Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I thank the Secretary General and Mr. Molloy for attending the meeting. I have some questions. I do not know whether the new general agreement has come into play. A letter was sent in from Fórsa and the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants, AHCPS, in regard to the last meeting we had in November and the issues they had with some of the statements made at that meeting. One of them was on the question of the independence of the social welfare appeals office. In reply to a question I tabled to the Minister last month, the Minister stated that the office is independent in its decision making functions. There has been no change in Government policy in regard to the operation of the social welfare appeals office. How then did the Department respond to the AHCPS and Fórsa submission which raised concerns about independence and improper control due to their assertion that their proposed changes are of an internal Department design and have no known input from independent or external stakeholders.

The AHCPS and Fórsa submission raised significant concerns over a lack of information to appellants on their ability to request an oral hearing. I welcome the addition of regulation 13 with regard to an appeals officer having to provide a rationale for declining an oral hearing but this does not quite resolve the fact that some appellants may not be aware that they could receive an oral hearing. In reply to a question I put to the Minister last month, she stated that the matter of providing an updated hard copy information leaflet is being kept under review by the appeals office at this stage. Why has the Department not chosen to include a requirement to inform appellants of their ability to request an oral hearing in the proposed regulations?

My third question relates to oral hearings and disability. In their submission the AHCPS and Fórsa raised concerns about the Department’s assertion that a reduction in positive outcomes from appeals was related to the availability of oral hearings. Previously in this committee the Department asserted that whether or not an appeal related to disability received an oral hearing had nothing to do with this reduction. In the reply to the question I tabled to the Minister last month, she provided statistics on appeals related to disability allowance, invalidity allowance and domiciliary care allowance schemes. The two sets of statistics I received related to a number of decisions with regard to these three schemes that were made through oral hearings and were totally upheld or partially upheld. Will the Department provide statistics on the difference in decisions that were either allowed or partially allowed, broken down by whether they were made as a result of an oral hearing or not? The Minister also asserted in replies that in regard to these three schemes, there was no causal link between the decline in oral hearings and the decline in positive outcomes. Will the Department provide evidence that this decline was due to any other factor? How would the Department reply to the assertion in the AHCPS and Fórsa submission that appellants who are disadvantaged, vulnerable or have a disability may not be able to articulate or express their reasons for appeal or point of view as effectively in writing?

These are three areas I wanted to raise at the meeting today, and hopefully I will get a reply.