effective commission and pointed out the sections of the general scheme which, he said, enhanced the independence of the new body as compared with the legislative provisions governing the outgoing Irish Human Rights Commission in particular.

The panel outlined our concern about the apparent disquiet of the UN Deputy High Commissioner about the appointment of the selection panel and said that it was our wish that the Oireachtas, through this committee, would satisfy itself that our appointment was transparent and that we would act independently. We pointed out, and the Minister agreed, that this approach accords with the so-called Belgrade Principles on the relationship between national humans rights institutions and parliaments, drawn up earlier this year, which have at their core the desire to deepen the engagement of parliament in the creation and the work of human rights institutions. That is why we are appearing before the committee today.

No doubt the committee will have questions about the way in which we might approach our work if our appointment is approved by it. We have not yet had the opportunity to have substantial discussion about this. The guidelines in the general scheme and those put forward by the review group are quite vague but it is very clear to us is that there is a strong desire for some degree of public consultation around the work. There is undoubtedly pressure to have the interim commission appointed and the logistics of public consultation will have to be worked out. However, I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that we have a very strong sense of the importance of the task. Any human rights and equality commission is only as good as its commissioners. Yes, expertise is important, but equally so is the ability to be effective and to know how to use hard and soft power to persuade Governments to live up to their legal and other responsibilities on human rights and equality. We intend to cast a very wide net in order to secure a highly skilled and effective commission, headed by an outstanding chief commissioner. It is also important to appoint a balanced commission that works closely and harmoniously as a team.

I will now briefly outline my own involvement in this area before inviting my colleagues to speak. I have been the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner since June 2003 and am midway through my second term of office. Prior to that I was a political journalist and author. I also serve as an ex officio member of the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Commission for Public Service Appointments and, when they are operational, on the Constituency Commission and the Referendum Commission. I am also the Commissioner for Environmental Information. The institution of the Ombudsman is a recognised human rights body and my office has regular engagement with similar international bodies and with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In 2009, I was awarded an honorary doctorate in laws from the National University of Ireland in recognition of my work in the broad area of human rights through my journalism and my work as Ombudsman. I also serve on the international advisory board of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University and was the first Irish chairperson of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association.

Dr. Mary Keys:

I thank the committee for inviting us. I am a lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and I lecture mainly in the areas of disability law, mental health law and human rights. I have been a member of the Mental Health Commission for five years, and was reappointed again this year to represent the public interest on the commission. I was also involved in another statutory body, the National Disability Authority, and in mental health advisory groups over a six-year period, which ended two years ago. I am involved with community groups and NGOs in disseminating legal information, particularly on disability and mental health law. Examples include my presence on the board of the Brothers of Charity Services in Galway, on the Jigsaw group, which works in the area of youth mental health, and a wide range of other groups that contribute to research interests in NGOs.

I contribute on an ongoing basis to Amnesty. I am a former psychiatric social worker and have front-line experience and have worked with the Traveller community. That has driven my ambition for human rights and equality in the dissemination of information to the people who use services but also for front line staff. I am very aware of the lack of that and how it impacts on the people who are delivering and involved in services to our community.

Ms Sylda Langford:

I thank the committee for allowing me to present myself. I am a post-graduate student of University College Cork and the London School of Economics where I had a background in social policy and social work. I have personal experience of front-line and delivery of child care services, dealing with the needs of people who are disadvantaged in society and also dealing with the impact of wider social and economic policies on such people. I acquired much of my experience in my working life as a public servant, a civil servant and a member of various voluntary organisations. I have been retired for three years and continue to be involved in a voluntary capacity in various activities relevant to my experience.

The background details of my working life are as follows. I worked in the then Eastern Health Board in the area of child protection. I was an investigator in the Office of the Ombudsman. I worked in the then Department of Social Welfare, where I was involved in EU poverty programmes, MABS and the community development programme for family resource centres. I also carried management responsibility for the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. I worked in the then Department of Equality and Law Reform where I had responsibility for the equality area, which included policy, legislation and international work. I had management of the development of equal status policies and legislation. This involved consultation with NGOs and representatives of civil society on the nine grounds of anti-discrimination under the Equal Status Act.

