Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 23, line 38, to delete “section 34” and substitute “section 40(1)”.

I will speak to the group. The notion of deemed withdrawal of an application, review or appeal is proposed for inclusion to provide clarity around what should happen where an applicant ceases to engage on an application for a sustained period of time. This is important for the purpose of the efficient administration of the scheme, clarity for all concerned and accuracy in reporting. The act of withdrawal of an application is already provided for in the Bill. Amendment No. 56 provides for circumstances in which applicants will be deemed to have withdrawn an application, request for review or repeal where they fail to comply with a formal request of the chief deciding officer within 60 days. Amendments Nos. 39, 43, 44 and 48 are technical amendments arising as a consequence of amendment No. 56.

It is important to note that administratively it is intended to make a number of attempts and give a good deal of time to applicants in these circumstances before their application or request for review or appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn. I just want to set out the approach that will be taken. It is intended that the ministerial guidelines will provide that when an applicant is first requested to make additional information available to the chief deciding officer in order to allow him or her to make a determination on their application, they will be provided with 60 days to respond to this request. An example of such a request could be a sworn affidavit where the institutional records are insufficient. If following this 60-day period, an applicant has not responded to the chief deciding officer, a reminder will be issued and the applicant will be afforded a further 60 days to respond.

The final notification which is provided for in the Bill will issue following this second 60-day period. Again, an applicant will have 60 days to respond to this final notification. This means an applicant will not be deemed to have withdrawn their application or request for review or appeal until 180 days has elapsed and the chief deciding officer has had no contact from the applicant despite these repeated requests for engagement.

Furthermore, the amendment of section 34 also seeks to include a provision allowing for an application or request for review or appeal to have been closed on foot of a deemed withdrawal to be resumed for consideration. Where an applicant makes a request to this effect and the chief deciding officer is satisfied that the applicant had good reason for his or her previous failure to comply with the chief deciding officer's request, again, in administrative terms it is the intention that the chief deciding officer will consider such requests for a resumption in a lenient fashion.

Many survivors who engaged with the consultation process said that they did not anticipate the impact this would have on them. For this reason, we wish to ensure that the process under the scheme is mindful that some applicants may need to avail of this additional safety net whereby their application may be resumed. The intention is to strike a reasonable and proportionate balance between the need for a fair approach and also for legal clarity with a mechanism that allows the administrator to close applications after a period of time where it is clear that the applicant does not wish to engage with the scheme further.

Amendment No. 49 provides clarity as to the effect of active or deemed withdrawal of an application on the Statute of Limitations. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel advised it was necessary to set out clearly that where an applicant withdraws from the process, is deemed to have withdrawn or rejects a payment, the limitation period starts running again.

See this speech in context