Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the social welfare appeals system. I acknowledge that there has been an understandable level of concern about appeal processing times in the past few years and appreciate that this is what prompted Deputy Willie O'Dea's proposals. Appeal processing times are always a matter of concern, particularly when they impact on those who are most vulnerable in society. I hope that in setting out the very significant progress made in this area in the past two years I can allay Deputies' concerns.

First, I would like to speak about how the appeals system works and why, by its very nature, it takes time to finalise an appeal. The process has a statutory basis in primary and secondary legislation; appeals officers are required to be quasi-judicial in performing their functions, and the office operates independently of the Department, which is one of the proposals made by Deputy Willie O'Dea.

The processing times, as reported by the appeals office, include all stages of the process, including the time taken by the Department in reviewing a decision. It is worth spelling out how the process works.

When an appeal is received in the appeals office, it is registered and the processing time is measured from that date. As required by regulations, the appeals office then notifies the Department that the appeal has been lodged. This notification requires that any file or document relevant to the appeal be forwarded to the appeals office and also requires a submission from the deciding officer on the extent to which the facts advanced by the appellant are admitted or disputed. At this point in the process the Department reviews the original decision.

Social welfare legislation provides that where a decision is on appeal, a deciding officer may only revise the decision if the revision favours the appellant. Therefore, at this stage of the appeals process, the decision is reviewed to decide whether it should be revised in favour of the appellant. This part of the process can take some considerable time. However, it also demonstrates the flexibility of the overall system. For example, in the case of schemes which relate to illness, disability or caring, the time taken by the Department will almost always include a review of the case by a different medical assessor from the one who initially examined that case. In many cases, there may even be a third review, in respect of which additional information is submitted. In cases where the issue involves a means test or other conditionality requiring investigation, a further visit by a social welfare inspector may be warranted. All of this activity takes time, but it also affords the appellant many opportunities to strengthen his or her case. By way of example, 21% or 8,062 of the 38,421 appeals finalised in 2013 were revised by the Department in favour of the appellant during this stage of the process.

Where a decision is not revised, the file with the relevant appeal submission is returned to the appeals office and added to the files awaiting assignment to an appeals officer. To be fair to all appellants, the assignment of appeals and the arranging of oral hearings are dealt with in chronological order. The only exception is in respect of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Deputies will be aware that where a claimant has been refused a claim for social welfare and is appealing that decision, it is open to him or her to apply for supplementary welfare allowance in the interim. If the application for supplementary welfare allowance is subsequently refused, the appellant can also appeal that decision and the supplementary welfare allowance appeal will be prioritised for attention within the appeals office as soon as the appeal file and submission are received from the Department.

When a case is assigned to an appeals officer, he or she will examine the documentary evidence presented in order to determine if the appeal can be properly and fairly decided on a summary basis. Where it is considered that an oral hearing of the case is required, it is estimated that the logistics alone involved add a further six weeks to the process. The venue must be booked; the case must be scheduled with other cases to be heard at the same location, and sufficient notice must be given to the appellant and witnesses. At any time during this process, up to and including the hearing of the case, an appellant may submit additional information, which, as I said, affords him or her the opportunity to strengthen his or her case.

I would now like to turn to the issue of processing times. The Bill was initiated by Deputy Willie O'Dea on 13 March 2013. As I said, I appreciate that during the years 2010 to 2012, inclusive, and into early 2013 there were unacceptable delays in the appeals process.

The background to this was the dramatic and unprecedented increase from late 2008 in the number of appeals received in the appeals office. Prior to 2009, the average number of appeals received per year was in the region of 15,000, but by 2012, annual appeal receipts had more than doubled, peaking at 35,500.

The number of appeals received remains high. In 2013, the appeals office received 32,777 appeals, or the second highest annual number of appeals received since the office was established in 1990. The dramatic scale of this increase placed considerable pressure on the appeals office. However, significant effort and resources have been devoted over the last few years to reforming and improving the overall effectiveness of the appeals system and improving appeal processing times for appellants. An extra 15 appeals officers were appointed and ten former community welfare service appeals officers joined the appeals office in 2011, bringing the total number of appeals officers to 41. In addition, a new operating model was introduced in the appeals office aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the appeals system and eliminating delays at various stages of the appeal process.

On the basis of these reforms and the increase in resources, there has been a dramatic improvement in the processing times for appeals. For example, the time taken for an appeal involving an oral hearing has dropped from 52.5 weeks in 2011 to 29 weeks at the end of October 2014, which is a reduction of nearly six months. The time taken for an appeal determined by way of a summary decision has decreased from 25.1 weeks in 2011 to 21.6 weeks in 2014. These times are still improving. For example, the average time taken for an oral hearing last month was down to 26.4 weeks and the time taken for a summary decision was down to 18.7 weeks. By way of comparison, the time taken for an oral hearing in 2007 was 30.3 weeks and the time for a summary decision was 14.2 weeks. Nonetheless, there can and will be further improvement at every stage of this process. However, it is worthwhile to consider the comparable processing times for the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal in the UK. Appeals in that process took an average of 30 weeks to clear as at June of this year. This measurement does not include the time spent with the Department for Work and Pensions in reviewing the case. If the time spent with the Department in this jurisdiction is discounted, the figure for the time taken to process an oral hearing in 2014 falls to 17.3 weeks, while a summary decision takes 11.6 weeks. It is worth noting that the English appeals system is more inflexible in that the tribunal deals only with the decision that was made at a point in time and based on the evidence that was submitted at that point in time. This demonstrates that we compare very favourably with the UK with regard to processing times.

Deputy O'Dea proposes that where appeals are not processed within the specified 12-week deadline, a decision allowing the appeal would be deemed to have been met. This timeframe simply does not take account of the fact that it is a two-stage process, which includes the initial review by the Department and consideration of the appeal by an appeals officer either on a summary basis or by means of an oral hearing. As I mentioned earlier, the logistics alone of setting up an oral hearing adds six weeks to the process. Further, the proposal would mean that even where the underlying conditions for receipt of the social welfare payment were not met, an appeal would be allowed simply on the basis of elapsed time. This would clearly not be tenable and would be a misuse of public funds. The proposal would lead to a situation in which it may be in an appellant's interest to delay an appeal beyond the statutory deadline in order to achieve this result.

Significant progress made in the past two years means that the time taken for completion of the process has now decreased considerably. As of October this year, we are now below the norms that existed before 2010. As I have outlined, the appeals system in place in Ireland has a number of stages and allows for reviews, appeals and further information to be submitted at any stage of the process. This favours the appellant, who would otherwise have to repeat the application process unnecessarily. This process carries an inherent delay in terms of finalising an appeal but it is also a very flexible and accessible system. For all the reasons outlined, a statutory timeframe for the completion of the appeals process is not tenable, and I will be opposing Deputy O'Dea's Bill.

We must try to achieve a quicker turnaround time. I want to maintain a process in the system whereby additional information can be added at any stage, as it would be wrong to have to push people back to the beginning. There may be a disadvantage to the proposal in this respect. I can see the very strong justification for the introduction of the Bill, especially if we recall the waiting times that have occurred. I will certainly take on board the report of the Free Legal Advice Centres and the issues raised by the Deputy with respect to terms of reference and oral hearings. The office acts independently. I thank the Deputy for raising the issue today, as it has been an opportunity for Deputies to contribute to the debate.

See this speech in context