David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I want to comment on the general topic of the motion without going into some of the specifics.

This is an important area. It touches people's real, lived experience and it is not appropriate for any of us to engage in a polemical, partisan series of attacks. What we must do in this House is urge the Minister to take as constructive a role in this area as possible and to be as helpful as possible.

I want to raise a number of issues that may, apparently, be marginal but at the same time are very important. When I first read the motion I was struck by the use of the word "spouse". I would make a serious point to the Minister, namely, that I abhor the way the Government behaved with regard to a case in the past few years that came before the Equality Tribunal established by the Government. This case involved a same-sex couple, one of whom felt that he should have been entitled to the same travel privileges as other employees' spouses. The Equality Tribunal found in favour of this couple but the response of the Government was not to move to redress the inequity or the discrimination but to move legislatively to copperfasten it by redefining the word "spouse". I know the Minister is a decent, intelligent and compassionate man but it is not appropriate in this day and age that people like me should be defined by legislation into second-class citizenship of this country. It is simply not acceptable any more and I regret very much, as an Irish citizen and as a representative in the Upper House of Parliament, that this Parliament processed and passed the only discriminatory legislative measure in this area that I know of in any European country over the past ten or 15 years. I hope this will be examined again because it is no longer acceptable that people are regarded, simply on the basis of sexual orientation, as being second-class citizens.

The other aspect I want to examine is a very specific area in which I know the Minister can have an impact. I am aware that things are moving and improving but I refer to the question of the social welfare appeals system. I raise this matter because I was asked during the week to launch a report on this by the Northside Community Law Centre. These are the most vulnerable and marginalised people. Most of the people who go through the appeals system have an income of less than €15,000 a year and are therefore on the margins. Many of them are people who have a disability and so on.

The first point that is made in this report, and it is a useful one, is that there is at least a perception of lack of independence because the appeals board is within the Department. In the course of preparing this report an internationally comparative survey was undertaken, which looked at the experience of other countries, including the United Kingdom. The point was made that where people who are civil servants are hearing appeals on decisions taken by their senior fellows, there may be very high levels of integrity but there is at least the perception of a lack of independence. What is needed with an appeals board is guaranteed independence and the perception of that independence.

There were a number of practical suggestions in the report. As some of these claimants, or appellants, do not have the highest levels of social skills or educational attainment they, as indeed many of us, and I include myself in that, are easily intimidated by the need to fill in forms, which can be a little bewildering. The point was made that as in some other countries, it might be possible to examine the situation where the initial claim could be registered either electronically or by telephone to make it as consumer friendly as possible.

The research groups indicated that officials of the Department went out of their way to be courteous and co-operative and to give as much information as they could, without which this report could not have been compiled. It is important to put that on the record in case it is perceived I am criticising for the sake of criticising but they did make the point that figures are not always available in areas where they would be useful. I will give one example of that. Many of the claimants or appellants felt that they would have had a much better chance if they had been legally represented. There are no figures available on this and I urge the Minister to continue to co-operate with these research groups because there will be further research programmes to ascertain these figures and to make them available. A clear view would then emerge from these figures because although we do not have figures within this jurisdiction, we do have them from the neighbouring jurisdiction, the United Kingdom, and in particular from the North. The figures in the North show very clearly that the success rate of appellants under their appeal system is actually doubled where they have legal representation. That suggests to me that there may be a significant number of people who have their appeals disallowed, not because of the invalidity of their claim but because of the lack of expertise or polish with which that claim is presented; that could be looked at if they had legal representation.

I understand that the situation in law is that there is no absolute statutory requirement that legal aid be given but, on the other hand, opinion has been sought and has stated that whereas this is not mandatory, at the same time if it was decided to refuse or to deny legal aid, a court might regard that as being ultra vires and it might then hold that the appellant was entitled to legal representation. In terms of fairness, decency and justice, when a situation arises where it seems obvious from figures from the other part of the island albeit in the absence of our own, it seems clear that legal representation does lead to success.

Decisions should be published. I see the Acting Chairman leaning forward. How much time do I have remaining?