David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I commend the group of Senators, the Taoiseach's nominees, for tabling this motion. I regret the fact that the Government has tabled the amendment it has to it. Before I talk about the substance of the motion, I would like to make a general point about social welfare offices and how the public can interact with staff in those offices. The public interface is not what it should be. Many people now find they have to go to a social welfare office for the first time in their lives. I am aware that because of resource issues the priority for those in a social welfare office is to make sure that people get their primary benefits. People have to queue to get to a counter to explain their circumstances and they have no privacy when doing so on most occasions. The full plethora of secondary benefits that might also be available to them is not explained to them. That is the reason they then have to come to politicians and we then end up supporting the clientelist system of governance that we have. We need to make sure people have access to public servants who understand the system and can explain to them their exact entitlements not only to primary benefits but to the whole range of benefits. That does not always happen because of the pressures in social welfare offices. I accept some progress has been made in this area and the motion tabled by the Senators acknowledges that.

The Government's amendment effectively has ruled out any commitment to even the most modest action. I regret that it does not give any consideration to what I believe is the key recommendation in the motion, that of "putting more resources into the system at the initial decision stage thereby maximising cost-effectiveness and reducing the number of appeals against wrong refusal". That makes perfect sense because prevention is better than a cure. If we can prevent mistakes happening in the first place, it makes sense that we would not have as many appeals. Perhaps the reason there are so many appeals is due to under-resourcing. I fully support the motion tabled.

The suggestions made in the motion come on foot of FLAC's recent report, Not Fair Enough, which makes the case for reform of the social welfare appeals system. As the report highlights, many applicants for social welfare find the whole system, and in particular the appeals system, very complex and not transparent. This is evidenced by the rather complex looking spider diagram at the beginning of that report, which illustrates the many different routes an appeal can end up taking. Given that we are talking about payments to many of the most vulnerable and marginalised sections of society, it is essential that the turnaround is as quick as possible and that justice is done. This is particularly the case in recent years when the number of applications have skyrocketed and there have been delays in dealing with them and likewise the appeals office is dealing with twice as many appeals now as it did in 2007. Delay in giving these people their entitlements will mean severe hardship for many. While it is unfortunately inevitable that errors will be made, and we all accept that, there is a need for an appeals office. We must ensure appeals are as limited as possible and that they are dealt with promptly.

As the FLAC report notes, the failures of the system are not just mechanical failures. They have consequences for people's lives, as I know the Minister would accept. Given the vital part social welfare payments play in the lives of many people, those consequences are severe. Poorly made initial decisions which require social welfare applicants to appeal just to get what they are entitled to can lead to stress and uncertainty for many appellants. In some cases it can result in a lack of income or even destitution on occasion.

The issue of the independence of the social welfare appeals office is noted in the motion and it is worth considering. The officials in the social welfare appeals office are nominated by the Minister for Social Protection or her Department. In circumstances such as those, Sinn Féin does not support positions being filled by simple ministerial decision. That is a process which must be opened up. These should be publicly advertised positions. In FLAC's view there is a need for people from a wider variety of backgrounds to have the ability to nominate or be consulted upon such nominations. There are already a number of examples of that with similar bodies. An example of that is the Employment Appeals Tribunal where trade unions have the option to nominate officials to adjudicate. That could be applied to the social welfare appeals office with the community and voluntary pillar, for example, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Carers Association, having nominations.

One obvious issue with the independence of the appeals office and, in particular, in terms of practical application is that there is scope for ensuring the Department and Government officials apply their findings. We have examples of the Department failing to implement appeals officers' decisions in full. That applies in the case of overpayments in particular and the Department having ignored recommendations to write off debts on the part of an individual where the basis of that recommendation is that there was no fault on the part of the recipient and that the recipient would not be in a position to repay in full.

There is much more I wish to say on this issue but unfortunately I am out of time. I regret that the Government tabled an amendment. I would have hoped the Minister would have taken on board what I thought were practical and considered views put forward by the Independent group of Senators. Given that progress has been made in this area and we are all here to accept that and to support the Minister in ensuring more progress is made, it is regrettable that the Government tabled such an amendment. I commend those Senators who tabled the motion because it is important that we give as much support as possible to people who depend on the social welfare system.