On the international front, I was the senior official on the Irish delegations to the UN General Assembly special session known as Beijing +5 on gender issues. I was at the World Conference against Racism in Durban in 2001 and I also led on the UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights when Ireland presented its second report on the international covenant in economic, social and cultural rights. While I worked in the Department of justice, I managed a review of youth justice services, where we had concerns about young people in trouble with the law and in detention centres. As a result the Government establish the Irish Youth Justice Service.

My last job as a civil servant was in the office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, where I helped develop programmes for improving equal opportunities for children, families and young people. I am currently the chairperson of the Citizens Information Board, which has responsibility for citizens information centres, MABS and the National Disability Advocacy Service. As a member of the children's detention school board, I have concerns about trying to improve the lot of the most vulnerable children in those schools. I was a member of the advisory board of We The People and I am involved with Limerick regeneration as chairperson of a joint committee of statutory and philanthropic funders. I have worked as a volunteer counsellor with the marriage counselling service and also with Parentline. I am delighted with the honour of being asked to be involved in this process.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Langford.

Professor Gerard Quinn:

I thank the Chairman and members for inviting me here today. I feel very honoured and humbled to present myself at this meeting which is essentially a confirmation hearing. It is incredibly important that the enhanced role of Parliament is not just a nice thing but is vital to enhance the democratic legitimacy and the transparency of our processes going forward. I have provided a detailed one page résumé. I do not intend to dwell on it. I will pick out three points that may be of relevance in the committee's deliberations about suitability for confirmation.

I spent about six to seven years as first vice president of the Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Council of Europe, which is a treaty monitoring body that essentially watches over the implementation of a Council of Europe Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - something that is more important in Ireland in the vastly changed circumstances. I spent quite a period working at European level. I was a researcher in the EU 'Comité des Sages' in the 1990s, reflecting on the future of human rights in the European Union. I was a temporary civil servant in the European Commission working on equal opportunities, law and policy. I have directed many research networks for the European Commission and recently produced a report with the EU Fundamental Rights Agency on the status of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe. I led the delegation of Rehabilitation International in the UN in the drafting of the new UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

In terms of my engagement with the issues in Ireland, I was a member of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities in the 1990s. I was for a period director of research at the Government's Law Reform Commission. I was a member of the Irish Human Rights Commission for two terms and in January this year I had the great honour of being appointed to the Council of State by President Michael D. Higgins.

Professor Gerard Whyte:

I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to speak briefly about my experience and expertise in this particular task. This expertise and experience falls into three categories. First, my academic work. I am a professor of law at Trinity College Dublin with a particular interest in Irish constitutional law, with a particular focus on the fundamental rights provisions, including protection for socio-economic rights. I also teach and research in an area called public interest law which examines how the law may be used to protect the interests of minority groups. In that capacity I have engaged in research on the rights of people with disabilities, Travellers, children with learning difficulties and social welfare claimants. I have also written on the area of access to legal justice and general equality in social welfare matters.

The second context in which I refer to my experience relates to my voluntary work with a number of NGOs working mainly in the area of social exclusion. I have served on the management boards of the Northside Community Law Centre and am currently involved with the Mercy Law Resource Centre. I have also worked fairly extensively with NGOs such as the Free Legal Advice Centres, the Irish Traveller Movement and Amnesty, both in relation to individual cases and on particular projects. I was also a member of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace for a number of years.

Finally, I will note my work with some public bodies. I was a ministerial appointee to the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction and I was also appointed to the steering group on the Irish Council for People with Disabilities. That latter appointment, in particular, gave me insights into the position of people with disabilities. I was also retained by the Department of Social Protection to do some work on the compliance of the social welfare code with the principle of equality.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the panel for their presentations. I now invite members to ask questions. I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn and Senators Bacik and Zappone.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the panel for their presentations. It is an honour for me to have such an esteemed group of people making the very important decision as to who will oversee and ensure that those who are most vulnerable in our society have their rights enshrined in compliance with our responsibility under international law. I am immensely impressed with the calibre of the panel and I have no doubt that the outcome will be an equally impressive commission, when it is appointed.

