Mr. Conor Dignam:

We do not know. If we read into the heads of the Bill, it seems to be envisaged that it will be largely a paper exercise in that there is a requirement that the decision be made on the basis of written reports. There does not seem to be any obligation on the assessor to invite submissions or oral evidence. We can deduce from the heads of the Bill that it will be a paper exercise and, therefore, carried out in private. FLAC made a point and it is one that bears emphasis. The heads of the Bill seem to envisage a streamlined process and we can deduce from them that it is to be largely a paper exercise. The ECHR has stated the decision as to whether there has been a culpable or compensatable delay is one which involves a degree - sometimes a significant degree - of legal complexity. On pages 10 and 11 of our main submission which members of the committee can read in due course we identify the considerations the ECHR has stated must be taken into account when deciding whether there has been a delay and what compensation it should attract. Because of the legal complexity the ECHR has identified in this instance, litigants may require legal assistance, legal advice and representation in order to advance their claims. It is our submission that it would be dangerous to have any system that would preclude an individual from availing of legal assistance or representation in advancing his or her claim. That, in itself, could become open to challenge.