Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On the basis of these figures from FLAC it seems it is not quite true, but we all spin figures to suit ourselves and the case put before us.

The system lacks transparency - there is no question about it - and that is a core part of the proposed motion. The appeals office does not publish its previous decisions even in an anonymised format, which can leave the appellant at a disadvantage, not knowing whether an established point of law or policy has already been decided upon or clarified in a previous appeal. FLAC asks that, in the first place, the Government set time limits on decisions. Fianna Fáil supports this, as do the proposers. It should be done. It is a time and management issue within the Minister's Department. She already indicated in the amendment that many new staff had been appointed. What are they doing? Why not have a time limit? Why not have some creative thinking in this regard? The appeals office could also publish decisions, even anonymised ones. Other quasi-judicial bodies such as the Equality Tribunal do so. Departmental staff could be trained to make better decisions in the first place. I accept that the Minister makes references to the training regime currently under way under her watch.

The FLAC report which specifically covers 2011 also states that the appeals office should be placed on a statutorily independent footing to ensure independence from the Department of Social Protection, a proposal my party supports, as the Minister is aware. She argues that there has been no criticism since the office was set up in 1990, to answer any suggestion that the office is anything other than independent. However, one cannot be judge, jury and executioner in one's own case. The appeals office cannot operate within the actual Department, regardless of the integrity of the people involved. The perception alone should be a cause for concern, and certainly a cause for review.

My party does not fully understand why the appeal process is shrouded in such secrecy. The Minister might be in a position to clarify why this is so. Families should be afforded, as a matter of courtesy, the right to have their appeals heard at an oral hearing as a basic right. The Minister should at least consider this and talk to the people on whom the office is sitting in judgment.