In recent years groups that were advocating on behalf of disabled persons, Travellers and others have seen their allocations from the State reduced dramatically. We know there was considerable controversy, with high profile and respected personnel resigning from senior positions in protest. It fundamentally undermined their work and their ability to defend the interests of those who are most vulnerable in our society. Is the panel satisfied that the appropriate financial resources will be provided to the commission to carry out its very important work? Are the members satisfied the commission will have the necessary independence from Government?

I commend the members of the selection panel on their insistence on coming before the joint committee. Democratic legitimacy and transparency are essential elements of the selection and appointment process. As part of the ongoing engagement between the Irish Human Rights Commission and the joint committee, it will be critical to examine the plans of the new commission and make sure it has the resources and capacity it needs to ensure Ireland complies with its international responsibilities. For example, the failure to ratify many of the international agreements we have signed must be addressed. Those are my concerns.

Professor Quinn spoke of being humbled. I am humbled to have the members of such an immensely capable and appropriate panel before us. While I have no doubt the outcome of its work will be excellent, I would like to learn more about the issues of resources, capacity and independence as well as accountability to the Oireachtas.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for his comments. The Deputy highlighted two interesting and critical areas. The issue here is how one makes sure the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will be effective and do what it is supposed to do, namely, protect and promote human rights and equality in this country. There is only so much the selection panel can do - if it is approved by the joint committee - but we will do our bit and ensure, in as far as we can, that the commission will be effective.

The issue of resources is one for the Government and, critically, Parliament. The Government has indicated it intends to establish a commission that will be resourced and effective. However, as members are aware, this can only be achieved through the expertise and effectiveness of the commission and the support the Government gives it. The only way the Government can be encouraged to provide the commission with the necessary support is through Parliament. This is where the role of the joint committee comes in as this role is not specifically one for the selection panel, although we will do our bit in ensuring, in so far as we can, that the commission appointed by the Government will be as effective as possible in terms of its expertise and ability, if one likes, to work the system, be effective and be listened to. After that, it is very much a question for Parliament and the political will of the Government.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members of the selection panel and I am most appreciative that all of them have come before the joint committee. I concur with many of the comments made by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. We are all trying to get this right and the panel is before us because its members are also trying to get it right. I appreciate the commitment they and the Minister have shown and the leadership the Chairman has provided as we look for new ways to deepen the engagement of Parliament and, in this context, the committee with the establishment and operations of the new commission.

Most members of the selection panel will be aware that I was a member of the Irish Human Rights Commission and experienced some of the difficulties that occurred in its early days. We are all trying to avoid a repeat of that.

The witnesses provided an effective presentation of their experience and credentials. I am most impressed with their expertise and all that they bring to this role, both as a group and individually. They may have noticed that one of the first recommendations the joint committee made to the Minister was to achieve gender balance when appointing the selection panel. I am particularly appreciative that this has been achieved.

I hold the members of the panel in high regard, having worked with many of them previously. They bring expertise in law, academia, research, policy and management expertise and have front-line experience. They have also demonstrated independence in much of their work, have engaged with members of the public and have acquired experience at European and United Nations level. The panel contains a lovely mixture of experience on the equality and human rights sides. In light of what they bring individually and as a group and as the choice of the Minister, the panel has a terrific mix and I strongly believe it will do its utmost to ensure the independence and effectiveness of the new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.

Given the different language used in this regard, I am not sure whether the role of the joint committee is to satisfy itself that the appointment of the selection panel was transparent and its members will act independently, or approve its appointment. The briefing provided to members suggests we will exercise oversight of the ongoing appointment process to ensure transparency and independence. The Ombudsman indicated that our role is one of approving the panel. Perhaps our role is to engage in an exchange and confirm and note our own sense of what the panel presents and how effective it can be. The witnesses are free to comment in this regard.

As we move forward, I understand that an interim arrangement is to apply to the selection and appointment of commissioners, with some of them to be appointed to the Irish Human Rights Commission while others are to be appointed to the Equality Authority. How will this process work? Does the panel envisage having ongoing communications with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights?

