Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are very welcome. I acknowledge the improvements but it does not make for easy reading. Like Senator Moloney's experience, I met a woman recently who had been seeking invalidity pension for one and a half years before approaching me. She believed the entire country was down on her. With the help of the Oireachtas line, we got a response for her within approximately six weeks and it was positive. I do not understand why the system could not have been successful for her. The witnesses might explain that because people are at their wits' end with these delays.

What percentage of applications across the various schemes are granted without going to an appeal? The witness referred to it but perhaps she would go through it again. How many of those applications are granted on appeal? I deliberately ask Ms Gleeson this question because I think the new policy of management for managing budgets is to put everything to appeal. I have grave concern about that. We are driving people mad. They are totally frustrated. Some people are being put on the bread line because of this. There is a hostility among the public because of this type of treatment. The hostility is wider than this issue, of course, but it is not good. What would improve things for Ms Gleeson? I realise she is doing her best with the meetings and I acknowledge the improvements she outlined. However, if she discussed what would improve matters we might be able to help.

Ms Gleeson said something that I do not understand. She said there seems to be better co-operation between the community welfare officers and the Department. She is in the Department as well. How does she not know what the reason is? I ask her to clarify what she means by using the word "seems".

Another trend I have noticed relates to the domiciliary care allowance for parents with disabled children in the home. When they put in the application and it is refused they are told that unless they have new evidence they should not get back to the Department. They might not have new evidence but the case might not have been presented well the first time. It is wrong that they are just rejected. Will Ms Gleeson comment on that? I wish her well, but huge improvements must be made.