Mr. Brian Molloy:

That is no problem. That is not me saying that I prefer one over the other but there are people who have transportation issues or mobility issues and it gives them an opportunity to get in front of the appeals officer using that technology. That is a benefit that has come from that. There is no direction from me or my predecessor telling people that they are not to do in-person hearings or to do one over the other. There is no direction on that. We are providing the facility for people to be able to access the oral hearing through a multiplicity of different platforms, with some online or by phone, which also suits some people, and some in person. As the Secretary General said and I reiterate, there is no direction from me and nor would there be because fundamentally the decision is made by the appeals officers. They are the ones, under the regulations, who have authority.

One of the changes the Secretary General referenced, which is a very positive change, is that the regulations now make it abundantly clear that an appeals officer cannot just put a line into the report saying someone asked for an oral hearing but did not get it and this is what they have done. They now have to expressly reply to a request for oral hearing if they have not granted it and outline the reasons. That gives a greater degree of protection and comfort from a public representative's point of view but also from the person's point of view as they will be told specifically why is not a requirement. I again reiterate that it is not all bad news. We are improving the processing times of the appeals. It has been a big complaint for years that appeals take six, nine or 12 months from commencement to completion whereas summary decisions have gone from 25 or 26 weeks to 14 or 15 weeks, which is a substantial improvement. My job over the next period is to try to improve that further and become more operationally efficient.