What are the panel's thoughts on the criteria for selecting commissioners? While the selection process has not yet commenced, do members of the panel have any thoughts they wish to share on how the public could be involved in the process?

Professor Gerard Whyte:

We have had some preliminary conversations with the Department about our role in relation to the interim commission. It is our understanding that we will be tasked with making recommendations in respect of the new or joint body and we will advance 12 names to the Government for appointment. Time is obviously pressing. While the heads of the Bill have been produced, the actual Bill has not yet been produced. It is our understanding that we will do this work at this point but that the legislation, when it comes to the Oireachtas, will include what I describe as a "bridging clause" which would, in a sense, retrospectively validate what we have done. This will allow us to do this work ahead of the legislation being enacted. We have had some conversations about this with the Department and discussed some issues that may arise in relation to the appointment of the interim bodies. That is how we see our role.

Professor Gerard Quinn:

I will revert to one or two points raised, in particular by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, especially on the issue of resources. This pushed in me a response which is not necessarily tied to the question of resources for the new commission. It is merely the observation, one that the panel has yet to share collectively, that the Ireland of 2001, when the first Irish Human Rights Commission was appointed, was vastly different from the Ireland of 2012. The outgoing commission did much valuable work exploring the area of economic, social and cultural rights. I will venture a personal opinion, while offering the heavy caveat that the panel has yet to discuss this issue, that the question of social justice and, in particular, principles placing a floor beneath regression, should be a main concern for the next commission. This may play on our minds in terms of the profile of the kind of person or persons we would like to see on the commission.

The issue of appointment criteria was raised. Again, I include a heavy caveat that the selection panel has yet to have an in-depth substantive discussion on this matter. However, as a crude, ready reckoner in my own mind, what I will look for is real competence with respect to international human rights law.

This is pretty scarce on the ground, but at least we would have some presence in that regard on the commission. We would need to have representatives also of social forces in the country. It is critically important that it be a broad church rather than a narrow one. I would also look for evidence or proof of acumen, a proven track record in getting the job done and, in particular, making the case for reformed government, because the case must be made in a way that is cogent and cohesive. This is my response in substance.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I used the expression "casting the net wide". We have had a brief discussion on this and we have been looking at ways of doing that. We do not want the selection to be just a rounding up of the usual suspects or of the usual suspects thinking they are the only people in the frame for this. We want it to be so widely known that we are looking for potential commissioners that everybody with a vital engagement with these issues knows about it and sees himself or herself in that frame. We want it so that they need not think that because they are not an academic or a lawyer, they could not possibly be part of it.

We will look at ways to ensure that engagement happens and that the net is cast as wide as possible. For example, we intend using social media and inviting younger people to participate. There is no reason that particular part of the demographic cannot be reflected also. We know there is a certain urgency with regard to doing this, but we really want to do it well and do not want people to have preconceptions about the sort of people who, potentially, will end up on the commission.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

Yes. When we met with the Minister two weeks ago, he shared with us the response he had made to the UN Deputy High Commissioner in that regard. He has agreed to keep us informed of the ongoing conversation and I believe it is important we are kept aware of that so that we can deal with any issues that directly affect us.

I am not sure whether the committee will approve us or not, but when I became Ombudsman, I learned a lot of public administration phrases, one of which was "running the rule over". I think what the committee is doing is running the rule over us.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

What we will do now is meet to consider the process. I believe there will be quite an amount of work in designing the process and getting it right. There will be a parallel process between moving to select the commissioners and involving in public engagement around that. We will not be looking for specific names, but we want an idea from the public of the sort of well-functioning, effective commission that should be put in place. After that, as Professor Whyte has indicated, one commission will be appointed. It will be appointed initially to the Equality Authority and then there will be a process of convergence. I imagine this committee will be involved in that also. It is all a bit of a work in progress currently.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope I speak for the committee in saying we would certainly like to work with the panel and to help and support it in any way we can.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

