Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

A judicial review at the High Court is an ultimate option. It is a safeguard for all legal processes, basically. The High Court is the only place where a judicial review can be taken If an appellant chooses this option, it would be a judicial review of the process, rather than a further appeal on a fact as such. It would review whether the process was fair or not. We cannot prevent somebody from doing this but the system is set up to discourage it. It tries to avoid that, if it all possible, by ensuring there is good oversight and a good appeals system within an appeals system along the way. The Ombudsman is a separate option as well and one which we would expect people to consider. It is not designed that way but it is standard.

I take the Deputy's point on specific dates by which appeals must be finished. It is important that they are dealt with expeditiously. However, if a definite date was put in there and there was a particularly complicated scenario that was difficult or tricky and required a lot of further examination, in an extreme circumstance, it could fall foul of that fixed-date legislation. That is the caution I have on the Deputy's point, but it is important that they are done in a timely manner. For example, in planning law, once a planning application is made to a county council, there is a date by which the planning authority must make a decision or revert for further information. However, a request for further information will always kick off a six-month period. In tricky circumstances, a hard deadline creates a lot of problems. Promptly dealing with these appeals will be important but, at the same time, I caution against putting a hard deadline in the legislation itself.

I wish to make a point around the five-person independent review panel, which the committee will consider. I have no doubt that this is something the committee will consider. The panel includes the director, or the deputy director in his or her place. The actual decision can be made by three of the five members. The director, or deputy director, has a vote as one of those three. I am aware that this was raised in previous meetings that the committee had as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny.

The director and deputy director of appeals are not involved in the decision of the appeals officer. The decisions of the 13 appeals officers are made separately, without consultation with the director or deputy director of the appeals office. It is set up that way because the director does the appeals, these reviews, at the moment. We are now setting up a new system to do that. For the director to be able to do those reviews, it is not appropriate for him or her to be involved in the initial decision or consideration of the appeals office because he or she will do the final review. A similar scenario will now apply in respect of the new five-person review panel. The director and deputy director will not have been involved in the appeals officer's decision and will be coming to the issue with fresh eyes as members of the five-person panel. It is considered appropriate for them to be a part of the decision-making process because they are coming to it without having been involved in the initial decision. I know that was raised by-----