Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 570: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, in relation to the recently appointed panel of legally qualified persons to represent the Refugee Applications Commissioner at appeal hearings before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, he has conducted a cost benefit analysis comparing the use of this panel with the use of full time civil servants at higher executive officer level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30068/09]

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 571: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, in relation to the recently appointed panel of legally qualified persons to represent the Refugee Applications Commissioner at appeal hearings before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the use of this panel of persons, to be paid on a fee per case completed basis, or the use of full time civil servants at higher executive officer level is a more cost effective method of representing the Refugee Applications Commissioner at hearings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30069/09]

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 572: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the amount, in relation to the recently appointed panel of legally qualified persons to represent the Refugee Applications Commissioner at appeal hearings before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which much would be saved per annum by switching exclusively to the panel of persons paid on a fee per case completed basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30070/09]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 570 to 572, inclusive, together.

As I stated in my reply to Parliamentary Question 35 of the 8th April 2009, the Presenting panel was established to address a backlog of appeals in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which arose from a Supreme Court Judgement in the Atanasov case 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 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, subject to approval by the Houses of the Oireachtas, 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 asylum 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.

The cost effectiveness of the panel, in the context of the operation of the overall asylum process, was considered before the panel was established and it was decided that the establishment of the panel provided the most cost effective use of resources, particularly when account is taken of the significant costs associated with maintaining asylum seekers while in Ireland.

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 the Presenting Panel and 13 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.

As the Presenting Panel was established to deal with the backlog of hearings which I have previously referred to, no decision has been taken to use the Presenting Panel exclusively for presenting work.