Ms Geraldine Gleeson:

It has been included for 18 months perhaps. One of the problems is that in the schemes which are digital, a bar code reader has to be developed to process applications automatically. As they are being dealt with manually, such readers are not as widespread as they should be, but they are certainly working on making them widespread. We are certainly very much in favour of them and they can only help an appellant's case.

I refer to disability allowance and making the medical assessment but not the means assessment. That came about because social welfare inspectors were under huge pressure in investigating means. It was being found that many cases would be investigated for means but were turned down on the medical evidence. The decision to do it this way was a very practical one to ease the pressure on the inspection branch. I fully accept that in these cases where it means a second bite at the cherry, it is very difficult. When they do this, they make it very clear to the person concerned that we have only made a decision on the medical aspects of the claim. This is something that will be reviewed when there is not as much pressure on inspectors. The other point is that those involved in this area did not make a desk assessment of means until recently and they have moved significantly. Where they are making a desk assessment, they do not wait.

Senator Fidelma Healy-Eames asked what percentage of cases were granted initially and what percentage were granted on appeal. Of the number who make an appeal, 50% are successful, but of that 50%, half are successful because the applications were reviewed by the Department.