Rónán Mullen (Independent)

There are two useful statistics we should note from the 2010 report of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The first is that the number of applicants granted refugee status has fallen to 1.1%, which equates to 24 persons granted refugee status. The second notable statistic is that approximately €1.2 million has been paid out in legal costs arising from judicial reviews of decisions that were settled or lost by the State. Clearly, this points to a problem in our system of adjudication of applications for immigration and asylum. The Irish Refugee Council has proposed that we establish a model immigration and protection tribunal, which would guarantee proper second scrutiny of applications not just for refugee status but also for visas, residency, citizenship and so forth. It is also clear that we need a more robust first decision making stage if those statistics are the consequence. If so few people are being granted refugee status, it raises a significant issue of concern, as does the amount of money being paid out in legal costs. It would be useful to have the Minister for Justice and Equality address the House on his intentions in this area, particularly in the context of the forthcoming Bill. It appears that structural renewal is needed in the adjudication of immigration matters.

I also wish to refer briefly to the memorandum sent by senior members of the Judiciary to the Office of the Attorney General regarding their concerns about judicial independence in the context of proposals to reduce judges' pay. I have spoken previously about this issue in the House and made the point that the concerns the Judiciary might have could be addressed somewhat by ensuring that in a situation where judicial pay is being reduced it would also be the case that the pay of senior officials, members of the Government and so forth would be reduced too. The concerns of the Judiciary deserve to be taken seriously. It is not just self interest but, as I said previously, there is a cherished tradition of judicial independence that must not be compromised.

However, another issue that must be considered is the way in which judges are appointed. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board certainly does its work, but it remains a fact that the system of patronage surrounding the appointment of judges has not changed. The fact remains that membership of certain political parties is no load, to say the least, when it comes to the making of appointments to the Judiciary, and appointment will depend on which Government is in power. That is not to reflect on the quality of our judges. They cherish their independence, once appointed. However, we need to be looking at systems in other countries.

I would like a debate on how we appoint our judges. We need to reflect on the separation of powers in our country and in our institutions. We also need to reflect on increasing the role of the Oireachtas in the scrutiny of judicial appointments. Parliament should not be a fiefdom of the Executive. Although we may not have experienced problems so far, we may do so in the future. In reflecting on judicial independence, which we now have to do, we should also consider the manner in which we appoint members of the Judiciary.