Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is a very busy Department. I acknowledge the system has been improving and waiting times have been reduced. For example, 15 additional appeals officers have been appointed, the number of appeals closed out in a year is now 34,000 and processing times have been reduced by ten weeks. This is not to say further improvements cannot be made. I see that as the benefit of this motion and compliment the proposer and seconder on that basis. Our purpose should be to look at ways to improve things, although that is not to suggest improvement has not happened. There is merit to the Opposition motion and I have a real concern, as they do, for appellants who are suffering due to the current appeals process. I have experience of a number of very trying situations, including a very bad case during the term of the last Government where I had to refer a woman to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to take up some of the slack because the situation was so bad for the woman and her children. With respect, appeal times were incredibly long during the last Government's term.

I see merit in moving to a point where we work out a maximum time for an application to be decided upon and a maximum time for an appeal, rather than an average time. I acknowledge, however, that by its nature any appeal will take extra time. First, the Department seeks the grounds for the appeal, then further medical assessments may be needed, additional medical evidence may be given, there may be further investigation by social welfare inspectors and there are logistics involved in arranging oral hearings, all of which takes time.

An interesting point made by Senator Mac Conghail is that he sees a benefit to jumping the queue. So do I, where there are extremely urgent cases, including cases of destitution or severe hardship. In fairness, this is the role of the public representative as it stands, in that, at times, we do have people jump the queue out of absolute necessity. I was involved in a recent situation where the husband of a family has cystic fibrosis, his wife is the carer and, if they had accepted the times suggested, there would have been a gap of 20 weeks without any support. On making a representation, this was solved within a week. Therefore, there is jumping of the queue in practice, although whether everyone knows that is another thing.

In 2004, 70% of all appeals went to oral hearings whereas in 2011, just 35% went to oral hearings. Surely it is progress that we have less need to go to appeal. I wonder if the Senators are reading this as I am reading it. The system is no doubt straining under the workload being placed on it and, as a result of the waiting times, people are losing out on payments which they deserve. In the area of domiciliary care allowance in particular - for example, in the case of the care at home of a child with severe disabilities - I have noticed that most of the appeals are being turned down. I see a potential problem where the initial application may not have been well made, but the case is then very well explained at the appeal stage. Despite the evidence, I wonder if the social welfare officer has already decided to dismiss the case at that point.

I say this because I have been involved hands-on in particular education cases. Does the fact the success rate for appeals which include an oral hearing has been consistently higher than the success rate for appeals decided summarily show a flaw in the system? The Minister might comment. Can we deploy extra staff from other areas of the public service? I note that another area which is completely stretched is that of community welfare officers.

In dealing with the motion, I agree with quite a lot of what the proposers are saying. I acknowledge huge progress since the last Government was in place but it does not mean we cannot do better.