The Belgrade Principles are very important. They stem from the idea that there is a bit of a gap between certain human rights institutions and their effectiveness in terms of the government doing what they would like them to do. Part of the reason for this gap or flaw in the architecture has been identified as the fact that parliaments are not sufficiently engaged with the institutions. If there is greater parliamentary engagement, there is a greater sense of ownership. Therefore, the idea is that parliament will help to support the human rights commission by encouraging and putting pressure on governments to do what they can. That is where we come from in terms of our approach.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I just ask one more question? I thank the panel and wish it the best. With regard to head 13 of the draft Bill, is the panel satisfied with the method of selection for the commission? It has been pointed out and we are all conscious that it states the Government shall accept the recommendation of the selection panel and goes on to give exceptional circumstances. There is also provision for a resolution passed by the Dáil and Seanad prior to the actual appointment. Is the panel satisfied the stages envisaged in head 13 are sufficient? I do not know whether the panel has a chance to examine the heads. Will it have any input into the final version of the Bill?

Professor Gerard Whyte:

One of the first things I did when I was invited to act on the selection panel was to look to see what effect our recommendations would have. Looking at the heads of the Bill, I was satisfied that our recommendations will be fairly effective and that they will be taken on board by the Government in selecting the human rights and equality commission, unless there are exceptional circumstances. One could envisage a situation in which the Government might have information we would not have which might call into question the appropriateness of a particular appointment. However, in that regard, the Government must make the case to us. If we are not satisfied with the case, we can return the matter to the Government and stand over our original decision.

Personally, I feel there is sufficient independence in the process for the selection panel for me to feel comfortable in agreeing to act in this capacity. I was also reassured when I heard who the other four members of the panel were.

Ms Sylda Langford:

As someone who has worked in social policy for most of my working life, I know that working in that space can often be a lonely place, because nobody takes much interest in it except when there is a crisis. One often wishes one was working in finance, business or on the legal side as that is always considered important. Therefore, the Belgrade Principles are the most important part of this.

Human rights and equality work is more about the humdrum, everyday aspects of people's lives. That is where one needs the support of Parliament and one needs dialogue and transparency. The people who work in that area need support. Just to keep society interested in that area can be a challenge in itself. I welcome the Belgrade Principles and the fact that Parliament will have a role in human rights and equality into the future.

Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My questions have been asked already. I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming. I wish to make an observation, if I may. I note the immense qualifications of all who have been chosen to sit on the selection panel. It is very important that the Parliament is seen to ensure that there is openness and transparency and that those who are making the selection are not doing so for political reasons. That is why it is important that this particular panel of people are independent and highly qualified. I echo the point made by Senator Bacik that when there was a question over that independence and the role of the selection panel, it stepped back immediately, which was good. It indicates the degree of seriousness with which the panel is approaching this process and members should be complimented for that.

The witnesses have dealt with the point I was going to raise regarding the process but perhaps they might allude to any form of timeline, or take a poke at it, as one might say.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

Originally it was thought that we would meet in September but then we got derailed. As I just said to Senator Bacik, the design of this will be important. We will endeavour to do this as speedily as possible over the next few months but we really feel that the onus is on us to get it right. Once we get the design element done, then we can push ahead and, hopefully, work quite speedily. Obviously we must consider what the architecture of the process is going to be and we must give time for people, through the public forums, to respond to us and also to apply for the positions. We must give the applications a certain amount of time and then the interview process will follow. It will take a couple of months, I would imagine.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Ombudsman spoke about utilising social media to reach young people and about being innovative in relation to the composition of the commission. What is the range of engagement with the obvious stakeholders? There is a plethora of NGOs operating across Ireland who are profoundly interested in, and hopeful about, this commission. Ms O'Reilly referred earlier to a delay with the publicity and the appointment of the panel. Is she satisfied that she has sufficient resources now to get out there and publicise the commission and actively engage with the NGOs, to encourage them to put relevant people forward for selection?

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

Social media is wonderful in terms of getting one's message across and we are hoping that our Twitter thingys will be retweeted all over the place and--

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The tweet machine.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

Yes, indeed; the Twitter machine. That is going to be an important part of the process. There has been a lot of engagement around this process and we read a lot of the submissions that were made to the review group and so forth. It is our intention that everybody who needs to know about the commission, for the sake of the public interest, will know about it. Our first meeting will focus on how we do that. My office will give resources to it. An official from the Department of Justice and Equality will be acting in the secretariat. Some of my officials have become very adept at social media, as we have moved into that area, because they are the way people converse and communicate now. Social media will be a very important part of the process. All I can do is assure the Deputy that it is our intention to reach out as far as we can.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two further questions. The first one relates to Ms O'Reilly's opening statement in which she spoke about the commission being headed by an outstanding chief commissioner. Has she had any thoughts or discussions about designing the criteria for the selection of the chief commissioner, as distinct from other commissioners? That was not really discussed in the heads of the Bill.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

We had a brief discussion this morning on that issue. We must decide whether people should apply to be members of the commission and articulate their interest in becoming chief commissioner or whether we have a separate application process for that position. We do not know yet. Equally, there is an issue around who applies for these positions and whether people expect to be tapped on the shoulder. How do we access people who might be exceptionally good but may not want to go through the application process? It is a bit of a conundrum and we do not have the answer to it because we must be very transparent. That is still in the discussion pot.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is helpful and it seems more reflection is required. Is it appropriate to ask some questions on other aspects of the heads of Bill or will we have a chance to do that at another point?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking today about the role of this particular group, the appointment panel. Going beyond that might be problematic but if the Senator wishes to ask her questions, people can always say--

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know if we will have another opportunity to engage in relation to any views the group may have on other aspects of the heads of the Bill.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is to do with this particular process, fine. Even if it is not, the people here are quite capable of saying "Yea" or "Nay" in terms of whether they want to answer the question or whether it is part of their remit.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the heads of the Bill, some of the bodies that came before us had concerns about head 17 and, in particular, provision 5, which deals with the first director of the commission. Most of those who came before us said that was in conflict with the Paris Principles. I also note that the communiqué from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, which Ms O'Reilly considered and which was probably the primary reason for her stepping aside, raises a similar question about that particular head and the transparency and independence in the establishment of the commission if it is contained in the final Bill. Do any of the witnesses have comment to make on that particular head of the Bill?

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

It is not strictly within our remit but we are aware that this has emerged as an issue. I can only say that it is an issue for Parliament and the Oireachtas. I am not making a comment on it, one way or the other. If there are any issues which are causing controversy or that people might rightly or wrongly believe would take from the Bill, then it is entirely a matter for the Oireachtas to deal with that.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May we note then the way in which Ms O'Reilly has modelled to us--

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I beg your pardon?

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May we note, as Members of Parliament, the way in which Ms O'Reilly has offered an example to us of her way of responding to another aspect of the head of the Bill?

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

Yes.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The selection panel noted that each of them was approached by the Department based on their relevant expertise. The Department was right and wise to approach them and ask them to sit on the panel. However, is it the case that those on the panel could not engage in the same process of appointment to the commission and that they could not approach people with the relevant expertise? If this was the case, is there a possibility of third parties nominating someone who they believe would be a relevant individual? Is that an option? I am mindful that there are many capable people who would not be inclined to put themselves forward.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

That is a conundrum.

Professor Gerard Whyte:

These are the sorts of issues we have yet to address because we are only now assuming the role and, having regard to the sentiment expressed already, it sounds as if the committee will approve us. It is only now that we will start this work. We held a discussion before the meeting today and we are beginning to address the issue of how to get the process out to the public in order that we can get the best calibre of people in the mix. I have no concluded views on this yet.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be appropriate to bear this in mind whenever the panel is engaging with stakeholders to invite nominations. Ultimately, it will help the panel in its deliberations if it has a wide range of nominations and then, as in every process, the nominations can be short-listed and the panel can decide on a final recommendation.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Zappone was right to raise the issue of the head 17(5) because it was raised with us in almost every submission in July. We note what those on the panel have said in response and this is something of which we are conscious as parliamentarians.

