Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I support the intention of the Bill, but the Minister of State is opposing the timeframe, which is too narrow. Nevertheless, the intention is to address a problem within the social welfare appeals section. It is not just a problem with social welfare appeals, as the issue is with the initial decision in many cases. For example, consider the number of appeals upheld, especially in medical cases. These would include applications for carer's and disability allowance, as well as invalidity benefit. There is a range of social welfare payments on which an assessment is made by a deciding officer based on medical evidence. Considering that the number of appeals upheld can be 40% or more in these cases, we know there is a problem in the system. Other social welfare applications that go to appeal might see 10% or 15% upheld. The problem lies in medical assessments and the examination of documentation produced by an applicant. When the application is made, not all the medical documentation might be present or clear. I know this because I have seen some documentation supplied by doctors to clients. If the information is unclear, rather than making a decision of refusal, a deciding officer would be better served by asking an applicant to get his or her doctor to fully explain the issue. In medical cases, the deciding officer would be a medical practitioner in the Department. These officers must go on the documents in front of them, but they are not stupid; if somebody has had a body part amputated, he or she will know the condition will not get better. There have been strange decisions concerning visible medical problems whose existence has not been accepted by a deciding officer. In such cases, the person involved would experience the stress, strain and turmoil that is often involved in making an appeal, as well as the subsequent delay.

That is the biggest problem with medical appeals. Often, the allowance is needed quickly. This is particularly true of people who will be dependent on a carer. It is not necessarily the carer's allowance that is in question. In order for a carer to be granted carer's allowance, the person being cared for must be in receipt of disability allowance or an invalidity pension. Where somebody has been struck down by an illness that is not properly explained by a doctor, God forbid, there may be a delay in granting these allowances to him or her. If the person appeals, it can take more than six months before a decision is made by the Social Welfare Appeals Office. If it is granted at that stage, the carer may then apply for carer's allowance and end up in the same rigmarole. There is a need for a more linked-up approach to medical documentation. It is not always the fault of the Department of Social Protection or the Social Welfare Appeals Office.

I acknowledge the major progress made in recent years. The length of time for appeals has been cut in half in the past five or six years. Some of this is related to the letter sent out in the first instance. I have made this point to the Minister on a number of occasions. The letter refusing an allowance in the first instance is not very clear on what "review" means. When better documentation or other facts that could change the decision can be provided, the case can be reviewed rather than ending up in the Social Welfare Appeals Office. If that were made clearer in the letter, it would be better. The review is buried in the third paragraph, telling people that they can apply for a review if there has been a change in circumstances or if further documentation is available. The same paragraph deals with how people can deal apply for a social welfare appeal and sets out the deadline. People do not understand what a review means. It must be made clearer to the applicant. This might cut down the number of appeals and the length of time people are without payments. In many cases, they have the documentation and can go back to the doctor or consultant or tell the Department of Social Protection that the problem is that there is a waiting list to get a letter from a consultant. It is one of the biggest scandals that people must wait five, six or seven months for a letter stating their condition. A press of a button in the hospital is all that is required. I know the pressure that outpatient units are under, but if they could issue a letter to support a person with a disability it would serve the cause of the hospital because it would relieve some of the stresses and strains that people are under, and this might make their recovery quicker.

I understand the intention of the Bill and support its progression to Committee Stage, where we can tease out this legislation, rather than having a back-and-forth debate today. At the very least, we should consider a timeframe. With regard to the asylum seeker process, which is a debacle, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, is examining whether a timeframe can be implemented so that people have their human rights respected and an early decision can be made. If decisions are put off, people do not have the right to a proper service. It is not yet at that level in the Social Welfare Appeals Office, but sometimes it is due to a complication of the system or the fact that an applicant does not have access to documentation or does not understand all of the forms.

I presume other Deputies have had the same experience of being asked what people should do with social welfare appeal forms. One of the initiatives undertaken by FLAC is a guide to the social welfare appeals system. We can tell people that this is the mechanism of how to make an appeal or ask for a review. It is framed in this way so that it is clear to people what is sought and what conditions apply. If people think there have been hard done by, they should have access to the social welfare file through a freedom of information request. They can then check to see whether account was taken of all of the documents supplied. It is an extra burden on the Department of Social Protection, but people are entitled to their files. Perhaps many people do not understand this point, but they are also entitled to their medical files. If they apply for the medical files at the same time as the social welfare file under freedom of information, they might be able to speed up the appeal. Perhaps this can be addressed by allowing the Bill to go to Committee Stage for a more detailed perusal.

See this speech in context