Derek McDowell (Labour)

In a sense I will speak against my own amendment, which seeks to shorten the time within which the board must deal with an assessment. Nine months would be perfectly adequate for this, but I have a difficulty with one aspect, which is why I tabled my amendment. As matters stand, section 49 provides that if something is not dealt with within 15 months, having been prolonged in the first instance by six months, it is open to the board or the assessor to go back to the claimant and ask him or her to consent to prolonging the time further. It is not difficult to imagine this happening frequently. If we were being pessimistic we would say that in three to six years, if the board is as successful as we would like it to be, it will be regular and commonplace for the assessors to ask claimants to prolong the time.

I would be happy to allow the nine month timeframe to stand, provided it is an absolute deadline or the circumstances in which consent would be sought for prolonging the time were seriously limited, so that it would not become routine for the board to prolong cases beyond the nine month or 15 month period. As matters stand, where the Bill states nine months or 15 months, it is in fact open-ended. There is no limit provided the claimant consents. There should be a limit within which the board will be absolutely required, unless there are exceptional circumstances, to make a decision.