John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Any of the witnesses can respond but I have a number of specific points. One issue raised by the witness was that the figures released by the Department on claims disallowed on the grounds of the HRC do not include a breakdown of those that have been referred to the appeals office. That is a critical piece of information because this would then give an overview. The only figure we have is CROSSCARE's sample, if we want to look at it in that way, where it appealed 12 cases and won them all. From the committee's point of view, I believe we should try to contact the Department to see if we can get further information in this regard. That would substantiate or support the claim that is being made that deciding officers are inappropriately or not properly equipped to make the decision and that it is only when it gets to the appeals office that these decisions are looked at. I believe as a committee we should have a look at this first.

As for my second question, I may have missed it in the report but generally speaking - this applies to anybody making a social welfare claim, the claim is made and one is asked for supporting documentation. The slower one is in responding with the documentation, the longer the application process takes. Where somebody is trying to prove habitual residency, I presume the standard length of the application process is longer than most because he or she is probably grappling with something that is not as well-defined and is trying to prove a point. Even if the case is successful, because such people are dealing with the HRC, it is making their overall application time longer. Is that correct or is that the experience of the witnesses?