Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to follow up on the comments that Mr. Coakeley made at the end of my previous turn.
Mr. Coakeley, you quoted the acceptance rate for appeals to a higher court as evidence that appointed members are very good. Your evidence is that very few appeals are upheld. But you know perfectly well that it is completely impossible to appeal on the substance of a member's decision. Let us be serious. You can only appeal on the form.
What I see as the reason for the low acceptance rates for judicial reviews is that it is impossible to appeal on substance. Perhaps I can ask you to comment instead on the figures that leave a lot of lawyers and a lot of the public puzzled: the acceptance or denial rate of some members is close to 100%. Some members deny almost all the claims they deal with. Other members allow almost all of them.
In your view, is that a sign that the appointments are good and that everything is going well at the board? Or is it in fact an indication that there is a problem?