I wish to follow up on the issue of appointment and how one goes about selecting potential commissioners. Some people have suggested that the inclusion of more specific criteria in the Bill to guide the panel in its selection might be helpful. What is the panel's view? The panel members have indicated that they want a broad range of criteria. I believe that such criteria might limit or in some way restrict the choice.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

My view is that it should be as broad as possible. People should see themselves potentially in there rather than seeing a list of names, professions or areas of interest in which they may not be especially involved. We have no wish for people to exclude themselves but if the criteria are too restrictive that might happen.

Professor Gerard Quinn:

There might be a danger of falling into the trap that human rights is the property of some class of professional cadre. One could fall into that trap by itemising the particular expertise one should have. In fact, human rights belongs to the people and therefore it is from the people we should seek leadership. If one has expertise in international human rights it would be an added bonus. To ensure the organic integrity of the process we should be reaching abroad.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are more or less finished. One problem I have is that I allowed all the members to ask the questions first, so all the nice questions have been asked already by the time I come in.

Ms Emily O'Reilly:

The good questions are answered.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I like what I have heard and I congratulate the panel on accepting the position. This is new for all of us. We are running the rule over it and feeling our way somewhat. Thus far, the process has been transparent. We have seen the heads of the Bill and we have engaged with NGOs and others. We sought submissions and so on. It was refreshing for all of us to have this engagement. This is a further step along the road today and it has been refreshing.

Reference has been made to the role of Parliament and the Belgrade principles. I have read the principles and they are rather progressive. They represent an exciting development for the Parliament as well.

Since this committee was formed the Minister for Justice and Equality has been sending us heads of Bills and draft Bills. This is a new process for us. It is exciting and we are getting a great deal more work. We do not complain because this is what we are here to do. We should be a part of the legislative process at an early stage and at all stages rather than having a Bill presented as a fait accompli, which was the case in the past. This is new and exciting.

It is important that the process is transparent and is seen to be transparent. I agree with my colleagues who congratulated those on the panel for standing aside when there was a doubt. We do not want to have doubts arising at any stage, especially at a later stage when the panel is doing the important work of appointing commissioners. That should be done without a shadow of a doubt. I am satisfied, as are my colleagues, that this will be the case, because the members of the panel are independent individuals and they have shown themselves to be part of an independent panel. This is what we want and I speak for the committee when I say as much. I congratulate the panel in this regard.

I am also pleased with the notion of spreading the net as wide as possible, to use the term of the Ombudsman. As a result of this process there will be a public awareness of the commission, which is important. Professor Quinn noted that human rights belongs to the people. It would be useful if the panel could raise awareness of the work of the commission, its role and formulation. There is a danger of commissions becoming somewhat elite and the ordinary person may believe he or she cannot engage because those involved are so important with the title of "Commissioner". We should watch out for this and it should not be allowed to happen.

I wish to ask Professor Quinn about one remark which I found intriguing. He referred to the idea of placing a floor beneath regression. Will you expand on this?

Professor Gerard Quinn:

In the field of economic, social and cultural rights there is a principle of progressive achievement, under which we ratchet forward higher levels of enjoyment of social entitlement, etc. One issue that has been inadequately explored, but which is present in the international jurisprudence, relates to the principles governing a situation where there is inevitable regression, as happens in economic downturns. It is purely a personal view but I believe it would be an excellent project for any incoming commission to articulate these principles with clarity. My personal faith - it may be blind faith - is that if people see that there is transparency and some attempt to set bounds beneath which people cannot fall, then they are willing to accept more of the necessary constraints that we all need to move forward.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I know the media are watching and I thank them for their support. This issue has received some positive coverage and I encourage the media to do its part in spreading the word about what is taking place here, which is rather exciting. This concludes the engagement with the selection panel. Is it agreed that the committee will inform the Minister that we have concluded our discussion and that we will forward a copy of the transcript of the meeting to the Minister for his information? Agreed. I thank those on the selection panel for their attendance today and for assisting us in our deliberations. They have an important task ahead and we invite them to resume this important task. Is that agreed? Agreed. I wish them every success.