Mr. Brian Molloy:

I agree with the Secretary General's comment that is it difficult to set a specific target for individuals. If I told appeals officers that they had to do a certain number of appeals every year in a particular manner, that would be seen as me encroaching on the independent decision-making of those officers. It would mean that they would be making decisions to satisfy me as distinct from decisions that are based on the individual circumstances of the case. I can look into making sure all the appeals officers are exposed to a certain number of in-person hearings to get over the issue of them not being aware of the impact of it.

I will also pick up on a point the Chair made at the start of his questions around feedback he has received. Although we have made it clear that the appeals officer does not need to seek permission to have an oral hearing - that communication happens after the determination - I appreciate that this is not necessarily what the Chair has heard is happening in practice. All I can do is give an undertaking that we have made it clear that they are not to ask for permission. I can restate that back in the office, particularly to the newer ones. The Chair has made this point. I can make sure it is very clear to the newer appeals officers that it is their decision to hold an oral hearing or not and that the communication with their superior is simply part of a resource management process.