Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I would like to concentrate on the element of our motion that deals with improving the decision making process. We are trying to be as practical as we can and are not interested in creating layers of bureaucracy or in over-regulation of an already fraught and stressful process. All of tonight's debate and our recommendation could be encapsulated in just one word "time". What should be considered a reasonable amount of time for a process involving appeals for social welfare payments? Where should we spend the limited resources we have? We are not suggesting the resources should be increased, but consideration should be given to where they should be spent. Should they be spent at the front end or back end of the social welfare appeals process?

In my humble and uneducated view, the way the current system operates is in a way designed to spend the least amount of money or to delay spending or paying out any moneys at an early stage in the process. Our motion strongly argues that by placing most of the existing resources earlier in the process, we will achieve fairness and less hardship. The hardship cases are well documented and some of them are quite distressing. The Government amendment notes in a dispassionate and charmless way that "by its very nature the appeals process cannot be a particularly quick one." It then lists a series of reasons for this.

We recognise the procedures in place, but not the order or priority suggested by the Government. The amendment recognises the process is "long and ongoing". Our proposal is that we should quantify, clarify and measure the process. We should make the process for making social welfare applications simpler and more accessible. This will save money and hardship. We should inform all appellants and citizens that they have the right to an oral hearing. This is not about spending additional money. We must provide consistency in decision making by providing access to previous cases that might be relevant.

This issue is about fairness and transparency. FLAC, representatives of which are here today, told us in a briefing that there is no system for fast-tracking or prioritising one case over another. This is regrettable. There should be a system in place to allow the prioritisation of urgent cases, for example, appeals from people who cannot access another payment while awaiting a decision from the appeals office on a primary payment.

We had an example earlier, possibly in regard to the application of the habitual residence condition, where Mr. Michael Farrell had mentioned a woman applicant from Northern Ireland who was about to come down with no money to try to wait for the appeal to come through. There is no safety net for these appellants, as there should be in the interest of fairness and to alleviate hardship. In this case, I would advocate jumping the queue. It is about certainty within the available resources, it is about citizen services and transparency and, I repeat, it is about fairness.

The Government amendment states that 42% of the appeals were allowed, which suggests the system is flawed at an early stage. In other words, there should be enough evidence of why that 42% of appeals were allowed so as not to repeat that figure and to provide information on an earlier basis for appellants in order the rate of appeal could be lower. Surely the social welfare appeals office has enough statistics and evidence to reduce the percentage by resourcing the process much earlier.

Our motion states that the average waiting time for appeals dealt with by summary decision making is now 22.4 weeks and that for appeals requiring an oral hearing, it is 40.9 weeks. It is not clear whether the Government amendment agrees with these statistics. The Government amendment is blinding me with statistics in such a way that I can imagine an appellant being confused by the appeals process. In a spirit of fairness and knowing the process involved, I ask that the Minister suggest what might be a reasonable target for a waiting time. It is not a trick question as it is an issue for us to consider. Given whatever the Minister might suggest as a good target, we could tie that into a performance related goal or indicator for that system and that Department. In itself, this will offer certainty, transparency and clarity to the appellants.

I am proud to second the motion.