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

On Committee Stage, I raised a number of concerns about waiting lists in the Social Welfare Appeals Office. While I sympathise with Deputy Willie O’Dea's amendment, I do not know whether it would fully address the predicament. However, it might force the Department to address a major problem. Most of the delays are associated with health related allowances. Some of them could be addressed in the first instance, before going to appeal. In this regard, on Committee Stage I made a number of practical suggestions to the Minister. Others also made suggestions on Committee Stage and I hope they will be taken on board.

More work needs to be done at the initial stage; for example, if an item is missing from an application form, a telephone call could resolve the issue. A telephone call might cost 30 or 40 cent, whereas an appeal or a review would cost much more. I have highlighted the letter of rejection of a social welfare application and the Department is considering the matter. The letter should be clearer about what a review stands for. Most of the public who have dealt with the Department of Social Protection have some understanding of what a social welfare appeal is and it seems to be the first port of call for many when they see a rejection of an application for an allowance to which they believe and, in many cases, are entitled.

I do not know whether the number of medically related social welfare applications that are rejected and subsequently upheld on appeal has changed much in the past six months, but it is one of the biggest scandals. The fact that 50% of appeals are upheld suggests the initial work was not done properly or that the files were incomplete when they were submitted to the Department. One of the problems is that people making such an application are often waiting for medical documentation. Therefore, if would be helpful to improve the speed at which consultants and hospital medical departments produce the required letters and statements. It cannot be impossible for consultants to share documentation required for the Department of Social Protection, with the applicant's permission, via e-mail. This would allow the medical assessors in the Department to quickly see the full impact, rather than a cursory note which is often illegible and might name the condition but not the restrictions it places on the applicant's life.

Some of the applications I see rejected are in cases in which people apply for invalidity pension, whereas they would be much better off applying for disability allowance, for which there is a much lower threshold. To receive invalidity pension, people must prove that they are unlikely ever to return to work and they do not understand the difference. When a person makes an initial application for invalidity pension, the deciding officer might be able to explain to the applicant that while he or she may not be entitled to it, he or she may be entitled to disability allowance. The applicant might withdraw the application for invalidity pension on that basis and apply for it subsequently, if his or her condition continues and is likely to continue, while in receipt of disability benefit.

Those of us who have constituency offices in areas in which there is a high dependency on social welfare know that there is frustration when we have to tell people that if they apply for a social welfare appeal, they will have to wait five to six months, whereas a review will happen much sooner. While I have encouraged more people to use the review facility, sometimes they do not have the documentation required and it can take a while to gather all of it. The system could work much better and address the long waiting list much faster.

See this speech in context