Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman. Amendment No. 54 inserts a requirement that if an applicant to the scheme accidentally fails to provide all necessary information in the application, the chief deciding officer must notify the applicant of that fact within 60 days. This amendment is very reasonable. It would be very unfair to see a situation whereby applicants are waiting in limbo to hear back about their applications only to find out later that it was because they had not submitted all of their documentation. We can reasonably assume that in most cases if an applicant fails to submit all of the necessary supporting documentation with his or her application, it is due to a genuine oversight or error, namely, something would likely try to rectify as soon as he or she is notified. The problem is, however, that the legislation as currently drafted puts no upper time limit on the deciding officer to notify an applicant of his or her error. We could see potentially very undesirable situations whereby an application could be in limbo because there is a delay in informing the applicant of an omission. Meanwhile, the applicant does not realise, unfortunately, that he or she has failed to include something. The chief deciding officer should be compelled to inform the applicant of that fact in a timely manner to make sure this does not lead to undue delays. Our amendment proposes 60 days in this regard, but even 30 days might be more reasonable. I look forward to hearing if the Minister has suggestions on this, but it is crucial that we have a strict time limit, be it 30 days, 60 days or some other period.

Amendment No. 56 seeks to clarify that once an application is submitted with all of the necessary material attached, the chief deciding officer must issue a decision as soon as practicable but within 90 days. It is crucial that we add in that hard ceiling of 90 days, which is a very reasonable timeframe. It may even be too reasonable given there is such a sense of urgency for so many elderly survivors. I welcome insight from the Minister on how long it is envisioned to process an average application, or what a reasonable upper time limit might be in the Minister's view. It is crucial there are no further delays in justice for survivors and especially for the urgent cases of elderly or ill survivors.

Amendment No. 56 is sensible in that it clarifies that once all material has been received, the chief deciding officer has a hard limit of 90 days in which to respond. Again, this is reasonable in that it accounts for the fact that an application may have to be followed up if not all the necessary supporting material is attached. This is not a blanket time limit, which would be impossible to enforce in the event of delays, for example if someone forgot to attach a piece of supporting evidence. This amendment clearly proposes a time limit only if and when all supporting documentation has been received. From that day of receipt of a thoroughly completed application, then the countdown of 90 days will begin for a decision on the application. I really believe this to be a very reasonable provision. It accounts for possible delays and would ensure prompt justice for survivors, which we know is urgent in many cases. If the Minister disagrees with the proposal of a 90-day limit, can he please outline why he might disagree and how he can propose a reasonable alternative? It is crucial that we have some hard deadlines around the processing of applications.

Amendment No. 57 is similar to amendment No. 56 but it applies a 120-day time limit instead of a 90-day limit. This is a compromise amendment if the Minister believes a 90 day window is not reasonable in terms of processing.The 90-day limit would be vastly preferred, given the urgency of redress for elderly survivors.

Amendment No. 80 is reasonable in that it specifies that the chief deciding officer would have to cause the payment to be made to the applicant "within 40 days" of the acceptance of an offer of payment. Again this is a reasonable amendment because the processing of the application would have already occurred. To be clear for people who are listening and who may not have read the legislation directly, this amendment seeks that after an application has been processed, after the chief deciding officer has made an offer of payment and after the payment has been accepted, only then would the 40-day countdown begin for the officer to instruct a payment to be made to a survivor. This is purely an amendment to make sure that the time taken for the State to instruct that a payment be made to the survivor is not longer than 40 days. This could be shortened to 28 days or less, and maybe even to 14 days. I am proposing 40 days to signal my belief that there must be a hard time limit set to ensure no bureaucratic delays occur in executing the payments. There should be no reason at all the chief deciding officer would take more than 40 days to instruct a payment to be made after an offer is accepted. I would welcome the Minister coming back on Report Stage to propose his own deadlines in this respect and a deadline of less than 40 days would be extremely welcome. I remind the Minister of the urgency of justice for elderly survivors.

Amendment No. 92 is similar to No. 80 and it is perhaps too reasonable. It specifies that the chief deciding officer would have to notify the HSE of an applicant's eligibility for an enhanced medical card "within 40 days" of the acceptance of an offer. After the applicant accepts an offer of an advanced medical card, the chief deciding officer would have a hard deadline of 40 days to communicate this to the HSE. This is reasonable because the processing of the application would have already occurred. The hard and time-consuming work would be done by the time the offer is accepted and there should be no reason at all the chief deciding officer would take more than 40 days to simply communicate with the HSE about an applicant's acceptance of an offer. Again I urge the Minister to come back on Report Stage with strong proposals in this respect, ideally with a shorter deadline. Surely even a 14-day window would be enough for the officer to send an email or whatever other communication to the HSE? I am eager to hear the Minister's proposals on this and perhaps he could offer some insight on why the legislation is so vague in deadlines and time limits for the processing of applications. I again remind the Minister of the urgency of justice for elderly survivors.