Ivan Yates
Question:35 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if appeals for social welfare entitlements will be fast-tracked; and if the delays will be eliminated. [6648/02]
Other Questions. - Social Welfare Appeals.
Every person who is dissatisfied with a decision on a claim to social welfare payment made by a deciding officer of my Department or with certain decisions made by health boards in regard to supplementary welfare allowances has a statutory right to appeal.
The social welfare appeals system is a quasi-judicial one and the procedures involved are designed to ensure that every appellant's case gets full and fair consideration. While there is an inevitable time lag in such a process, which is governed by statutory and fair procedure requirements, it enables a speedy resolution of the appeal in some circumstances.
Where an appeal is received, the social welfare appeals office refers the case to the deciding officer for his or her comments on the arguments made by the appellant, including any new evidence submitted. As a result of this process over one fifth of such cases are revised in the person's favour by the deciding officer, mainly because new evidence became available that warranted revision.
It is my Department's policy to ensure that persons who receive an unfavourable decision are provided with the means to have such decisions reviewed as quickly as possible. What we want to achieve is that where new evidence becomes available after a decision is made, that evidence is submitted directly to the deciding officer in the first instance so that the case can be re-examined quickly and, if appropriate, the decision revised without having to go through the more formal appeals process. To this end, my Department is developing systems to review decisions in light of further information brought to notice following the initial decision and to ensure that claimants are advised of their right to seek such a review. Where conflict remains, however, the person has the right to have his or her claim dealt with by way of appeal.
The time taken to process an appeal has been commented on by the chief appeals officer in his annual reports in recent years. During the three-year period to 2000, the number of appeals received increased by over 25%, which put considerable pressure on the resources of the social welfare appeals office. Notwithstanding this increase, average processing times were broadly maintained over the period at around 22 weeks.
How many were successful?
While this compares favourably with international experience in this area, the achievement of improvement is a major objective of the office.
Additional resources have been assigned during the past two years to cope with the extra numbers and the number of appeals on hand has decreased from 7,537 at the start of 2000 to the present figure of about 6,700. Given the necessary formal nature of the appeals process and the number of appeals received, it is considered that a figure of about 4,000 would be consistent with a desired level of service.
Resources alone are not the only answer and apart from the revised procedures by my Department mentioned above to provide an early review of unfavourable decisions, management of the appeals office is arranging for a consultancy study of the office, which will include an examination of all the processes involved in dealing with claims to the appeals stage. Any procedural improvements, which are identified in the course of this examination, will be implemented.
I am certainly not insinuating that things have got worse since the Minister assumed office, but does the Minister agree that the situation is highly unsatisfactory? This is the poorest section of the community, many of whom are illiterate or elderly and are unable to fight their own cases. The Minister did not give his standard reply that they have the right to go to a supplementary welfare officer to get money. However, that is simply going round the merry go round. It is not good enough that poor disadvantaged people must wait for months on end. I am told that the average waiting time for lone parents to get their applications processed is six months. Does the Minister not agree this is totally unacceptable?
I agree with Deputy Deasy that my Department and the appeals system, which is independent of the Department, endeavour as much as possible to try to reach decisions as quickly as possible. However, the Deputy must accept that in many cases of delay the fault is not on our side. It can happen that requests for information are made and that information does not come in as quickly as it should. Our average processing time of 20 to 22 weeks compares very favourably with other countries. For instance our neighbouring country, the UK, has an average waiting time of 26 weeks. In the past two years we have increased the complement of appeals officers to 17.5, which is an increase of 3.5.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): How can there be a half person?
That has the effect of nullifying the fairly dramatic increase of 25% in recent years. As regards lone parents, certain protocols must be followed concerning the maintenance by the other parent. Before a decision is made it is important to ascertain the position of the spouse or partner.
I strongly agree with Deputy Deasy that the system is in need of reform. The Minister said the appeals system was independent, but how independent is it? Did he give consideration to a full statutory basis for the appeals system whereby social welfare customers, as he calls them in his letter, could have real confidence they were getting an independent hearing and were not being struck off without recourse or representation? The system seems to be a quango type system, which can very easily rob people of their basic civil rights. He should have introduced legislation on this.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the Minister accept that if a file is sent out from the office in Sligo and it has not been returned within three weeks, a reminder should be sent to the area concerned? When we ring up we are told that the file was sent out on some date in the past, which could be two or three months ago. However, it is not followed up.
I do not accept that it is a quango system, as Deputy Broughan claims. That is unfair to the people who work the system, the appeals officers and the deciding officers. They operate a relatively good system that is independent. I do not interfere in any way in decisions as to whether people should get paid.
What percentage of appeals is successful? I believe it is very significant.
I do not have figures at hand, but the Deputy could table a parliamentary question. Deputy Broughan is being very unfair and he should withdraw the inference that it is a quango system. It is independent of the Minister regardless of what Government is in office. That was equally true when the Labour Party was in office.
In answer to Deputy Browne, he should let me know of specific cases where there are difficulties. I do not know about the Deputy's parliamentary party, but in my parliamentary party there is nothing but praise for my Department and people often ask why other Departments cannot be like mine.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is not an answer to my question.