Mr. John McKeon:

We certainly will. We will take what the Chair has said as true. We do not question it. However, to be honest, it is the first I have heard of appeals officers feeling a chilling effect. I attended and spoke at an appeals officer conference recently. We spoke about the draft regulations and what was happening. I invited questions and there was not a single question about this issue. Neither has it been raised with me afterwards in conversation with appeals officers or the chief appeals officer. I am not aware that is the case but I take it that somebody has said that to the Chair.

On the oral hearings, it is important, for the reasons mentioned, that the discretion is left with the appeals officer and that oral hearings should be done in the most efficient and effective way possible. One of the learnings we got out of Covid is that many things that we thought were unthinkable were not only thinkable but actually doable, such as remote and blended working. That has proven to be the case in appeals as well, where remote hearings have proven effective where they have been held. Therefore, we should not rule remote hearings out or suggest that remote hearings are better or worse than in-person hearings. Certainly, in any case where a client requests an in-person hearing, generally our approach would be to honour that but if we do not want to and believe it is not necessary, we provide very solid and sound reasons it is not necessary. The experience shows, and the chief appeals officer commented, that the remote hearings that have been held have proven just as effective as in-person hearings. However, we have gone back to in-person hearings and will hold in-person hearings. If the client wants one, we would not insist on a remote hearing just for the sake of the technology, to put it that way.