Vol. 392 No. 8
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when it is intended to establish the separate Social Welfare Appeals Office promised in the Programme for Government 1989-1993, in order that the appeals system can be perceived as fair and independent; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends setting up a special section in his Department to deal with appeals in all areas of social welfare.
69.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will introduce a realistic system of appeal for social welfare applicants.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 8 and 69 together.
The agreement with the social partners in the Programme for National Recovery provided that the Government would examine which changes, if any, were required in the social welfare appeals system, with particular regard to ensuring that the system is perceived to be fair.
The Programme for Government 1989-1993 provides that a separate Social Welfare Appeals Office will be set up so that the appeals system is perceived to be fair and independent. I am finalising my proposals to set up the new appeals office at present and I hope to make an announcement in the matter shortly.
I thank the Minister for confirming that he is setting up this special appeals section to deal with all appeals in his Department. Will he set down guidelines as to how appeals will be dealt with because there are great anomalies already in how appeals are heard? This applies particularly to disability benefit because proper medical facilities are not used at the location of investigation. The actual procedure followed in appeals for unemployment assistance is that the applicants must be interviewed in their own homes and an interview will not be accepted in the office of the inspector. These are anomalies which are not seen to be fair.
The purpose of the appeals office will be to bring all appeals together under one roof, to have one office and one director. They are independent, and they must be seen to be clearly independent. This would mean that they would respond to queries, make arrangements, present an annual report and do everything else that goes with it. It would be a clearly visible system and would be a substantive step forward.
Will the Minister be laying down guidelines about how we can perceive this system of appeals to be fair? At present it is not seen to be fair by the applicants or the appellants.
Ultimately, the Minister will have to have responsibility. One of the main purposes here is to take it out of the Department and put it into a separate office where it can be perceived very clearly in relation to any of its activities. Ultimately, the Minister will still be responsible for standards and the House will have to consider from time to time how the system should be changed, amended, and improved.
How will that be done?
We will be discussing that matter later.
Will it require legislation?
I expect some parts will but that can be done administratively. The biggest task is to get that administration functioning. It would require some legislation.
There is no statutory obligation on the Department to inform unsuccessful claimants of their right to appeal. Recognising that there are about 18,000 appeals annually, will the Minister bring in the necessary statutory regulations to give this entitlement?
The question of any statutory changes will have to be considered and will be coming before the House. The Deputy will have an opportunity then to see the Government's proposals and to make any suggestions.
Will the Minister accept that he will not satisfy anybody if all he provides is an office within the Department of Social Welfare operating the same system and run by the same people? Will he ensure that appeals officers will be appointed from outside the Department of Social Welfare? Will he consider a further appeals tribunal representative of a broader interest group rather than just the Department?
The independence of the appeals officers has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court judgment and is quite clearcut. The Commission on Social Welfare also found there was no question as to their independence. There is, however, a perception that all the literature and information comes from the ordinary branches and offices of the Department. There would be a separate office and that would be clear to everybody.
In framing any legislative proposals, will the Minister take into account the widespread perception of social welfare recipients that they are cut off automatically after an arbitrary period? For the lay person there is an inexplicable conflict between the opinion of the medical referee and the person's own doctor. The latest case I know of concerns a woman who had been working without a break for 32 years but is manifestly incapable of continuing, yet the medical referee automatically cut her off. This is only one of hundreds of cases. The view of recipients is that the system is unfair and arbitrary. Will the Minister take this into account in framing any proposals?
I do not think there is a general perception that it is unfair or arbitrary. There is certainly a perception that the system is operating within the Department. The referees are medical people. There is no other way we can do it. Unless you get a doctor to make a decision you have to make that decision yourself or ask the Minister to make the decision. We must have a medically qualified person. I do not want to go into detail about the extent to which we go into these matters. There is a first medical referee, then a second medical referee and an appeals system. There will be problems at any time because of a breakdown of communication for one reason or another. I have the experience every day as a working Deputy. Nevertheless this approach is the principal step required. When the legislation comes before the House Deputies will have the opportunity to discuss it.
While I welcome the change, the fact that there are 18,000 appeals in any given year shows that the system does not work. The criteria are unfair to those people looking for unemployment benefit or seeking work. On occasions medical referees ask only two or three questions, never actually examine a person and send the report to the Department. Surely the numbers speak for themselves. The system does not work. If the criteria are not changed the same situation will exist under the new proposals.
The system works overall. Millions of incidents and cases are dealt with through the year. The 18,000 appeals relate not only to disability benefit but to unemployment assistance and so on. There are problems in any system with such a huge volume. It would be much easier for me to do what everybody else has done — nothing. Then there would be no hassle. Why does not somebody say he or she is delighted that this change is about to happen? Regarding the flexible opportunities for education, why did not somebody come and say thanks, that we have a good Minister now who is doing something worthwhile?
Self praise is no praise.
The Minister sat on the proposal for years. Deputy Hussey started it three years ago but the Minister wants the credit.
The Minister must accept that we do appreciate the good things he does but we have an obligation to question the gaps. There is a widespread perception that the appeals system is arbitrary and unfair. In establishing this office, will the Minister ensure that people who are obliged to appeal are advised as to how they should appeal, not just given a notice that they are entitled to appeal? People must get their rights, which is what the appeals system is designed to ensure. Many people do not know how they may appeal and the kind of evidence they need to prove their case. Some kind of advice leaflet on how to appeal and what kind of evidence to produce is essential if the system is to be seen to be fair.
The question of a leaflet can be considered separately in terms of advice. I have been bringing in a number of simplified leaflets recently. The purpose of the appeals system is to notify people beforehand and to give them the results of the appeal. There will be a separate administration dealing purely with these people. While it will be more expensive, it will provide the kind of thing the Deputy seeks. I will note his point about the leaflet, which may be very valuable.
I complimented the Minister earlier on this step in the right direction in establishing a central office. I also mentioned the lack of facilities for medical referees. The Minister might ask them to use the local facilities, health centres, hospitals and so on, so that a proper medical can be carried out. The Minister might also ensure that medical referees accept invitations from applicants at their own offices. They are available on only one day in most offices but people are volunteering to come in. If they are missing even to buy a bottle of milk they are left in the lurch for another three or four months.
I am trying to get a place which will be the major central office for appeals in the Dublin region. Obviously the questions raised by the Deputies are very relevant for the rest of the country and they will be borne in mind.
