Mr. John Conlon:

The Fagan case. We value being able to make proper decisions at the right time in the right place. If we get it wrong, we review it. All our decisions are subject to appeals. All our appeals are subject to subsequent Ombudsman review. We value that capacity to have decisions reviewed, appealed and then reviewed by the Ombudsman. Across all our schemes we review decisions every week. If we get it wrong, we will change decisions.

I am not familiar with the details of the Fagan case but the deciding officers did review that decision at the time not because we were in the High Court, but based on the facts of the case and the information given to them. We do not necessarily take it that the situation is fine because the High Court will review it; we review decisions across all our schemes consistently when requested. Our customer charter - our own standards in terms of decision making - is something we are very proud of; we work on it and we will continue to work on it. I want to make it clear for the committee that we value our capacity to consistently review decisions. If we get things wrong, we will change our mind and we will change decisions. That is a value we have and I want to make it clear.