Amendment No. 73 in the name of Deputy O'Donnell. Amendments No. 73, 74 and 85 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 46, to delete "12 or".
These amendments would have arisen had section 12 fallen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 74 not moved.
Amendment No. 75 in the name of the Minister. Amendments No. 75, 80 and 84 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 16, subsection (3), line 13, after "writing" to insert "within the period specified in section 12(5) or 13 (2) (b), as may be appropriate.
I am proposing these amendments to enhance the clarity of section 16 which deals with appeals to the appeal board. Amendment No. 75 clarifies that the notice of appeal under subsection (3) must be brought within the relevant appeals periods specified in sections 12 and 13. Amendment No. 80 clarifies that the request by the applicant for an oral hearing is the request indicated in the notice of appeal specified in subsection (3). Amendment No. 84 makes it clear that it is the subsection (3) notice of appeal which the appeals board shall consider. These amendments clarify but do not change the substance of the section.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 16, subsection (6), line 26, before "the Commissioner" to insert "an authorised officer of the Commissioner not involved when the application was before".
The existing wording of the subsection brings up the possibility that the commissioner would be reviewing an earlier application which has already been considered by the commissioner. It may be incorrect to allow the commissioner or an authorised officer who dealt with the application to have any role in the appeal. To do so would raise the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I thought the point of any appeal is that a different tribunal would consider the application and that it is not a proper appeal if somebody who dealt with the application at first instance is yet again involved in it. It is an attempt to introduce a fresh pair of eyes on the appeal in the usual way in which appeals are held.
The fresh pair of eyes is the appeal board and we will be discussing the structure of that board later. The amendment seems to propose a direct interference with the commissioner and it implies that the commissioner, whom we are going to great trouble to appoint, cannot be relied upon to perform his or her functions objectively when, in fact, they will be set down in the Bill. It is really a matter for the commissioner to decide whether he or she personally makes the inquiries or furnishes the information concerned or assigns the role to an authorised officer. In any event, the commissioner is responsible for furnishing the information requested and I would be opposed to any amendment which undermines the role of the commissioner by directing inquiries over his or her head to another source. I do not accept the amendment.
I was under the impression that this was the second time the commissioner or an authorised officer who had already dealt with the application was reviewing it. Was I incorrect in that?
No. Essentially there is a first procedure which is with the commissioner. If the commissioner makes a negative decision, the next stage is for the applicant to make an appeal to the appeal tribunal. They are the two stages. The appeal tribunal will have a certain composition which will ensure its independence and its separate function in the Bill. We would be adding a third layer which would be unnecessary and time consuming.
I misunderstood the section. Thank you, Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 16, subsection (8), line 38, to delete "Commisioner" and to substitute "Commissioner".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 16, subsection (8), line 40, to delete "or any other person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 16, subsection (10), lines 46 and 47, to delete "whenever it is so requested by the applicant" and substitute "where appropriate, following a notice under subsection (3)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 81 to 83, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 17, subsection (15), line 39, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) the relevant notice under subsection (3),".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 18, subsection (16), line 1, after "subsection (2)" to insert "and the reasons therefor".
I hope the committee will accept this amendment which deals with the communication of a decision by the appeal board to the applicant concerned and other parties. However, the provision does not include an obligation to give reasons for the decision. The amendment seeks to correct this by imposing an obligation on the board to give reasons for the decision.
I am encouraged by this positive amendment which is essential.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.