Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I thank the Cathaoirleach for permitting me to raise this important matter. I am surprised the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has not acted on the scandalous allegations that have come into the public domain concerning the manner of discharge of its functions by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It has emerged that three eminent members of the tribunal have caused serious questions to be raised about the manner in which its chairman, John Ryan, BL, conducts its business and in particular how he allocates files for adjudication. At a minimum, one would have expected the Minister to have informed this House of his assessment of the affair and whether action on his part is warranted.

The facts appear straightforward. In a judicial review application in March 2006, seven solicitors practising in the area of refugee law made sworn affidavits that a particular tribunal member, Mr. Nicholson, had never been known to decide a case in favour of an asylum seeker. The tribunal itself conceded in the High and Supreme Courts that Mr. Nicholson had not allowed a single appeal from an asylum seeker during the period from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2004. Apparently, he was the tribunal's highest earner during the same period.

In the case known as the Nyembo case heard before the Supreme Court, the tribunal chairman had asserted that "the record of [Mr. Nicholson] is not at variance with other members of [the Tribunal]". When Mrs. Justice Denham remarked there was no evidence to vindicate this assertion, three senior members of the tribunal claimed that the record of Mr. Nicholson was "markedly at variance" with the record of other members. However, before the High Court could adjudicate in the matter, the tribunal settled the case, thus preventing the facts emerging. It appears the dissenting members specifically alleged that files were allocated by the chairman on the basis of members' record of rejecting appeals. There could scarcely be a more serious allegation to make against the chairman of a body charged under statute to act independently in the discharge of his functions.

It is also claimed that the chairman, John Ryan, managed the tribunal's defence of these court proceedings in collaboration with James Nicholson alone and refused to convene a meeting of the full membership to enable them to consider the case and instruct their legal representatives. It is now claimed that the refugee legal service is reviewing the decisions of another member of the tribunal who happens to be the second highest earner at the tribunal.

The Minister's response to these extraordinary claims is to keep his head down and, amazingly, to provide expressly for the continuation in office of Mr. Ryan in the recently published Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008. The reason the Minister should feel it necessary to stitch into law the reappointment of Mr. Ryan as distinct from exercising his right in the normal way to appoint a chairman betrays a mind-set that is deeply troubling and that indicates he has become the captive of his Department. Are the Minister and his Department so enamoured of Mr. Ryan's modus operandi that they hope to enshrine his appointment in law?

The Nyembo case speaks for itself. A man, who has since quietly resigned, heard almost 1,000 cases in the relevant period and rejected virtually all of them. Three members, more senior than the chairman, have made serious assertions about the functioning of the tribunal and, most seriously, allege that assignment of cases is based on the individual history of adjudication of the tribunal member.

Thus far, the Minister has ignored the serious issues to which the Nyembo case gives rise. I am delighted the Minister is present to respond to these cases in person, rather than sending the routine script that is churned out by Departments for this event in the House these days. I am concerned that our public service, when defending its record before the courts, should be exposed in this manner. The Minister ought to be concerned about the signal this sends out.

Has the stage been reached in which one cannot rely on the integrity of the public service to tell the truth before the courts? How are the public to have confidence in the integrity of our system of administrative tribunals? I thank the Cathaoirleach for permitting me to raise this issue and am glad the Minister is present in person to make a pertinent reply because there is widespread concern among members of his own profession, among solicitors and among organisations working with asylum-seekers, concerning what has entered the public domain in recent weeks with regard to the independent discharge of functions by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

See this speech in context