Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 35: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason a tender competition was held to appoint presenting officers to attend hearings of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal; the further reason existing civil service resources were not deployed to deal with outstanding cases; the budget for this project; the length of time this panel will last; the number of cases that it will deal with; if he is satisfied that this is a cost efficient way of the State being represented at hearings rather than using civil service resources; the reason this tender was not advertised on the public procurement e-tender site; if he is further satisfied that the Codes of Practice of the Commission for Public Appointments was fully adhered to; the breakdown of the expenses and fees paid to each member of the assessment board; the way these were calculated; if he will name the 42 successful applicants detailing if they are barristers, solicitor or legal graduates; if these persons will be accompanied to hearings of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal by officials of his Department or the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner; if he has consulted or will consult with the Revenue Commissioner or the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the PRSI and tax treatment of the successful applicants to ensure his Department complies with its various responsibilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14850/09]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer the Deputy to my replies to Parliamentary Questions 232 of 3 March and 270 of 31 March, 2009 which are relevant to this question also.

The background to the holding of the competition in question involves a Supreme Court judgement in the case of Atanasov in July 2006 which required the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to provide greater access to past decisions of the Tribunal for the purpose of assisting legal representatives with the preparation of appeals on behalf of applicants for refugee status. In the immediate aftermath of that decision a considerable backlog of some 1,500 cases built up in the Tribunal while new access arrangements were being put in place. While these arrangements are now fully operational, the backlog still requires to be cleared off by means of oral appeals hearings.

The speedy clearance of the backlog of cases in the Tribunal is essential in the context of both the number of appeals on hands but particularly in the context of the planned implementation of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008, as it will allow for a considerably greater number of appeals to be cleared by the Tribunal prior to the coming into effect of the new processes provided for in the Bill. As the Deputy will be aware, the Bill which is currently awaiting Report Stage in Dáil Éireann, provides for the functions currently undertaken by the Tribunal to be taken over by a new body, the Protection Review Tribunal (PRT) which will have expanded responsibilities to consider not only appeals in respect of refugee status, but also appeals in respect of subsidiary protection. The new Tribunal will also, under the transitional arrangements provided for in the Bill, have responsibility for dealing with appeals on hand in the existing Tribunal which will continue to be dealt with under the existing legislative framework. There are therefore obvious and very practical reasons for clearing cases in the old system as quickly as possible, so that Members of the new Tribunal will be able to focus on the new legislative framework coming forward under the Bill.

I would also add that there are significant costs associated with maintaining appellants in RIA accommodation and providing other relevant services. Therefore, there is a considerable financial saving to be made by processing these cases as quickly as possible.

Under the Refugee Act 1996, provision is made for the Refugee Applications Commissioner to be represented at appeals hearings before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. This is to ensure, inter alia, that the Tribunal Member is fully aware of the Commissioner's reasons for not recommending that an applicant be granted refugee status. This representational work is currently carried out by 14 Presenting Officers at Higher Executive Officer level, some of which workshare, in the Commissioner's Office. Bearing in mind the considerations outlined above, following an analysis of the possible options available for clearing the backlog as quickly as possible, which included the possibility of the existing Presenting Officers undertaking the work, it was decided that the establishment of the Presenting Panel of persons to be paid on a fee per case completed basis, was the most cost effective and time efficient method. Given the challenging and complex nature of the work in question and the considerable preparation required in advance of appeals hearings, redeploying other staff from within the Commissioner's Office to undertake the work was not possible.

The Presenting Panel will remain in place until the backlog in question has been cleared. The estimated maximum cost of servicing this backlog was €450,000 at the time when the Panel was established. However, as indicated in my reply to PQ 270 of 31 March, 2009, the Government Decision relating to professional fees has been applied to the schedule of fees to be paid to Panel Members which will serve to reduce the costs involved. I am satisfied that the establishment of the Panel is a cost efficient use of resources, particularly when account is taken of my earlier comment regarding the significant costs associated with maintaining asylum seekers while in Ireland.

Persons appointed to the panel are not civil servants and are not employees of either the Commissioner or the Department. They are service providers and are paid on a fee per case completed basis. Having said that, the Commissioner ensured that current best recruitment practice was used in the process, including public advertisement (on the Office of the Refugee Application Commissioner's website and in the national press and details provided to the Bar Council and Law Society) followed by shortlisting and interview. As regards taxation matters, withholding tax is applied to all payments to panel members and they are required to have a current tax clearance certificate.

With regard to the breakdown of expenses and fees paid to members of the assessment board, I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Parliamentary Question no. 232 of 3 March, 2009.

The details requested in relation to the members of the Panel are set out in Table 1. The Refugee Applications Commissioner has informed me that on taking up their duties on the Panel and as part of the induction training provided, Panel members were accompanied to their first appeal hearing by an experienced Presenting Officer. Since then they are not accompanied to hearings but have access to the advice of the Commissioner's staff in the Presenting Unit as and when required. Table 1 - Members of the ORAC Presenting Panel