Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 17, to delete lines 28 to 32.

This amendment seeks the deletion of section 14(2) which makes this entire section irrelevant. Subsection (2) reads:

A complaint under subsection (1) shall be made by the applicant concerned or a person referred to in section 9(2) as soon as reasonably may be after the cause of the complaint has arisen and in any case within such time (if any) as may be prescribed under section 21.

I cannot understand the reason for a time restriction. We debated this matter on Committee Stage. I appreciate the Minister has tabled an amendment on another element of the timescale and rather than a month he is providing for ten days. The period within which an appeal can be made should not be restricted in any way. An appeal will not drag on for six months, a year or two years because if one is making an appeal one is dissatisfied. We are talking about people who are restricted in such a way that they may need help. They may not be able to express exactly what they mean or why they consider an appeal is necessary. Therefore, we need to be more flexible. That flexibility has to be allowed in the appeals system.

I deal with social welfare appeals where one has 21 days in which to make an appeal. That is a restricted timescale. In the main I deal with social welfare appeals for people who are sufficiently articulate to explain to me their exact circumstances. If that person does not submit an appeal within 21 days there is a flexibility within the system whereby in certain circumstances one can ask to have one's appeal heard after 21 days. Once the request is reasonable it is always acceded to. I could not imagine anybody writing to an appeals officer saying he or she did not appeal within the 21 days because he or she could not be bothered or was too lazy to do anything about it. That would be unreasonable. That type of flexibility should be provided for in regard to appeals. We need to be much more flexible when dealing with those who have a restriction rather than those who do not have a restriction.

See this speech in context