Ms Imelda Reynolds:

I will start at the beginning with Senator Ó Domhnaill's questions. When I was briefed in January, the number of appeals before ALAB was three. The Senator asked about the average time to determine an appeal, but I do not know the answer. Deputy Heydon mentioned the four-month period outlined in the legislation. While I have heard that it takes longer than that, I do not know what the average period is. The Senator asked if there was a view within ALAB as to whether it was possible to reduce the time for appeals. I do not know if there is a view in ALAB, but I have formed the view in listening to briefings and reading relevant documentation that I do not know why it takes so long. It is one of the things I will look at. I realise that appeals can be quite technical and there may be valid reasons why they take some time to determine. When one looks at the Act, one sees that it prescribes four months, but it is not a formal or mandatory period. The legislation requires ALAB to use its best endeavours to complete reviews within that time. Once an appeal is lodged, notification must be issued to third parties and the Minister, and such parties have a month to respond. That compresses the time ALAB has to consider the appeal. That is why I placed a caveat on my remarks. I have a significant amount to learn about the detail of the process. However, I note that there are time limits indicated within the legislation for notifications to take place.

The resources available represent a concern. It does not sound, with three appeals, as if there is a lot on, but they are likely to be clunky ones. I understand the resources include one higher executive officer who acts as secretary and provides administrative services to the board. It is a reduction compared with the resources that were there heretofore, although the reduction was in the context of a reduced number of appeals. It is one of the matters to which I will give early consideration. I refer to the point the chairman made at the end and note the provision in the legislation. While the board is not concerned with policy, it is open to the board to make suggestions as to how the process can be improved. Indeed, the Minister may inquire as to such suggestions also. It is also open to the board to make recommendations to the Minister on the process. To refer to my vision for fulfilling the role, I note that it would be difficult for a chairperson to be in a position in which he or she wanted to meet the statutory obligations but was constrained by the resources. I am not saying that will be an issue, but if it is, it will be a matter of concern. If so, I will seek to address it with the Department.

I was asked if the resources were sufficient to meet the demand. The answer is "I do not know". The increased number of licensing applications will not necessarily translate into appeals. I read somewhere that in the last year 139 licences were granted by the Minister from 600 applications. That there are three appeals gives one the sense that there is not necessarily a huge level of appeals of ministerial decisions. That could change and, as such, it is something one would need to keep under review.

I clarify that my role under the legislation is for five years, not four, unless there has been a change of which I am unaware. My main objective is to bring my experience to bear on the role. I like doing things efficiently and do not like being distracted from the task in hand. At the same time, it is important to give the job due consideration and the time and application it needs. That is the approach I will take. I would be very happy to come back before the committee. One matter in my mind is that the independent nature of ALAB means it is clearly inappropriate to refer to individual cases. Therefore, anything before the committee would be about the process and its effectiveness. I would welcome the opportunity to come back to the committee, particularly if there are challenges, and the committee is in a position to support any recommendations from the board.

Deputy Ferris mentioned some contentious applications. I do not know and, as I said, I do not think it is appropriate to talk about individual cases. Deputy Ferris raises an interesting question about whether there are guidelines. I do not know the answer to that question. I have not yet had a briefing with the Department or the secretary of the board. That is something I will ask about.

The criteria are laid out in the Act. There is no scope for the board to go outside the Act. It is not incumbent on the board to meet local authorities. Under the legislation, the board has the option to hold an oral hearing. I recollect that it cannot be compelled to do so. It can subpoena witnesses and call people to attend before it.

In response to the Deputy's question as to whether any consideration is given to wholesale opposition in communities, I do not know the answer to that. It comes back to the criteria that are taken into account. The board is constrained by the Act. It can take into account the matters identified in the legislation and nothing else. The criteria under which the Minister makes the decision are the same as those under which the appeal takes place. I hope the Deputy appreciates that I must get my head around that, but I do not believe that is one of the heads specifically. I do not know whether it comes in under something else.

I note that the Deputy would like to be provided with guidelines if they exist. I can confirm that the appeals process works both ways. One can appeal if one has been granted a licence under conditions that one is not happy with, or if one has been refused a licence. Indeed, third parties can also appeal.