Mr. John McKeon:

I thank the Chairman. On the first point the Chair made about the attendance at appeal hearings, I will certainly take that point on board and look at it. We may be able to change the language. It is certainly not the intent. We may be able to add in language including, for example, an elected public representative or other authorised advocate or something like that. The text and the new regulation are exactly the same as the existing regulation so we are not doing anything there. We can certainly look at that.

Reference was made to inspectors at the meetings. One of the things we are trying to do in the regulations is try to reduce the adversarial nature. I am aware this is a cause of concern, even within the Department, where we are saying deciding officers will not provide a counter submission to the appeals. They will provide the facts of the case to the appeals office and the appeals office on a de novobasis will look at all of the facts and determine it, which is what it is meant to do. I am trying to get away from the situation where a deciding officer or an inspector feel they have to defend the decision they took. That is not their role. The role is for the appeals officer to look at it afresh. We are trying to get away from that, which I believe is a positive change. It does come with concerns, both within the appeals office and among our own staff, but we are trying to take away that adversarial bit of it. I believe this will help.

With regard to the oral hearings, we have already acknowledged that the oral hearings are at a level, but there is a balance to be struck. We are definitely keeping a close eye on it. The intention is not to diminish in anyway the effectiveness of the appeals process. During the Covid pandemic when appeals officers started doing an increasing amount by summary decision or online, they found those to be as effective, in many cases, as the oral hearings. The question that arises is whether we want to go back to the situation where upwards of 40% of appeals were heard orally. Now it is less than 10%. Upwards of 40% was probably too high and 10% is probably too low. We need to get back to something in between, but that will be determined by experience. We are keeping a close eye on it and we will continue to pay attention to it. Ultimately, it is in the hands of the appeals officers to determine and consider the complexity of an appeal, if there is a dispute as to facts or impacts, or whether they believe it requires an oral hearing.