Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 26 November 2014

Committee on Education and Social Protection: Select Sub-Committee on Social Protection

Social Welfare Bill 2014: Committee Stage

2:25 pm

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept the amendment. The social welfare appeals process operates on a statutory basis and social welfare appeals officers are required to be quasi-judicial in performing their functions. The Social Welfare Appeals Office, therefore, operates independently of the Department of Social Protection.

It is important to note that processing times for appeals do not relate solely to the time taken for the Social Welfare Appeals Office to consider appeals. Appeals processing times take account of all stages of the review and appeals process. When an appeal is submitted to the Social Welfare Appeals Office, the Department is requested to provide details of the case and the extent to which the facts advanced by the person applying are admitted or are disputed. At this point, the Department reviews the original decision in the light of the facts and evidence submitted as part of the appeal in order to decide whether the original decision should be revised in favour of the person appealing. In the case of illness, disability and caring-related payments, the time taken to review a case will normally include a review by a different medical assessor. Whether the substance of the appeal involves the assessment of means or whether any of the other conditions of entitlement is satisfied, the matter may require investigation and a further visit by a social welfare inspector.

All of the activity I have outlined - the standard procedure of the Department - takes time, as the Deputy will appreciate. However, it gives the person making the application a series of opportunities to strengthen his or her case along the way. This is hugely in favour of the person making the application and demonstrates the strong flexibility built into the system, as I have pointed out to Deputies on a number of occasions. I know that all of the Deputies present handle a very large volume of social welfare queries. One of the problems is that, for a variety of reasons, people do not submit sufficient information at the time they make their applications. Very often, it is when public representatives meet people and suggest they will help them with their applications that they provide additional supporting evidence or documentation. We allow this very elaborate examination of the case made and, in many cases, it works strongly to the benefit of applicants. Is the Deputy suggesting we should do away with this? Our system is unique; this does not happen in other jurisdictions in the detailed way in which it happens here. We would possibly end up having far more appeals disallowed. As the Deputies know from handling constituents' cases, very often, even when they believe they know all about them, some piece of significant information has not been advised to them. When they find out, perhaps by talking to another family member or in an overall review of their own information, they are able to make a much stronger case.

I will set out some examples. Some 21% of the 38,000 appeals in 2013 were revised by the Department during the review stage when the Department can submit information to the appeals office. This is very much in favour of the person making the application. Following the review, if the original decision is still unchanged, the appeal can then be advanced by an appeals officer either on a summary or an oral basis. In the case of oral appeal hearings approximately six weeks can be added to the process as the necessary arrangements must be made in scheduling the appeal. At any time during this process, up to and including the morning of the hearing of an appeal, an appellant, a person applying, can submit additional information, allowing the opportunity to strengthen his or her case.

I fully acknowledge that during the period from 2010 to 2013, there were unacceptable delays in the appeal process due to the unprecedented increase in appeal numbers. This placed considerable pressures on the office. I have reported on the matter to the social protection spokespeople in the Dáil on many occasions.

Prior to 2009, before the great crash and the great recession, the average number of appeals received by the Department per year was in the region of 15,000. By 2012 the appeals receipts had more than doubled at 35,500. As a consequence of the vast number of people who lost their jobs in the wake of the bank guarantee and the construction crash brought about by the previous Government, there was a major increase in the numbers of people claiming a variety of social welfare entitlements. My predecessor, the then Minister, could tell the Deputy that the numbers of applications and appeals increased dramatically.

The numbers of appeals currently being received are rather high. In 2013, the social welfare appeals office received a total of 32,000 appeals, the second highest number of appeals since the office was established in 1990. Considerable effort and many resources have been devoted to reforming and improving the appeals system. An extra 15 appeals officers have been appointed, with ten former community welfare service appeals officers joining the social welfare appeals office after I became Minister. This brought the total number of appeals officers in 2011 to 41 at a time when, as the Deputies are aware, the reductions in staff throughout the public service with early retirements and so on were significant.

A new operating model was introduced aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the system and eliminating delays at various stages of the process. We have had detailed discussions on this previously. I am thankful to the Deputies for acknowledging the work of the staff in improving the appeals process times. The time taken for an appeal involving an oral hearing dropped from 52 weeks to 29 weeks by the end of October 2014, a significant reduction of almost six months. The time taken for summary decisions reduced from 25 weeks in 2011 to 21 weeks in 2014. The appeals times are still improving. The average time taken for an oral hearing last month was down to 26 weeks and the time taken for a summary decision was down to a little under 19 weeks. By comparison, the time taken for an oral hearing in 2007, before the collapse, was 30.3 weeks and the time take for a summary decision was 14.2 weeks. Notwithstanding the major increases in the numbers, we have improved on what applied at the height of the Celtic tiger with far fewer people.

I call on the Deputies to consider what would happen if we were to proceed with this proposal. The timeframe offered in the amendment does not take account of the fact that it is a two-stage process, including an initial review by the Department and consideration of an appeal by an appeals officer, either on a summary basis or by means of an oral hearing. The proposed amendment would mean that even where the underlying conditions for receipt of social welfare payments were not met, an appeal would be allowed simply on the basis of the elapse of time. In many cases the elapse of time is to enable people to put in additional material to support their case thus allowing the case to receive additional consideration. The proposal is simply not tenable and could lead to a misuse of public funds. In fact, it could lead to a situation whereby it would be in an appellant's interest to delay an appeal beyond the statutory deadline to achieve this result.

I am fully aware of and I share the considerations that have led Deputies to introduce the amendment but in respect of the consequences of the amendment it is a case of being careful what we wish for. One good point of the Irish system, unlike other systems, is that an applicant can submit an application and then amend, improve and update the application on the basis of circumstances that the person may not have included at the time. This would not be possible if we moved to a fixed time. For example, a Deputy may only meet a constituent at a late date, in which case it would be difficult to assist the constituent. As I said, it is a case of being careful what we wish for.

As a Deputy I have dealt with significant numbers of social welfare appeals and applications and I am experienced in the area. The motivation is good but the consequences of what the Deputy is suggesting must be considered. The proposal brings in elements of the British system whereby the times are limited and this does not always work to the benefit of the people applying. They may have difficulties completing forms and may not put forward the best case. Our system allows for constant reviews, as the Deputies are aware. I would not recommend and I do not accept the amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.