Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

To follow on that theme, my other hat is spokesperson on social protection. I am also a member of the committee here and it is something we have been arguing with the Department, the Social Welfare Appeals Office and officials since I have been advocating on social welfare. They need to change the mechanism to include something simple like a telephone call before a decision is made to notify a person that he or she is missing a particular document. That would save the Department time and money and would also save people distress. I presume that for somebody who is a migrant and who might not be literate in the English or Irish languages, it would be doubly stressful than it is for a citizen who can manage and make his or her way around the system. I commend the report for highlighting that issue in particular, even though many of the issues it identifies are commonly experienced by citizens also, particularly those who are semi-literate or illiterate. Even I find it difficult on occasion to navigate between a review and an appeal and I have argued consistently with the Minister and her officials that it needs to be made a great deal clearer to people that when a decision is made, the easiest avenue is a review. It is only easy if one knows what the problem is. I recommend that. I am not asking a question in this regard as it has already been addressed, but the witnesses can discuss it.

I can understand the arguments on both sides regarding ID badges. I dealt with a case of a social welfare inspector who was being followed home by somebody. Gardaí and others were involved and the Department did not stand in quickly enough to provide her with the defence she required. Eventually, she had to move office. There is that fear within the Department. This case involved a very violent criminal. While that concern exists, I support the view that even if it deals simply with a first name, a name tag or a response where someone asks for a name, it is a matter of common courtesy. The offices are not that large and one could ask to speak to "Tom" or "Jack". It breaks down a barrier which should not be there.

Have the witnesses liaised with Travellers' rights organisations to see whether the themes that emerged in the report are common in their interactions with the Department of Social Protection? I believe it would be the case.