Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Rabbitte for giving me the opportunity to respond in the House this evening to a matter which has generated some media comment in recent days. The House is the appropriate venue in which to discuss this matter.

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal was established in November 2000 and Mr. John Ryan was appointed its second chairman in an interim capacity on 3 December 2003. Following an open, publicly advertised national competition, Mr. Ryan was selected as full-time chairman by the Public Appointments Service with effect from 13 September 2005.

The tribunal hears appeals on negative recommendations of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner in respect of applications for refugee status in the State. Since its establishment, the tribunal and its members have carried out a substantial job of work for the State based on their statutory remit. The tribunal is a statutory independent body established under the Refugee Act 1996. Its members are independent in the performance of their functions and in the decisions that they make.

The role of the chairperson of the tribunal, as provided for in the 1996 Act is, among other things, to allocate the work of the tribunal and to ensure its business is managed efficiently and disposed of as expeditiously as may be in a manner consistent with natural justice. His or her role also is to avoid undue divergences in the application of the law in cases by members, as provided for in the 1996 Act. Ensuring consistency in the application of the law in the refugee area is a critical aspect of the chairman's role. The chairman has no role in determining the final decisions of members.

The allocation of tribunal business is conducted by the chairperson in accordance with the law. In allocating cases, the chairperson has regard to a variety of matters such as the availability of members, the speed or slowness of members in delivering the decisions, whether members have specialised training in dealing with minors or have experience in dealing with other vulnerable applicants or applicants of particular nationalities. The chairperson has assured me that the allocation of cases is not influenced by the affirmation rates of particular members.

It has been asserted — but not by Deputy Rabbitte this evening — that an average of 25% of cases in 2005 were decided in favour of asylum seekers. This is not correct as the figure was 12.8%. In 2007, this figure fell to 10.2%, with the overall figure in respect of the period 2001 to 2007 coming in at 16.2%. In other words, the affirmation rate for the entire period was 83.8%. Last year saw the highest affirmation rate in the period, with 89.8% of decisions of the commissioner affirmed.

The House should be aware of some of the realities we are dealing with in the asylum area. Last year, only 8.4% of all applications received at the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner came through legitimate points of entry to the State. A further 5.6% of all applications in 2007 were made at prisons. The balance, in the main, simply turn up in the commissioner's office, having avoided the official entry points. It is also interesting to note that in 2007, a total of 2,500 of the 3,985 asylum applicants claimed to have arrived in Ireland with no travel documents, with approximately 1,000 of them claiming to have arrived by air.

The reality is that more than 90% of applicants do not show up at official entry points and 90% of all applications turn out to be unfounded. It should be of little surprise, therefore, that a significant number of members of the tribunal have high affirmation rates. The high affirmation rates of members are also a reflection of the robust and high quality investigations conducted at first instance by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner.

Deputy Rabbitte referred to recent legal action alleging bias by Mr. James Nicholson, a former member of the tribunal. I do not intend to comment in detail on the legal issues involved in this Supreme Court case as it would be inappropriate to do so. However, I can point out that the chairman of the tribunal totally rejects all the allegations made. I am advised that the chairman did not mislead the courts in documentation filed by him, as is alleged. A report in yesterday's The Irish Times stated that the Legal Aid Board had written to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal asking it to review all the cases decided by its former member, James Nicholson. This report is misleading in a number of respects. The signatory to the letter is in fact an official of the Legal Aid Board reporting to the chief executive and not the chairman of the board, as was reported. I am also told that a number of the policy issues referred to in the letter as reported in The Irish Times have yet to be discussed at board level. This was confirmed to my Department by the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board this afternoon.

The UNHCR is heavily involved in training within the asylum process, including the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Deputy Rabbitte might recall the comments made by a former UNHCR representative to Ireland who was quoted as saying that Ireland is now a model for the new member states of the European Union and that we have a system which in many respects is one of the best in Europe.

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal is to be replaced under the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 by the protection review tribunal. There has been some criticism about how that is to be done but I will deal with those criticisms and all the other points raised this evening during Committee Stage debate on the Bill, which will take place early in the next session. That, to my mind, is the proper place to deal with this matter and a full discussion can take place at that time.

It is regrettable that Deputy Rabbitte has sought to politicise the work of a public servant who is doing his statutory duty. It is in nobody's interests, least of all those who come to this country seeking the sanctuary of the State, that the work of this important and independent body should be so traduced. I do, however, share the concerns expressed by Deputy Rabbitte about a divergence of opinions among the members of the tribunal.

See this speech in context