Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if, following recent criticism by the High Court of practices in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in S.R. (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, 29 January 2013, if he intends to make amendments to the proposed Protection Review Tribunal to address these criticisms in the forthcoming Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. [7950/13]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The case referred to by the Deputy concerned a pre-leave judicial review hearing involving a national of Pakistan who sought to have the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in his appeal quashed. In its judgment, the High Court was critical of the Tribunal's decision in the applicant's appeal citing, inter alia, errors of law and fact. In light of the High Court's judgment the Chairman has informed me that the case has been settled and that the applicant's appeal will be rescheduled to be heard by a different Member of the Tribunal. As the Deputy may be aware, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is independent in the performance of its functions and the Chairman alone is responsible for the assignment of cases to individual Tribunal members. The Tribunal is currently comprised of thirteen individual Members each of whom represents a division of the Tribunal.

Work on the details of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 is ongoing at my Department pursuant to current Government policy which is committed, under the Programme for Government, to "introduce comprehensive reforms of the immigration, residency and asylum systems, which will include a statutory appeals system and set out rights and obligations in a transparent way". The Bill provides, in Part 7, for a Protection Review Tribunal and, in that context, already contains a number of provisions to address issues of the type which arose in the case of concern to the Deputy. Among the functions proposed for the Chairperson of the Protection Review Tribunal under Section 102 of the Bill, for example, is the possibility for him or her to request a member of the Tribunal to review a draft decision in circumstances where the Chairperson considers that the decision is likely to contain an error of law or fact . A member so requested must review the decision and make any amendments considered necessary. In addition, provision is made for the Chairperson to refer any final decision of a member for the direction of the High Court where he or she considers that the decision contains an error of law. These are among the many aspects of the Bill that are under ongoing consideration at my Department, including in cooperation with the Offices of Parliamentary Counsel and of the Attorney General. This process will take into account any relevant findings by the Courts, such as those raised by the Deputy.

As I have outlined previously to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence, several hundred amendments to the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill are anticipated, the majority of a technical nature. On that occasion, I also expressed the considered view that instead of engaging in an extremely cumbersome process of tabling hundreds of amendments to the 2010 Bill it would be much more efficient to publish a new and enhanced text. Such an approach can incorporate the many anticipated amendments while addressing key outstanding issues, several of which have been of concern to Members. This proposition was broadly welcomed by the Joint Committee. It remains my objective under this new approach, and mindful of our having to deal with the competing legislative demands of our EU/IMF/ECB Programme commitments, to be in a position to bring a revised Bill to Government for approval and publication later this year.

Michael Conaghan (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if the proposed Legal Services Bill will include provisions regarding the position of Legal Executives and their rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7989/13]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The situation in relation to this matter remains as set out in my Written Reply to Questions No. 152 and 154 of 30 January 2013 which I will, therefore, reiterate on this occasion.

The Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 has completed Second Stage in the Dáil and is awaiting Committee Stage. The Bill does not make any provision in relation to the role or status of "legal executives" nor is any such provision envisaged.

It is clear from the correspondence I have received from the Irish Institute of Legal Executives Ltd that the scope of their proposals to confer legal status and a whole range of functions on such a category of persons is extensive and goes beyond those measures to be introduced under the Legal Services Regulation Bill.

It is evident that the proposals being made by the Irish Institute of Legal Executives Ltd, on behalf of its members, are far-reaching from the fact that they relate inter alia to "a right of audience in the District and Circuit Courts, before tribunals and, subject to review, subsequently in all courts", and to the eligibility of members for quasi-judicial and judicial appointments (e.g as District Court judges or members of Tribunals). These proposals also draw heavily from the regulatory and practise models of England and Wales which do not always correspond to those of our jurisdiction nor to those set out under current Government policy in the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011.

While recognising that there may be additional benefits and efficiencies to be found for consumers and for the legal services sector in a more developed role for "legal executives", the far-reaching proposals being made on their behalf at this time lie beyond the scope of the Legal Services Regulation Bill impinging, as they do, on aspects of the courts and the judiciary. Such matters will, therefore, need to be considered separately on their own merits, while others may come to be considered in due course by the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority