David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the Minister. I am surprised by the Government amendment. At this morning's briefing session, I stated that in my 25 years in the House I have never seen an amendment that was two and a half pages long. I understand other Senators have had the same reaction to it. The proposal put before the House by my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the House should be taken on board by the Minister. I have no doubt that the Government amendment - especially in the context of its length - is something of a fog which is being squirted out by officials in the Department. We are being blinded by science and subjected to an information overload in this instance. I am reminded of the words of the great novelist Tom Sharpe, who stated that nothing can so derail an argument as prolonged attention to the inessentials. What we have been presented with in the amendment is a massive amount of detail which is simply confusing.

The first point to make in respect of this matter is that the social welfare appeals office should be independent and it should be perceived in that way. It is interesting to consider the language used in the Government amendment. For example, the phrase "recognises that in the 20 years since that reform the SWAO has operated independently and impartially and that there has been no sustained or concerted criticism" is used. That is extremely interesting. Why use words such as "sustained" and "concerted" unless one is aware that criticism has been levelled at the office? Of course such criticism has been forthcoming. It came in the form of a critique - this was not intended to be damaging, negative, oppositional or destructive - contained in a report published by the Free Legal Aid Centres, FLAC, in 2005. Taken on its own, that critique could not be considered to be sustained or concerted. It could perhaps be brushed aside if, unlike the Minister, one had not consistently supported FLAC, the Northside Community Law Centre, etc.

However, in 2007 the chief appeals officer made a recommendation to the effect that the social welfare appeals office should be independent and should be perceived as such. How can that be the case when the office is part of the Department and when the people who have responsibility for assessing the merit of appeals are paid employees of the Department? There is a clear case here for a statutory declaration of independence. If the Minister states that the office is independent in any event, allowing such a declaration to be made would only confirm the position in law and nothing would change. We are all on the Minister's side in respect of this matter and we urge her to introduce a statutory measure to ensure that the social welfare appeals office will be completely independent. The making of a statutory declaration of independence is necessary.

It would be useful if an audit of practice were carried out in order that we might discover what has been happening. I am not sure we are entirely certain of the position in this regard. The Government amendment states that everything is wonderful and that everyone is given information at all stages of the process. The latter is not the case, which is extremely damaging. Neither are people provided with assistance. In difficult cases, people should have an immediate right to such information and assistance. By and large, those who go before appeals officers come from marginalised areas. They often have difficulty with literacy and fluency and would have problems coming to terms with even a comparatively simple form. Those to whom I refer are expected to negotiate a system that is incredibly complicated, although I do not blame the Minister for this. People are not informed about the position at every stage of the process. I refer, for example, to instances in which appeals officers make written assessments in respect of particular cases. The information contained in such assessments can sometimes be vital because, for example, a legal point could be raised. The appellant would not be aware that this point had been raised and, therefore, would not be in a position to answer it. That is a nonsense. Such nonsense is endemic throughout the bureaucracy of the Civil Service. I previously raised in the House the case of a person whose application for naturalisation was refused. He was informed that he could appeal the decision but that he would be obliged to give the grounds for the refusal. He applied for the relevant information but was refused access to that also. This is the same absurd, Kafkaesque situation to which I have referred.

This is a time of great economic distress. I have lived through such periods before. During the previous recession, the Labour Party was in opposition when the then Government began dismantling the community advice centres. That was a particularly mean-minded move. It did not specifically or visibly take away people's rights; rather, it prevented them from having access to those rights. If one does not know one's rights, one cannot exercise them. I am concerned that within the machinery of the social welfare appeals office - I do not know whether this is deliberate or is the result of the obfuscations of the system - information relating to people's rights is being concealed.

There has been a decline in the number of certain kinds of appeal. In 2004 some 70% of appeals were oral in nature. By 2011, this had fallen to 35%. This could be seen as progress, but it is not. The reason it is not is that last year some 48% of oral hearings were successful, whereas only 24% of summary appeals were successful. In other words, the number of oral hearings has halved at a time when appeals of this nature are twice as likely to be successful. The social welfare office should publish as many critical decisions as possible. Appellants should have access to information at all stages of the process, particularly written material relating to their cases, in order that they might answer any points which arise. People cannot be assumed to be able to read the minds of appeals officers in order to understand why particular decisions were handed down.

I wish to place on the record of the House information relating to two cases, one of which is ongoing. I pay tribute to my colleagues and friends in the Visitors Gallery in this regard. The first case to which I refer was heard four months ago but a decision has not yet been forthcoming in respect of it. The case in question relates to a woman with a child who has no access to supplementary social welfare payments. She will soon be out on the side of the road. The second case relates to a builder. I know builders are not popular at present but this man had a small operation which employed a number of people locally. As a result of the economic crisis, his business collapsed and he was left with no money. He was assessed but his application was ruled out following a means test. The reason it was disallowed was that one of the officials used Google Earth to assess a property he had in England. However, the official in question got the valuation wrong.

It was only when he got legal advice that he was able to spot that and to counteract it. That situation has now been rectified and he has been given his money and back pay. This proves the point that access to legal advice and support is vital in order that people can assert their rights.