Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Senator is probably correct that it is better to get a lot more knowledge out about the review option. The period laid out in the recommendation is not viable because it can take up to six weeks to organise an oral hearing and, therefore, a 60-day element is impractical.

We have a very flexible system because, at every stage, it is open to the client to give additional information. Where a strict time period operates, the appeals system normally operates only on the basis of the information that is supplied in the first instance. In our system we allow additional information to be submitted at every single stage, which is a much more flexible position. I would hate to lose that flexibility. On many occasions I have seen people benefit in the review from additional information that was provided rather than going back to the beginning again to submit a whole new application.

As many as 15 additional appeals officers have been appointed. I acknowledge that during the period from 2010 to early 2013 there was an unacceptable delay in the appeals process due to a dramatic and unprecedented increase in appeals numbers which placed considerable pressure on appeals officers. Prior to 2009, the average number of appeals received per year was in the region of 15,000. By 2012, the number of appeals received had more than doubled and peaked at 35,000.

The number of appeals currently being received remains high. In 2013, the social welfare appeals office received a total of 32,777 appeals, or the second highest annual number of appeals received since the office was established. However, significant effort and resources have been devoted to reforming and improving the appeals system. An extra 15 appeals officers have been appointed and ten former community welfare service appeals officers joined the appeals office in 2011, bringing the total number of appeals officers to 41.

Let me give examples of the improvements made. I know one can always build on those improvements and we all want the system to be as speedy and fair as possible. For example, the time taken for an appeal involving an oral hearing has dropped from 52.5 weeks in 2011 to 29 weeks at the end of October 2014, which is a reduction of nearly six months. The time taken for a summary decision has reduced from 25.1 weeks in 2011 to 21.6 weeks in 2014, and I can list further reductions for the Senators.

It must be remembered that the social welfare appeals mechanism operates on a statutory basis and social welfare appeals officers are required to be quasi-judicial in the performance of their functions. Certainly we would all like to hit the target of 60 days for many reasons. If it was to be done, the system would have to be reformed out of all recognition. I do not know whether one could continue to add additional information once the initial application was made. I am not proposing to accept the recommendation but I am committed to trying to improve the times further and to getting that information out better. For example, one does not necessarily always have to seek an appeal but a review which often proves as successful as a full appeal for a fraction of the time involved.

I thank the Senator whose points are well made. He understands the system well enough to realise that we probably cannot hit that target of 60 days for many reasons. However, we have to strive to improve the time element for applicants. I thank the Senator for his comments in respect of the Intreo offices. I have visited a number of those offices, where I have witnessed a much better service for the customer. All the information is available at one location. I expect to see a roll-out of further Intreo centres in the new year. The removal of the glass barriers in the reception area enables queries to be dealt with there and then. The Intreo offices in place are good but we need to expand the service around the country as quickly as possible. I thank the Senator for his positive comments in respect of the centres.