Ms Yvonne O'Sullivan:

Yes, it is significantly high. It is especially so when one considers the long delays that exist within the process. Those 55% of appellants were entitled to payments prior to entering the appeals process but they were obliged to wait six to nine months to have them restored. Some individuals were obliged to wait even longer and this reflects what is stated in both the annual report and parliamentary questions with regard to the average processing time. Obviously, some people are obliged to wait a lot longer for their appeals to be heard in circumstances where they are entitled to payment in the first instance. It comes down to the initial decision made by the deciding officer, a poor standard of decision making and the lack of compulsory accredited training for front-line staff, deciding officers and designated staff within the Department and its offices. When the law changes and new payment criteria are introduced as a result - the habitual residence condition is one example in this regard - a training course will eventually be developed but, again, this is voluntary. This means that members of staff make the decision as to whether they want to learn how new criteria are going to affect people's payments. They are not obliged to attend such training course. As a result, the level of decision making is highly inconsistent and this is reflected by the figures contained in the annual report.