Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The social welfare appeals system was established in an office of the Department that is independently responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements. The mission statement of the appeals office is to "provide an independent, accessible and fair appeals service for entitlement to social welfare payments and to deliver that service in a prompt and courteous manner". It is vital therefore, that this system maintains its functions on an independent level. As a result, the office continues to operate separately from the Department of Social Protection with separate staff preserving impartiality and objectiveness.

The appeals procedure dictates that all appeals must be made to the chief appeals officer situated at D'Olier House, within 21 days of receipt of the deciding officer's decision in any given case. Relevant documentation in respect of each individual case is then requested from the Department along with relevant facts from the deciding officer involved. The chief appeals officer then refers the case to relevant appeals officers for consideration. The case goes for either oral hearing or summary hearing.

One would assume that this process is transparent and effective however since 2009, undoubtedly as a result of the downturn in our economy, there has been an enormous increase in the number of appeals received by the Department and a significant backlog has ensued. The length of time that appellants are forced to await a decision has become critical. Details emerged from the Department in a reply to a parliamentary question tabled by my former party colleague, Deputy Broughan. According to the documentation, the average summary appeal period rose from just over 18 weeks in 2009 to more than 25 weeks last year. However, if an oral hearing was required, the average waiting time rose from 34 weeks in 2009 to more than 52 weeks last year.

In a statement to RTE, the Department of Social Protection said that between 2009 and 2011, the number of social welfare appeals had increased dramatically from 15,000 a year to 32,000, giving rise to a "catch-up" situation. To reduce the backlogs, the Department assigned 12 additional appeals officers and had retained retired appeals officers for a further 18 months. The Department also stated it was working more efficiently and finalised more than 34,000 decisions in 2011.

Before the current pressurised situation arose, the average processing time for a summary appeal was 14 weeks and 31 weeks for an oral hearing. Last year, the growing pressure increased average processing times to an unheard of 25 weeks for a summary decision and nearly 53 weeks for an oral hearing. It is placing great pressure on people and we are also finding that in cases where people have representation at oral hearings, their cases seem to be processed more quickly and in those cases the finding is more likely to be in favour of the applicant. In 2002 in Northern Ireland, 43% of applicants with representation were granted their claims compared with 25% without representation.

Apart from the inefficiency of this system, the remaining issue is that both the appeals officers and the deciding officers are required to act quasi-judicially. The question arises over just how independent this body can be. The UK appeals service ensures that tribunal members are independent of the relevant agencies against which the appeal is being made.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Deputy to conclude. She will have two further minutes to make a supplementary statement.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The situation is critical and needs to be reviewed urgently.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Phelan for raising this important matter. Behind these numbers, there are people being affected by the appeal processing times. Unfortunately since the economic crash there has been an enormous increase in the numbers of appeals in the social welfare system. At the start of the year in 2008 - the year of the crash when things really began to bite - some 5,723 delayed appeals were in the system and the average processing time was time was 22 weeks. From early in 2008 the number of appeals received by that office began to increase dramatically and by 2011 had more than doubled from an average of 15,000 to 32,000.

Let us bear in mind that this has increased from an average of under 6,000 up to 32,000 in a short period. The pressure placed on the office by this rapid increase in workload has resulted in unacceptable delays for our customers.

As Deputy Phelan noted, in an effort to reduce processing times the Department appointed 12 additional appeals officers between 2010 and 2011. One of the first things I did when I became Minister was to sign in significantly more appeals officers. In addition, a further ten appeals officers formerly employed by the community welfare services, CWS, of the Health Service Executive joined the office as part of the integration of the CWS appeals services into the Social Welfare Appeals Office. This brought the total number of appeals officers to 39. In addition, the office has improved its business processes and information technology support.

I am advised that the changes in 2010 and 2011 have dramatically increased the capacity of the office to finalise decisions. The amount of appeals finalised has increased from 13,500 in 2010 to 34,027 in 2011, more than a doubling of the numbers. However, the time taken to build the capacity to deal with the inflows has resulted in a catch-up situation. As the new information technology system has begun to work its way in, there has been a deterioration in processing times while the office clears through the backlog.

Before the current pressures on the office the average processing time was approximately 14 weeks for a summary decision and 31 weeks for an oral hearing. This peaked last year at 25 weeks for a summary hearing and 52.5 weeks for an oral hearing. By February this year the processing time had reduced to 22.4 weeks for summary decisions and 38 weeks for an oral hearing, evidence that the backlog is being progressively reduced and that appeals officers are now working on more current cases. This applies especially to new cases.

By its nature and because it is a quasi-judicial process the processing of appeals takes time. Once an appeal is received there is a statutory requirement for a response to that appeal by a deciding officer which addresses the conditions raised in the appeal. If new evidence is submitted a review of the decision will be undertaken by the Department and this may involve a further medical examination or a re-investigation of the applicant's circumstances. Once the submission is received from the Department if it is considered that there is a need to conduct an oral hearing of the appeal, the process will require the booking of a venue at a location convenient to the appellant, arranging the attendance of witnesses, notifying appellants and handling cancellations.

While figures published in recent days show long delays in individual categories in the processing of appeals, some of these figures may be based on a small sample and delays may be the result of exceptional circumstances in these particular appeals. However, the average processing times for all appeals are being significantly reduced, especially in the case of new appeals going directly into the new and improved information technology system.

Appeals are scheduled and dealt with in strict chronological order. However, as a payment of last resort, appeals in regard to supplementary welfare allowance are given priority status and are dealt with urgently by the office. In these cases, the average time to process summary cases in 2011 was six weeks. This increased to 17 weeks for those requiring an oral hearing. I thank Deputy Phelan for raising this matter. I am in constant contact with the chief appeals officer. She is keeping the methods of operation and business under constant review with a view to improving them further.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We welcome the Minister's reassurances. I realise that it can be almost impossible to try to book a room for an oral hearing. Perhaps the local authorities could come to our aid in these cases. Often, they have unused offices which could be used for oral hearings. This might prove to be more efficient.

I will conclude by giving the Minister an example the type of case we must deal with. One particular claim relates to a man in County Carlow. His rent allowance ceased in July 2011 following an investigation. This person had recently separated from his wife and had three children to support. He appealed the decision at the beginning of August but the oral hearing took place only two weeks ago, that is to say, some eight months later. In the meantime, the man incurred arrears of up to €2,500 owed to his landlord. I realise the Minister is in constant contact with the office but this is what is occurring and we must address the situation. I thank the Minister and I appreciate her reply.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have stated previously in the House that reform of the information technology and business structures is relevant to Deputies of all parties throughout the House. I would prefer to see fewer appeals and more determinations at the initial presentation of cases. If better information were available and a better presentation was made at the beginning we could reduce the volume of appeals significantly. I understand we have worked through most of the information technology changes and transfers to the new system. The new system applies to new applicants and this is why their times are improving significantly. However, we must transfer the backlog and get through it as well. If we could arrange for a case to be presented in as much detail as possible with all the relevant evidence at the initial stage, I believe it would lead to better decisions which, in turn, would result in fewer appeals.