Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 301 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 regarding a revised decision by deciding officers.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, address issues that have been raised in a very recent High Court judgment concerning the legal powers of deciding officers and appeal officers to revise decision in certain cases. This is a very complex area. Current legislation allows officials of my Department, including appeals officers, to revise earlier decisions in a range of circumstances. This includes situations in which new evidence is produced which indicated that the original decision was wrong, and situations in which there has been a change of circumstances since the original decision was given. These powers are wide-ranging and give considerable flexibility to deciding officers and appeals officers to deal with new evidence or changed circumstances which have been brought to their notice. In the past and at present, this flexibility has been seen as an asset in allowing deciding officers and appeals officers to deal with different circumstances. Many Senators will be familiar with this. However, in light of the recent High Court ruling the provisions relating to a change of circumstances are now considered problematic, as they unintentionally remove finality from social welfare determinations that refuse claims and introduce considerable uncertainty into the system of social welfare decision making as a consequence.

Until now, in most cases, it has been the practice in the Department that once a claim is refused and all review and appeal processes are finalised, if the customer seeks a revised decision based on a change of circumstances, he or she is advised to make a fresh application. The new claim is then fully assessed in light of all the circumstances of the case. Due to the recent High Court decision, the Department can no longer require people to make a fresh claim but must reopen a claim, even if that claim was closed many years previously. The purpose of the amendment is to address this issue, but in a limited range of circumstances. I stress that in cases in which the original decision was wrong, or if new facts and evidence emerge, the customer will still be able to seek a revised decision. The amendment does not change this. For a claim that is in payment, it will still be possible to revise the decision if circumstances change, but where a person was refused a social welfare payment in the past and his or her circumstances change, the correct channel is to make a fresh application so the application can be fully considered in light of the current circumstances. The amendment aims to ensure that this will be the practice in all cases.

Let me add that in the aftermath of the High Court decision I have asked officials of the Department to carry out a more wide-ranging review of the legislation on social welfare decisions. I will bring forward any necessary legislation at a later date.