Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions, and Deputy Ó Cuív wishes to contribute again. My first question relates to my last comment, the review of this statutory instrument and attendance at an oral hearing. Section 15(1) states: "The appellant shall ordinarily appear at the hearing in person and he or she may be accompanied by any member of his or her family, or, with the consent of the appeals officer, by any other person." In practice, an Oireachtas Member or an advocate working on behalf of the person can attend. I understand that the intention of the proviso that has been included about the consent of the appeals officer is not to restrict an advocate, but the wording should go beyond the family. In many cases, the family are not in a position to advocate on behalf of the person. I have encountered disability allowance cases involving mental health issues where those issues were not confined to the person who was before the Department for consideration. I accept that there is a far more proactive approach to the medical assessment of mental health issues now than when I started in politics, but if there are mental health issues in the family, having a family member advocating is not necessarily in the best interests of the appellant. Will the Department consider how this provision is worded to ensure that, importantly, there is an advocate working on behalf of the individual?

I am making this point because, although it does not happen often, the social welfare inspector also attends the oral hearing. Many people who go before an appeals officer at an oral hearing do not understand that the social welfare appeals office is independent of the Department of Social Protection. Their perception is that the appeals officer is a departmental official. Sometimes, the social welfare inspector is also present and can be quite forceful in getting his or her point across because he or she is effectively being challenged in the appeal and is making a case to the appeals officer. On the other side of the hearing may be someone who is quite vulnerable, and being joined by a family member who is not a strong advocate does not benefit the appellant. Previously, the presence of a member of my staff was challenged by an appeals officer. The appeal went ahead and there was no issue with the staff member's presence, but that challenge should not have happened.

I have raised the question of who can make the written request for an oral appeal. I hope that this matter will be examined.

I wish to address the new section 15 on the decision taken by the appeals officer about whether a hearing is required. Mr. McKeon has provided us with assurances that the appeals officer will make this decision and then inform the deputy Chief Appeals Officer. That is a welcome change. However, the feedback that we are now getting is that the practice is along the lines of what happened in 2020 and that the culture, particularly among newer members of the appeals office, is not to go ahead with oral hearings. Positive comments have been made at this meeting about how the witnesses, as senior management within the Department, are concerned about the number of oral hearings being heard and that they will monitor the situation closely.

It is important this is communicated clearly to every single member in Mr. Molloy's office. This is vital so we do not have what took place in 2020 and 2021 spilling forward as being custom and practice when that is not the intention in relation to it.

It comes back to the point Deputy Ó Cuív made, that when you are actually meeting people in person, you get a greater appreciation of the issues. It is not just physically meeting them but that it is easier to elaborate and get the detail relating to the particular circumstances. Part of the problem in the context of the concerns raised by Deputy Ó Cuív and Senator Wall is not that there has not been a change within the Department or within the appeals office, and the witnesses are correct in that, but because appeals officers are not meeting as many people face to face and they are not getting a full appreciation of a person's particular circumstances as the person is not articulating them in a way he or she can and should do, circumstances that can be far more obvious when the person is there in front of the appeals officer.

This also comes back to the statistics I read out earlier. Except in 2021, and no more than in 2020, the situation was that we were in the middle of the pandemic and restrictions had to be made around it. What really concerns me is that, in 2022, the number of in-person oral hearings has gone down by one third between 2021 and 2022. This is according to the Department's own statistics. The number of online oral hearings has gone up by one fifth. This should not happen post the relaxation of the restrictions. The numbers should have gone the other way and we should have had more in-person oral hearings and fewer online oral hearings. The statistics are going the wrong way. That, along with the reduction in the overall number of oral hearings taking place, is a concern to me because I believe it will lead to more instances such as Deputy Ó Cuív and Senator Wall have outlined because appeals officers are not meeting people face to face.

We have all come across cases. I had a case recently relating to disability claim. I spoke to the people in question over the phone. I honestly felt they were full of the proverbial regarding the claim they were putting forward, but when I actually met them in person and went through the case, it was a black-and-white situation. I am a person who has been dealing with this type of thing for years and I was really surprised by the conversation I had with the individual. The in-person engagement I had with them was so stark in relation to the detail of the case. It is not always easy to do this remotely or through a screen because many people are not used to that way of engaging and particularly people who are within the social welfare system. I put it to Mr. McKeon and Mr. Molloy that absolutely we could have this engagement online and we would probably have a very similar engagement, but if a person has been out of work for five or six years and has never sat in front of a computer and spoken to a computer, it can be very disconcerting for a person to do that.

With regard to advocating online, we have all dealt with cases where we are trying to explain something to someone. For example, I recall a carer's allowance case during the middle of the pandemic where I spoke to an individual. He was absolutely apoplectic with the fact that his application for carer's allowance had been refused. We actually got the medical records from the Department. I sat down and went through them with him, first of all orally over the phone and then in person. At the end of the conversation over the phone he was still apoplectic. I then sat down with him face to face and I went through it with him and explained to him that the medical assessor had no choice but to refuse it based on what was in front of them. I also said that I would not have granted it, and I knew the circumstances of the case. I would not have granted based on what was on the desk in front of the Department. He could understand it then as I sat down and went through it with him

It is not always the best example and the best template to use and what really worries me is that in 2022 we have seen a one third reduction in the number of face-to-face hearings when it should be going the other way. There has been a 20% increase in the number of remote online hearings. It should be going the other way. It is concerning and is leading to the problems such as those we have heard from Senator Wall and Deputy Ó Cuív today. There has not been a policy change but the application of the regulations is different in a very dramatic way. This can store up trouble for us all and this is trouble none of us want.