Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

Deputy Shortall shadowed me when I was the Minister for Transport and now she is the Opposition spokesperson on Social and Family Affairs. I congratulate her and wish her well.

The report to which the Deputy refers was produced by the Social Welfare Appeals Office, SWAO, of my Department in accordance with legislative requirements. It contains details of the activities of the office in 2006 as well as commentary on other issues which arose during the year. As previously stated by me on 29 June 2007, I welcome the continued commitment of the SWAO to provide an accessible and independent review mechanism for people who wish to appeal against decisions made by my Department.

My Department makes every effort to deliver entitlements to people in accordance with the legislation. However, considering that in 2006 my Department made over 1 million payments per week that benefit more than 1.5 million people, and received 1.75 million claims for statutory social welfare schemes, it is understandable that there will be some people who will not agree with decisions made on their entitlements. The 13,800 appeals received, when viewed in the context of the number of claims received is less than 1%, which is small. Of the 14,006 appeals processed in 2006, favourable decisions were made in 6,439 cases.

The report highlights that 46% of appeals had a successful outcome for the appellant. It refers to the fact that of the 6,439 favourable decisions on appeal cases, almost half of these decisions, 3,199, were in fact revised decisions made by statutorily appointed deciding officers of my Department, who reviewed the claim following the initial disallowance.

These revised decisions arose as a result, in many cases, of new facts or fresh evidence produced by the claimant after the original decision on his or her claim. In such cases an appeals officer decision was not necessary. In addition, it should be noted that of the 9,100 appeals actually decided by appeals officers, a total of 5,860,64%, upheld the original decision of the deciding officer.

Customers whose claims are disallowed or who are disqualified from payment or awarded social welfare at a reduced rate are informed that if they have any new fact or evidence that has a bearing on their case, they should send it in the first instance to the deciding officer for re-examination and, if appropriate, for revision of the decision. They are informed that this right is in addition to their right of appeal to the SWAO.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

They can seek a deciding officer review before making an appeal or can do both concurrently. The right of appeal to the SWAO remains an option if the review by the deciding officer is not fruitful.

The success of the deciding officer review process has been highlighted in a number of annual reports of the SWAO. In the annual report 2002, for example, the contribution which the deciding officer review process made in reducing the overall number of appeals that were received in the SWAO was noted. The 2005 annual report also highlighted the success of this strategy.

The role of the statutorily appointed deciding officer is to decide entitlement to statutory social welfare schemes and insurability of employment in accordance with the legislation. To assist deciding officers in their role, guidelines relating to all aspects of decision-making and social welfare legislation are issued and regularly updated by my Department. In addition, training is provided to deciding officers on their statutory obligations and the application of principles of natural justice and fair procedures.

The need for transparency in the decision-making process by deciding officers is also provided for in legislation. Regulations provide that decisions on social welfare claims must be set out in writing and, where the decision is unfavourable, the reasons for the decision must also be recorded and included in the notification to the person concerned. Therefore, when a deciding officer has reached a decision, which is unfavourable to the claimant, she or he must give the grounds for the decision, that is, the statutory condition which is not fulfilled; and the reason the grounds are not met.

The rules of natural justice and fair procedures are applied by deciding officers when making decisions that could have an adverse affect on the person concerned.

Given the legislative provisions and administrative guidelines and practices in place, I am satisfied with the procedures in place for deciding social welfare claims.

See this speech in context