Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and thank them for their presentation. As Deputy Griffin said, their comprehensive answers are much appreciated. On my own behalf and that of my staff, I genuinely thank the social welfare appeals office for the service it gives to public representatives. I acknowledge that it is unfailingly courteous and helpful.

I was struck by the figures mentioned with regard to invalidity pension and disability allowance. In both cases, the social welfare appeals office seems to overturn decisions with extraordinary frequency. The figure is 51% in one case and 46% in the other. One in two decisions is likely to be overturned. I am curious to know whether lessons are being learned. When Ms Gleeson spoke about the connection between the appeals office and the Department, she referred to their independence. What lessons are being learned? Do the appeals office and the Department share knowledge? If half of decisions are being overturned by the appeals office, there is something very wrong. I am interested to know what steps are being taken to learn from this unnecessary duplication to try to avoid it in the future.

I am aware that public representatives are and must continue to be a constant pain in the neck with our parliamentary questions, etc. Those are my words rather than those of the officials. As public representatives, we demand much of the social welfare appeals office's time and command many of its resources. We certainly use up much of the time of staff with our constant barrage of queries. By the same token, we could be a much more useful resource. The 166 Deputies and 60 Senators offer a great deal of assistance when we meet the clients of the appeals office, but I suggest we could be given more information, advice, direction and guidance. That suggestion is probably more relevant to the Department than to the appeals office. The officials who are present can respond to it, if they wish. I was going to ask whether the officials knew what percentage of their files had representations in them. I am not sure whether they have information on the inquiries made by public representatives. I imagine that a large percentage of the files have been the subject of representations.

Public representatives could be a useful resource if we were given more constructive information, guidance and assistance. As the first port of call for people considering appealing a decision on an application for a social welfare payment, we could be put to better use.

On the running of the social welfare appeals office, how many staff worked in the office in 2000 when it processed in the region of 17,000 applications per annum? The office aims to process 40,000 cases per annum and I understand it currently employs 40 staff. Is that correct? What is the budget for running the office? On the basis of a back of the envelope calculation, if 40 staff are expected to deal with 40,000 applications, each staff member will process approximately 1,000 appeals in the course of a year.

While my final question may appear a little trivial, it relates to a bugbear of mine and reinforces my argument for providing Members of the Oireachtas with information and guidance that they could pass on to constituents. Does a letter from a consultant have superior status to that from a general practitioner or is that an old wives' tale. If it is a myth, I am guilty of perpetuating it because I encourage constituents to obtain a consultant's letter. Does the social welfare appeals office take a formal position on this issue?