Mr. John McKeon:

Absolutely, Chair, I will address the issues that Deputy Collins has raised. I do not want to address them specifically in the context of the Fórsa-AHCPS letter, because the long-standing practice is that there is an industrial relations process and that issues of dispute between Civil Service management and unions are dealt with through that process and are not politicised. That goes back to the idea that the Minister is the corporation sole of civil servants. We work for the Minister, and we cannot simultaneously work for the Minister and protest about issues to do with the Minister in a political environment. It is somewhat unusual that the letter has come in, but nevertheless, we will deal with the issues rather than the letter, if I can put it that way, because I do want to address the issues.

With regard to the independence of the social welfare appeals office, there is nothing in the regulations changing that independence. There may have been a misunderstanding. Before I go on, I want to reassure the members that we have had a lot of engagement with the Civil Service unions on this, and we continue to engage with them on it. As members and Deputy Collins in particular will know - she has a background in industrial relations I think, but I may be wrong - there is a process by which unions can bring matters forward. There can be a disagreed report, and it can go to conciliation and arbitration. None of that has happened. There is no disagreed report, or anything like that. We have had a number of meetings. Only a week or two ago, Mr. Molloy had a meeting with the union on these things. We are making progress, so I would like to give that reassurance.

There is nothing in the regulations that changes the independence of an appeals officer in making their decision. The Chair raised the question the last day, and this may have been a misunderstanding. It is one which I can understand, because we have since changed the regulations to clarify it. There was a provision in the regulations that appeals officers who are deciding to hold an oral hearing would consult with a deputy chief appeals officer. It was written to say that would have to happen before they decide to have an oral hearing. We have now changed the regulations so that it is after. Its only purpose, as Ms Joan Gordon explained at the time she was here, was that managers in the office would know where their staff were when allocating appeals to be dealt with; they would have a visibility of people's diaries, schedules and agendas. From a quality assurance perspective, it ensured they had visibility of the instances which are giving rise to oral hearings. It is about management, rather than impacting the independence.

The draft regulations have actually been changed to take on that feedback. The regulations now say that the appeals officer decides whether or not there is an oral hearing. Once they decide it and notify it, they then tell their superior that they are having these oral hearings. It is as simple as that. There is no role for the deputy chief appeals officer in telling them to stop that. It is purely about management oversight. That should address that issue, I think. It is important that managers have visibility of the work their staff is doing, and we have appeals officers all over the country. The appeals office originally comprised 16 to 18 appeals officers, and it is now 44. Processes that worked when there was a small team need to be operationalised when there is a bigger team. I am okay with that.

Regarding requests for an oral hearing, the Department writes to people with decisions with advice on the right to an appeal hearing, the right to seek review or the right to an appeal. It provides a link to the appeals office website, which includes all the information on the right to an oral hearing, and so on. There was, previously, a leaflet, which is considerably out of date, and whether we update the leaflet is something we need to look at. We have got feedback saying that the website is all fine and good, there is a good link, one can give members a copy of all the material, and it points out the right to request an oral hearing, and so on. However, for a small minority of clients, having a link that they then click to read it might not be as convenient as getting it expressed. We will take that on board, Deputy, and we will do that.

With regard to the impact of the oral hearing and other factors, the incidence of oral hearings has dropped dramatically since Covid-19. There is no pressure on appeals officers not to have oral hearings. There was, in May and June 2020, an instruction which went out in the middle of Covid-19, and it went out also to the courts. It said not to have oral hearings and in-person hearings due to social distancing and all of that. We have reverted to normal practice, but the number of oral hearings that are being scheduled by appeals officers has not increased to the point where it was. That, to be honest, gives rise to some concerns for me, but I think we need to be careful in reading too much into it.

Overall, appeals outcomes, and specifically positive appeals outcomes, have gone from about 60% positive to about 55% positive. The question that arises is, is that linked to oral hearings? It is something we need to keep a close eye on. At this stage, we cannot identify a causal link, and the Minister is correct because other things have happened in that period. For example, the proportion of claims that are being appealed has dropped, particularly illness and disability claims, because we put a lot of effort into communicating better with people. The proportion of appeals, when they are received, which are settled at the review stage rather than the appeal stage, has gone up. There are a couple of moving parts. A lower proportion of claims are being appealed, and a higher proportion of those are being dealt with at refuse stage rather than appeal stage. When one does get to appeal, whether the fact there is a lower number of successful appeals is related to those factors, or an oral hearing, is difficult to separate. However, I can tell the Deputy as well that the Minister shares the concern about oral hearings. We do not think they should recover, but we think that they should probably be a bit higher than they currently are. That is something that Mr. Molloy is looking at.

This is at the discretion of the appeals officer; one of the things we are doing in these regulations to strengthen the oral hearing is to effectively give the person a legislative right to request and oral hearing, and to get a reason if an oral hearing is not granted. We hope that will deal with it. We are aware of the issue around oral hearings dropping. It is too early to say whether it is having an impact, but we are keeping an eye on it. Overall, positive outcomes are still in that 55-60% ballpark. They are more towards 55% now than 60%, so we need to keep a careful eye on that.

When one looks at the outcome of oral hearings, what is actually happening is that the percentage of successful summary appeals, or those which are dealt with through correspondence, has dropped. That is the issue. By definition, when one has a lower number of appeals coming through per claim and per award, and when one has more being dealt with and granted at the review stage, that automatically means that the number which can be positive at the formal appeal stage reduces. We need to keep an eye on it, and we will. We do not have any instructions to appeals officers telling them not to hold oral hearings, or anything like that. We are clearly saying that it is a matter for individual appeals officers.

They are the three issues, Deputy, unless there is something I have missed.