Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1283. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the applications for various social welfare payments which are most commonly refused on application and referred to appeal or oral hearing; the number of cases subsequently rejected or approved on appeal, respectively; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [47116/17]

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The link that follows provide the details which have been requested by the Deputy in respect of 2016 and to date in 2017.

The schemes with the highest number of appeals to the Social Welfare Appeals Office in 2016 and to date in 2017 were - disability allowance (4 ,912 in 2016/4,337 in 2017), carer’s allowance (3,887 in 2016/2,893 in 2017 ), jobseeker’s allowance - means (2,050 in 2016/1,262 in 2017), jobseeker’s allowance - payments (2,031 in 2016/1,440 in 2017), supplementary welfare allowance (1,970 in 2016/1,113 in 2017), invalidity pension (1,362 in 2016/1,218 in 2017) and domiciliary care allowance (1,198 in 2016/865 in 2017).

Details of appeal outcomes for the above schemes are set out in the tables. Overall, 59.2% of the 23,220 appeals which were finalised in 2016 had a favourable outcome for the appellant, i.e. were either allowed in full or in part, or resolved by way of a revised decision by a Deciding Officer/Designated Person. To date in 2017, 59.4% of the 15,551 appeals finalised have had a favourable outcome for the appellant.

Of the 16,990 appeals which were finalised by Appeals Officers in 2016, 6,527 (38.4%) were determined following an oral hearing. 4,251 (65.1%) of these had a favourable outcome for the appellant. Of the 10,786 appeals finalised by Appeals Officers to date in 2017, 4,554 (42.2%) were determined following an oral hearing. 2,853 (62.6%) of these had a favourable outcome for the appellant.

There are a number of reasons why a decision which was refused at first instance might be successful on appeal and it is not necessarily the case that the first decision was wrong.

Where new evidence is provided with an appeal the original decision may be revised by the Deciding Officer or Designated Person as was the case in some 37 per cent of favourable appeal outcomes in 2016. Where the decision was not revised in the Department in light of the appeal contentions, further evidence is often provided by the appellant as the appeal process proceeds and in addition, the Appeals Officer may gain insights when they meet the appellant in person at oral hearing which may influence the outcome of the appeal.

Decisions concerning entitlement to a social welfare payment or insurability of employment often require a high level of judgment and may involve complex legal questions. The Courts have found that decision makers are required to be free and unrestricted in discharging their functions.

Where an appellant requests an oral hearing, the request is generally granted unless the Appeals Officer is of the opinion that the appeal can be allowed on a summary basis, or where there is clearly nothing to be gained by granting an oral hearing, for example where the appeal question relates to contribution conditions or means and the underlying PRSI contribution figures or means are not disputed. Social Welfare legislation provides that an Appeal Officer may determine an appeal without an oral hearing where s/he is of the opinion that it can be determined fairly on the basis of the documentary evidence provided. In general, where there is a conflict in the documentary evidence presented, an Appeals Officer will convene an oral hearing in order to explore the evidence and seek to resolve any conflict.

I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.