Vol. 530 No. 1
27 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he will take to provide for the appointment of additional persons to the Human Rights Commission; and if any such additional appointees will be chosen from the list of persons recommended by the Whitaker advisory committee. [1001/01]
In the course of a reply delivered on my behalf during the Adjournment Debate on 13 December last on this matter, I stated that the Government would adopt a flexible approach in accommodating the views of individuals and various relevant groups in the NGO sector who had expressed concern at the original appointment offers made by the Government to the eight positions on the Human Rights Commission. The position in that regard had already been set out by me in a reply to a question from Deputy Shatter on 6 December 2000.
At its meeting on 19 December 2000, the Government agreed to my proposals to enhance the range of interests to be represented on the commission through the creation of six additional positions and I was authorised to offer appoint ments to six persons drawn from the original list submitted by the selection committee, chaired by Dr. T.K. Whitaker. Those persons are: Ms Nuala Kelly who has a background in the NGO and prisoners' rights area; Ms Clodach McGrory – a Northern Ireland barrister; Ms Katherine Zappone – a social policy research consultant; Mr. Martin Collins who is involved in Travellers' rights and race equality issues; Mr. Micheal Farrell – a solicitor; and Mr. Gerard Quinn – a law professor.
The position now is that of the 14 persons whom the Government wishes to appoint to the commission, ten have been drawn from the selection committee's list of 16 candidates and six of those ten are from the committee's preferred list of eight candidates. The remaining four appointees, namely, Mr. Mervyn Taylor, Mr. William Binchy, Ms Olive Braiden and Mr. Tom O'Higgins, had all applied for the positions as advertised and were considered by the selection committee. Some names were leaked to a newspaper and no adverse implication should be drawn in regard to the people who were not selected for the commission. All of the people in question were eminently suitable but there simply was not sufficient room for everyone.
My main priority now is to ensure that the commission begins its work as quickly as possible. The Human Rights Commission Act, 2000, will need slight amendment, principally to cover the increase in membership, and I hope to include the necessary changes in the forthcoming Bill to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.
Additional Information.However, there is no impediment to the commission meeting as an interim body in the meantime. There is much valuable work it can do straight away and as soon as I have received all formal notifications of acceptance of appointment, I shall be in contact with the president of the commission in that regard. I know that he, too, is keen to get things moving. At that stage, I will then be in a position to regard the whole selection process as finalised, and reply at last individually to the many applicants who applied to be considered for these appointments.
Does the Minister agree the procedure and approach he adopted to the appointment of members to the Human Rights Commission was a total shambles? Will he explain why, having rejected the names of the six additional people he is now proposing to appoint to the commission, he turned around and decided to appoint them? Will he explain why, having ignored the priority recommendations of the Whitaker committee, he is now seeking to implement them with the exclusion of one person? Will he explain why he is now proposing to appoint an additional six members to the commission in circumstances in which the legislation he enacted delimited numbers to prevent that? Will he clarify whether the members he wishes to appoint, together with those he has already appointed, have yet met and when the commission is expected to get up and running?
A selection committee was established in order to draw up a list of names but it was always understood that the Government, acting in its sovereign capacity, would decide who would be on the commission in accordance with the legislation which provides that the commission must broadly reflect society. The Government originally appointed eight people to the commission in addition to the president. I subsequently attended a conference in Dublin Castle at which it became very clear to me that people from the NGOs were very annoyed. In the course of a speech I delivered on that occasion, I stated that it was not a case of "them and us" and that I would consider whether change was required. I informed the conference delegates that I wanted the commission to start out well and to be strong and successful. It seemed to me that the best approach was to try to ensure that the very real concerns people expressed were addressed and I did that in an open, transparent and magnanimous manner. There is no point in having a commission which was strangled at birth.
The Minister attempted to strangle it at birth.
At least one of the subsequent appointees acknowledged that the commission is actually stronger for having undergone these difficulties. The commission has not yet met because the legislation must be amended to provide for an increase in the number of people on the commission. However, I intend, once all of the appointees have notified their acceptance of their appointments, to commence the commission on an interim basis. I look forward to that happening at a very early date under the chairmanship of the learned Mr. Justice Barrington. It is vitally important that the commission be inclusive.
Will the Minister confirm that following his original announcement, Mr. Justice Barrington either threatened to resign or offered his resignation as president of the commission? Will he clarify how many of the additional six people he sought to appoint have accepted the appointments and if some of them have not accepted the appointments, will he explain why? Will he further explain whether he has met these people and what difficulties they have brought to his attention? When will the Minister introduce the new legislation required to enable the expanded commission to meet? Does he accept this would only require a very short Bill which could be drafted in 20 minutes by a competent person? Does the Minister agree that the com mission's work could be under way had he not dealt with the matter with gross and unacceptable incompetence?
The matter was not handled with gross and unacceptable incompetence. I expect the commission to get up and running on an interim basis pending the enactment of the necessary legislation in the near future, I hope by the end of this month. Some people have already accepted their appointments and I expect the other appointees to accept theirs too. I am satisfied the commission will be an extremely effective interface between the Government and the public.
Did Mr. Justice Barrington threaten to resign because of the incompetent manner in which the Minister dealt with this matter?
We are way over time and must move on to Question No. 28.
I am certainly not aware of any allegation of incompetence from Mr. Justice Barrington.
I have called Question No. 28. We must move on.
On a point of order, the House is entitled to information. Did Mr. Justice Barrington offer his resignation or threaten to resign?
I ask the Deputy to respect Standing Orders. We have spent almost nine minutes on this question.
The Minister's silence confirms that such an offer was made.
