asked the Minister for Social Welfare the average time taken to hear an appeal for the investigation of claims for (1) unemployment claims, (2) disability benefit, (3) deserted wife's claims and (4) old age pension claims.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Appeals.
6.
Statistics are not maintained to enable a calculation to be made of the average time taken to investigate and process an appeal hearing. Every appeal application is determined in the light of its own particular merit. An appellant is required to state the grounds on which the appeal is based and where the contentions are at variance with the information already available a further investigation has to be made. In many cases this may result in prolonged inquiries by a social welfare officer before the case can be submitted to an appeals officer.
Where a further investigation of an appeal application is not deemed to be necessary, it is estimated that the time taken to process an oral hearing from the date of submission to the appeals officer to the date of hearing is six to eight weeks in Dublin and somewhat longer in provincial areas. However, cases which are dealt with summarily by appeals officers are normally determined within four to six weeks from date of submission to date of decision.
The Minister of State has conceded that delays, particularly down the country, may extend to months. I ask him, respectfully, to concede that in many cases delay can extend up to four months. Is not the reason for this that so few appeals officers are employed by the Department? There are 14 in all, consisting of a chief appeals officer, a deputy chief appeals officer, nine permanent and three temporary appeals officers, and this is not sufficient to deal with the various appeals that arise in relation to unemployment, disability, deserted wife's claims and old age pension claims. It is impossible for 14 appeals officers nationally to deal with all the appeals that come before them. In view of the long delays which cause considerable hardship and disquiet, will the Minister of State not concede that it would be in the national interest and the interest of those who would benefit, that more appeals officers should be appointed?
As I have said many times, the number of appeals officers is a factor in the length of time, certainly, but it is not the only factor. There are many other factors, not the least of which is that the number of cases referred to appeals officers each year is in excess of 17,000. As I said in my original reply, cases differ and some cases take much longer to investigate and follow than others. If the Department had more appeals officers there would be some lessening of the time span. Three temporary appeals officers were assigned to the appeals branch in May 1985 and that helped in some way. Every effort will be made to keep the number of appeals officers at their current level.
Will the Minister of State not accept that many of the appeals that have to be made are as a result of unfair refusal of benefit to applicants and that a more lax, so to speak, a more generous approach to applicants, particularly to women who apply for unemployment benefit, would reduce the number of appeals that have to be made?
That is not exactly in keeping with the question. It could be another question.
It could, but it is not.
It is a question of balance. On the one hand we have commentators and, indeed, Members of this House, pointing out the ease with which people can get social welfare benefit — with which I do not agree, and there is another question here on which I will deal with that. On the other hand we have questions like Deputy De Rossa's question which tend to give the opposite impression. It is a question of balance between ensuring that people get what they are entitled to and ensuring that they comply with the conditions that govern each scheme. No matter which way the regulations lean we will get criticism of one kind or another from those who think the regulations should be much stricter and that people should not get benefits as easily as they do, and the other view that people should get them more easily.
Let me pursue this——
Deputy De Rossa, I have indicated to you that you should put down a question on it.
I am putting it——
I am putting it to you that you put a question down.
——to the Minister: does he consider it reasonable that a woman who is made unemployed on a Friday at 5 p.m. and who applies on Monday at 10 a.m. for unemployment benefit, which she qualifies for on the basis of contributions, should be told no, she has not looked for work in the meantime?
You must put a question down.
Is that a reasonable refusal? Is that kind of thing not unacceptable?
That is a separate issue. Normally you agree with the ruling of the Chair.
It is not a separate issue. It is very much concerned with the number of appeals.
It is a separate issue and I will gladly deal with it if the Deputy puts down a question.