Mark Wall (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and welcome Mr. McKeon and Mr. Molloy to the meeting this morning. I wish Mr. Molloy the best in his new role. I spent 20 years working on appeals in social welfare. I have always found them to be fair. I have also always found that it is an important mechanism for public representatives working on social welfare payments. However, since the Covid-19 pandemic, I have had the same experience as Deputy Ó Cuív. I believe oral hearings are not being granted to the same extent as they were before the pandemic. I have a serious problem with that. I also have a problem with how public representatives are currently being viewed as regards making an appeal. I ask again, and my colleague Deputy Smith asked a parliamentary question on this recently, whether public representatives are allowed to request an oral hearing. Is that a good enough reason for an oral hearing to be granted? It seems to me that when a public representative requests a public hearing, further information is then requested from the individual. That is a problem for me because many of the people I deal with and who I am sure colleagues deal with are not in a position to deal with the mechanism of the appeals process. That is the reason they come to us in the first place. They find it very difficult. It is a huge problem for me and for many of the people I talk to. It is a concern for me. Perhaps the witnesses might comment on that.

The other huge issue I have relates to the way the number of online hearings is perceived to be growing versus in-person hearings. I could speak about a number of cases I have been involved with in recent years but one sticks out. It relates to the overpayment of a guardian's payment. In the more than 20 years I have been involved in appeals, it is probably one of the most horrific cases I have come across. I honestly believe the only way it will be overturned is through an oral hearing and I cannot get to that stage, unfortunately. Every time I submit information, further requests are made and the person is getting frustrated by the requests coming from the appeals office and, previously, from social welfare. In the 20 years and before the Covid-19 pandemic, I found that when I sat in front of appeals officers, they were fair. They listened to what I had to say and, more importantly, listened to the appellants who were there to present their cases. That was very important because all the doctors' letters in the world will not show how the person is affected daily, and this is the problem Deputy Ó Cuív has just said. If a change in legislation is needed, then we need to do that. There is an appeals mechanism, and for carer's allowance and illness benefits, the in-person hearing was always the issue. My concern, which is shared by many others, is that we are not getting the oral hearings that used to make a difference. Perhaps the witnesses could also comment on that.

The question to be asked, and it is a matter for the individual appeals officers, is whether Mr. Molloy is requesting that they grant an oral hearing when it is requested? What is the mechanism appeals officers have to go through to grant an oral hearing? It is very important for public representatives to get the chance to represent the people who come to our offices. Many people are telling me that they are being directed to online hearings. I stress again today that people are coming to me, including three cases that will come to my clinic on Friday, because of their fear of going online. They fear what that means for them. They are coming to their public representative to help them to fill in the forms and submit the case for appeal. Will the witnesses comment on that and on the role of the public representative in appeals?