Vol. 490 No. 3
5 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will outline the waiting lists at the social welfare appeals office; the average waiting time for appeals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10198/98]
Almost 13,000 appeals were dealt with at the social welfare appeals office in 1997. The average time taken to process all appeals was 22 weeks.
There are 5,491 appeals on which work is in progress. These include cases at all stages of the appeals process, including those which have been heard and decisions are about to be notified, those under investigation in the Department following submission of the grounds of appeal, those awaiting attention by appeals officers and those awaiting further information from appellants.
The social welfare appeals system is quasi-judicial and the procedures are designed to ensure every appeal receives full and adequate consideration. There is an inevitable timelag in such a process. In some cases an additional delay may arise because of difficulty in obtaining all the information required by the appeals officer. In some cases appeals can be dealt with on the basis of information supplied by the appellant and the deciding officer without recourse to an oral hearing and these take less than the average time. Where an oral hearing is required, however, an additional delay is inevitable.
Four additional appeals officers were appointed during the second half of 1997 and this has brought about an improvement in the processing times for appeals so far this year. The average time taken is now 21 weeks.
The provision of a prompt service is a major objective of the social welfare appeals office. At all times it is necessary to ensure progress is achieved in a manner consistent with the demands of justice and the requirement that every appeal is fully investigated and examined on all its merits.
Does the Minister have a note in his file regarding the average length of time for appeals relating to family income supplement?
I do not have that information with me but I can make inquiries for the Deputy. Those figures are invariably contained in the annual report of the social welfare appeals office.
Does the Minister agree that family income supplement forms a crucial part of the income of some families?
I do.
I am glad the Minister agrees because, according to my information from the appeals office, family income supplement appeals are put on the long finger. They are not regarded as a priority by the appeals office which feels that queries on other issues are more important and should be dealt with first. I have first hand experience of a family income supplement appeal which has been ongoing for almost 12 months. That is totally unacceptable when, as the Minister agrees, family income supplement is such an important part of some families' weekly income. Will the Minister ensure changes are made in this?
The Deputy has made quite a serious allegation. If he knows of any instances where there has been an inordinate delay in such appeals he should bring them to my attention. He indicated that he felt these appeals were being put on the long finger on purpose. I do not accept that is the case but I will double check the situation and undertake to ensure a report is made to me on the issue of family income supplement.
In my experience, this is a good appeals system in comparison with, for example, the social security appeals tribunal in the UK where, according to its 1996 report, an appeal took an average of 26 weeks. The international social security association report in respect of 22 countries said an appeal took on average from three months to 20 months to process. We are on the lower end of the scale in that respect.
I accept the appeals office is doing its best and I have always found its officers to be extremely courteous. However, I would not like to think that appeals in one sector would take longer than those in another because they all involve family income and should be treated equally. Will the Minister obtain information on the different heads of appeal, how long different appeals take and whether there are any discrepancies; in other words, if different types of payment from the Department are treated differently?
I will undertake to have that matter looked at in my Department and to have a report made to me. I am almost sure all those figures will be in the annual report. I agree fully with the Deputy's remarks on how people are treated by the appeals office and I do not accept that one area is discriminated against. However, I will have the issue checked as the Deputy has raised it in the House. Some 49 per cent of appeals which go to the appeals office are decided in favour of the appellant.
Will the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act impact on the Department and will it cause further delays in matters such as appeals?
There is a later question on that matter and I would not like to gazump the person who tabled it. However, my Department is actively looking at the whole issue of freedom of information. My officials are happy they have put in place the necessary procedures and personnel to ensure the Act is implemented to the letter.
