Vol. 467 No. 3
7 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Minister for Social Welfare the current waiting time in relation to appeals before the Social Welfare Appeals Office outlining the time elapsing between the date of submission of the appeal and final notifications of the outcome to the claim in question; and the plans, if any, he has to improve the situation. [12936/96]
Social Welfare Appeals Office statistics on appeals finalised during the first five months of 1996 show that the average processing time was just over 17 weeks. Appeals involving oral hearings tend to be above this figure, whereas those where the appeal can be determined on the basis of the documentary evidence would be below the average figure. When the slowest 10 per cent of cases is discounted the average falls to 14 weeks. A survey of appeals completed in 1995 found that approximately one third were disposed of within two months of being registered in the appeals office.
For an appeal to get the attention it merits, the grounds advanced in support of it must be fully investigated. This will often require a further report by an investigating officer at issue or, for disability benefit claimants, a further examination by a medical referee. The periods indicated above cover the time taken to deal with all phases of the appeal, including additional investigations into the grounds advanced, the arrangement of oral hearings, adjournments which may be requested by the appellants or their representatives, determination by an appeals officer and notification of the outcome to appellants.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office has made significant progress in the five years since its establishment in 1991. Up to the end of May 1996 more than 85,000 appeals had been processed and the number of appeals on hand has decreased from 8,287 at 31 December 1991 to 4,261 on 31 May 1996; this has brought about a significant improvement in the service provided to appellants.
The provision of a prompt service is a major objective of the Social Welfare Appeals Office. While it is unlikely that appeals currently awaiting determination will be disposed of much more quickly than the average for the first half of the year, the achievement of further improvements in response times is a high priority. However, it is necessary to ensure that progress in this area is achieved in a manner which is consistent with the demands of justice and the requirement that every appeal be fully investigated and examined on all of its merits.
Will the Minister agree it is most unsatisfactory that there is an average waiting period of 17 weeks for appeals? If that is the average waiting time, many appeals must take longer than 17 weeks. I know that some take up to six months. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce that inordinate delay?
If an appeal takes six months, it is not because of any inefficiency or inadequacy in the Department of Social Welfare or the appeals office, but because a person who may feel aggrieved as the result of a decision of the Department is seeking an oral hearing and for new evidence to be introduced in support of their case. If the Deputy has a specific example of an appeal which has taken six months, and there is no obvious explanation for the delay which he believes resulted from inefficiency in my Department, I will have that case investigated.
The average waiting time is 17 weeks, and when the slowest 10 per cent of cases are discounted the average falls to 14 weeks. We are talking about the time from when the appellant receives notice that he may appeal and when he lodges an appeal. He may have to go for a medical examination if it is a disability benefit case and he has to be given time to produce medical evidence, which can take two to three weeks. The Department has to verify the claim and the documentation. All of these matters take time. We are talking about appeals where a person has been refused a payment. In the first instance, the Department is entitled to present its case for the refusal, and the person is entitled to present their case for receiving the payment. That inevitably gives rise to delays.
According to published British social security statistics, the average time taken to process appeals for all benefits by tribunals in the UK in 1994 was approximately 38 weeks. A recent report of the International Social Security Association, covering complaints procedures in the field of social security in institutions in 22 countries, found that appeal processing times varied between three and 20 months. Compared to how appeals are dealt with in other countries, we are doing reasonably well. However, that is not to say we will not seek to improve the passage of appeals as far as we can.
One of the primary objectives of the Department is to reduce the number of appeals. That has been achieved to a significant extent, as I indicated earlier, by ensuring people fully understand the reasons a claim is refused. That has resulted in a significant drop in the number of appeals.
Is the Minister serious when he blames the long delays on the clients waiting to submit new evidence rather than his Department? Is he satisfied that during the period when these clients are waiting for their appeal there is proper co-ordination between community welfare officers and the Department of Social Welfare to ensure they have adequate incomes? Many of them have young families to look after. Is he satisfied there is no problem there? I can assure him there is. Will he address that problem.
I do not think anything I said seeks to blame the client.
The Minister said in his first paragraph it was the fault of the clients.
No, the first paragraph explains that if the appeal system is to be fair, we have to give the person seeking an appeal the opportunity to present their evidence either in writing or, if they so choose, at an oral hearing. That takes time.
And that is the sole reason for the long delays.
It is not the sole reason. However, I am arguing that the time it takes to deal with an appeal is not primarily — or at all, in my view — the result of inefficiency on the part of the Department of Social Welfare or the appeals office. We have to have some regard for the use of resources in the delivery of our services.
Our primary objective in this area is to reduce the number of appeals by making clear to people the reason for a claim being refused. If they are not happy with the reasons given, they obviously have the right, in justice, to appeal, and many do so. However, because we are dealing in a much clearer way with the reasons for claims being refused, the number of appeals has dropped dramatically. That is the way we need to proceed.
It is important that a person lodging an appeal has an opportunity to present their evidence in either written or oral form. Providing for oral hearings obviously takes time. If there are thousands of appeals, each case has to be dealt with fairly. There is no point in having a system operating like a sausage machine churning out standardised decisions.
Each case has to be reviewed and decided on its merits. The system is working well. I am not arguing that it is perfect but that the improvements will ensure the number of appeals will fall.
The Minister has spent some time trying to justify what I consider a disgraceful situation where people have to wait 17 weeks on average for their appeal to be decided. This causes hardship. Does he not consider it most unreasonable that the Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare provided for a cut of four in the number of staff in the social welfare appeals office whereas the number of personal staff recruited through his party's head-quarters for party political purposes was increased by 13? Does this not display lopsided priorities?
I will not be provoked into responding to the Deputy's inaccurate statements about my personal staff.
The Minister should do something about it.
If one discounts the bottom 10 per cent of cases the average falls to 14 weeks. A survey of appeals completed in 1995 found that approximately one-third were disposed of within two months of being registered in the appeals office. There have been no cuts in staffing levels in the Department of Social Welfare.
On a point of order, provision was made on page 199 of the Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare for a reduction in staffing levels, from 50 to 46.
There have been no cuts in staffing levels in the Department of Social Welfare.
