Ms Geraldine Gleeson:

The summary decisions in the past would have taken half the time of an oral hearing because under the old method, every case was vetted. If it was decided summarily, it went back into a second queue for oral hearing. What that was doing was picking the low-hanging fruit and getting rid of it quickly. When summary decisions were made then, the disallowance rate was far higher. In other words, they were easy cases to decide and they were got rid of more quickly, but it is counter-intuitive. In other words, one is speeding up the cases for people who are less likely to succeed.

With the new model, summary decisions will be slower for two reasons. First, we are not picking them off and fast-tracking them and, second, we are deciding more of them on a positive basis, which means the case must get a deeper analysis. I think my colleagues, Mr. Brendan O'Leary and Mr. Ken Kelly, would agree when I say that under the old model, if one was vetting a case and something appeared to be more complex, there would always have been the temptation to put it out to oral hearing. Under the new model, one must take it to oral hearing oneself. Therefore, one will be very clear before putting it down for oral hearing. That is one of the other reasons the number of positive summary decisions has risen.

I have given all that information to explain that the processing times for a summary decision will not go back to what they were, which was half the time of an oral hearing. They will continue to take less than the time for an oral hearing. I do not have a problem with that because I think the system is fairer.