David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 85: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of appeals processed by way of oral hearing by the social welfare appeals office in 2004 and 2005 respectively; the number of same which were decided in favour of the appellant; the number of appeals processed by the social welfare appeals office in these years and average timescale for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37969/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The social welfare appeals office plays a pivotal role in ensuring welfare customers have an independent review mechanism when they are dissatisfied with a decision made by my Department and want to appeal the outcome. During 2004 some 14,000 appeals were processed, 6,000 by way of oral hearing. The equivalent figures for 2005 were 13,400 and 5,600 respectively. Favourable decisions to customers were given in 2,600 cases in 2004 and 2,500 in 2005.

The social welfare appeals process is a quasi-judicial process and it is necessary for the appeals officer to be satisfied that he has all the facts before making a decision on a case. Furthermore, the appeals officer must give the person making the appeal and the deciding officer the opportunity to make their views known on the facts of the appeal. In addition, it may be necessary to have a further examination carried out by a medical assessor of my Department where illness or disability is involved.

Oral hearings are granted at the discretion of the appeals officer, usually in circumstances where there is a conflict in the evidence presented by both parties or where an oral hearing is required by the appellant in order to present his or her case. Gathering all the evidence takes time and impacts on the speed at which appeals can be decided. Given the logistics involved in organising oral hearings, the length of time for processing appeals is increased by approximately eight weeks. Some 75% of all appeals were processed within 12 weeks in 2004 and 13 weeks in 2005. On average all appeals were cleared within 20 weeks in both 2004 and 2005.

The Department introduced a right of review in 2002 to ensure customers who received adverse decisions could have them reviewed in the light of any new evidence they brought forward. Customers whose claims are disallowed or who are otherwise dissatisfied with a decision are advised they should bring any new facts or evidence to the attention of the deciding officer in the first instance for re-examination and, if appropriate, a revised decision. They are informed this right is in addition to their right of appeal. They can seek a deciding officer review before making an appeal or can do both concurrently. The right of appeal to the social welfare appeals office remains an option if the review by the deciding officer is not fruitful.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The review process is speedier than the appeals process and in 2005, 3,300 of the appeal cases were disposed of by way of review. Improving processing times remains a major objective of the social welfare appeals office. However, it is necessary at all times to ensure progress in this regard is achieved in a manner that is not in conflict with the demands of justice and the requirement that every appeal be fully investigated and examined on its merits.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I pay tribute to the appeals office for the work it does. Does the Minister agree there is a problem with the number of cases being appealed? The problem seems to be getting worse and the numbers are increasing. The number of cases decided in favour of the appellant has also increased. Does the Minister agree that something must be done at the deciding officer stage to prevent so many cases being appealed? Is the Minister aware that over 60% of cases revised by the deciding officer or appealed in 2005 were decided in favour of the applicant? That is a high percentage. Many of these cases should not have had to go so far.

Will the Minister review the methods used by deciding officers to ensure people do not have to use the appeals process in the great numbers as is happening at present? There should not then be a delay in getting benefits to which, according to the appeals officer, people are entitled. An adjustment must be made.

What notice do deciding officers take of decisions by appeal officers? Does the appeals officer set the standard for the deciding officer? Does the Minister agree matters seem to be getting worse, not better, in this regard? More and more cases are going to the appeals office and at that stage, more of them are being decided in favour of the apellant, which indicates they should not have gone there in the first place.

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There were 13,419 appeals in 2005, 47% of which had a favourable outcome for the appellant, that is, they were either fully or partially allowed or resolved by way of a revised decision on the part of a deciding officer. The same figure of 47% also applies to the previous year. A total of 41% of cases going to appeal were disallowed, which was much the same as the previous year. A further 12% were withdrawn or otherwise not pursued. Hence in 2005, of the 13,000 cases that went to appeal, 47% received a favourable result.

I can see the Deputy's point in that one can draw a couple of conclusions from such figures. For example, given such a high rate of successful appeals, one could question why one should bother going through the process at all. However, this is a quasi-judicial function and one must keep this issue in proportion. Last year, the Department received more that 1.75 million claims, most of which were fairly automatic and did not have any associated problems. However, of the 1.75 million claims, 13,000 were appealed and 47% of the latter were successful after an appeal.

This process is independent and I join the Deputy in complimenting those involved. While pressure is maintained on this issue, it is not simply a question of resources. Like any quasi-judicial case, such matters have their own timeframe. Sometimes, one is obliged to get more information from the applicant and must wait for it to become available. Similarly, one might be obliged to acquire information from financial institutions and consequently must contact and have discussions with them. Moreover, oral hearings are heard. Procedures are in place that one cannot necessarily chop too finely and it takes a matter of months before an appeal can be processed.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister examine this issue to ascertain whether an adjustment is required, given that many appeals are turned around, and rightly so, by the appeals office? Why is the information from the applicant requested at the deciding officer stage? Why must it go to the appeals stage as the Minister suggests? Does the Minister agree that something must be done in this regard as approximately 6,000 people are put through the stress and strain of being obliged to go through the appeals office, although they should not have been obliged to do so in the first place? Moreover, this issue appears to be worsening. Will the Minister talk to his officials in the Department to ascertain what can be done to assist at the deciding officer stage?

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, a new system has been in place since 2002. I am sure he has advised constituents about it. Applicants can return to the deciding officer for a review of his or her decision if new information comes up. It is not a question of failing to consider such information. In many cases, this can speed up matters and 25% of them were resolved by way of revised decisions on the part of deciding officers. This is a fairly new device that is beginning to work and to take a number of cases out of the system much earlier. If the Deputy is asking me to keep this issue under review and ascertain whether we can continue to improve the appeals system, I will continue to do so.