Ms Geraldine Gleeson:

It has been stated an oral hearing is the only way to go. I repeat what I said about what I call the subjective schemes, the medical schemes. This is where most of the focus by anyone who is inquiring is directed. We are making positive decisions on a significant number of these cases by way of summary hearing. I hope I get that message across.

On the point that an oral hearing is the only way to go, an appeals officer is often the first person to meet the appellant on his or her journey. Even in medical cases, one does not see the medical assessor or deciding officer. The fact that the appeals officer is the first person one meets makes a difference because the person will present his or her case more cogently in person than he or she can on paper. The experience of the appeals officer comes into play when he or she examines the medical evidence from the appellant's general practitioner or consultant. He or she examines the appellant's account of the difficulties that arise. An experienced officer can see whether he or she is likely to make a positive decision in a case. All we are saying is that we do not want to bring such cases to an oral hearing. In general, I do not favour saying to people that they can request an oral hearing if they like because it could give rise to an unreal expectation that they will receive one. In some cases, there is clearly nothing to be gained from it. I refer, in particular, to means and contribution cases. Generally, where an oral hearing is requested, we grant it, unless we find we can make a positive decision in the case at the level of summary hearing.

I was asked about the delays in receiving files. A couple of issues arise. The delays are encountered in the medical schemes.

The delay is due to the fact that it has to go to the medical assessor for a different-----