Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Oct 2010

Vol. 205 No. 2

Social Welfare Appeals

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

Tá lúcháir orm go bhfuil an tAire Coimirce Sóisialaí, an Teachta Ó Cuív, i láthair chun éisteacht leis an díospóireacht seo.

I raise this matter because of my concern about the excessive length of time people are obliged to wait while their appeals against the disallowance of disability benefit, jobseeker's allowance, etc. are processed. However, the position has improved in recent months and appeals are now being processed much more quickly. I am in daily contact with the staff of the local social welfare appeals office who have been assisting me with a number of appeals dating back to 2009. I am dealing with a number of appeals made in August, September and October of that year which have not yet been processed.

I refer to the case of one gentleman who has appealed a decision of the Department of Social Protection to refuse him a disability allowance, even though he is medically unfit for work and has absolutely no income. He is a former taxi driver who endured a period of extreme stress, had a massive heart attack and almost died. He is just about able to walk and the medical evidence shows that he is not able to work. He is suffering from severe stress and anxiety because a number of financial institutions are on the verge of taking him to court. This morning he received a summons to appear in court on 7 November in respect of the repossession of a car. He cannot engage with the lending agencies because he has no income and has been kicking to touch by informing them that he is awaiting the outcome to an appeal lodged with the Department. To date, that decision has not been forthcoming.

The gentleman in question is awaiting an oral hearing with the Department. Constituency representatives have provided me with anecdotal evidence to the effect that those awaiting oral hearings in respect of appeals lodged in 2009, in particular, have not yet been given dates for such hearings. There is not even a suggestion that information on the dates on which the hearings might take place will be provided. Likewise, there is no suggestion that dates will be provided in the near future.

As the Minister will appreciate, this is a major cause of anxiety to the man to whom I refer. I ask that he do everything in his power to discover if there is a way that the appeals which have been awaiting a hearing since last year can be dealt with as soon as possible. I acknowledge that he has taken steps to deal with this matter since he assumed control of the Department. Appeals are usually lodged when someone's benefit or allowance is stopped. The relevant paperwork should, therefore, be available within the Department. In such circumstances, would it not be possible to make decisions on appeals within a six to eight-week timeframe in order that the individuals involved might get on with their lives? I appreciate that medical evidence must be presented and that oral hearings must be held. However, we must consider introducing a new system. If we do not do so, we will drive people over the brink. The man I am referring to is approaching that brink and I am fearful for his health and safety. I urge the Minister to consider that case on its merits and to consider all other cases of a similar nature which the Department deals with. If additional resources are required in the social welfare appeals office, the Government should assist the Minister in ensuring those resources are provided. Those most in need must obtain the assistance of the State when they are on the rocky road.

People like the man to whom I refer are on the rocky road and there is a moral obligation on the State to provide the assistance which they deserve. Knowing this gentleman and having read all the evidence and information in the file, I genuinely believe this man is entitled to the payment. I hope this gentleman and others will receive a decision much sooner than has been the case up to now. Does the Minister feel a waiting time of 13 or 14 months for an oral hearing is satisfactory, as I do not believe so? The matter should be addressed.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Seanadóir as ucht na ceiste seo a ardú. Aontaím leis go bhfuil sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go ndéanfaimid na hachomhairc seo a phróiseáil chomh scioptha agus is féidir. Ó tháinig mé isteach sa Roinn, tá mé dírithe go mór ar an gceist seo. Déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall, i dteannta na hoifigigh seo, a chinntiú go dtabharfaí seirbhís maith don phobal.

The social welfare appeals process is quasi-judicial in nature and, as such, is subject to inevitable time lags before appeals can be finalised. I recognise that a key factor of satisfaction with the social welfare appeals system is the promptness with which those availing of the service get a decision on their appeal and every effort continues to be made to keep processing times to the absolute minimum.

A number of elements within the procedural process are inevitably time-consuming and can have an adverse impact on the speed with which appeals can be determined. These include the need to ensure due process and fair procedures are adhered to, including the application of the principles of natural justice; the statutory obligation to provide the Department's deciding officer with an opportunity to comment on the grounds of appeal; the need for further investigation of the grounds of appeal or, in the case of certain illness related cases, arranging for a further medical examination or assessment before the appeal can be determined; the need to arrange for an oral hearing of the appeal to resolve conflicts of evidence or where an oral hearing is requested by the appellant; and the need to accommodate appellants who are not in a position to proceed with their appeals or are slow to respond to requests for additional information.

There was a 46% increase in the number of appeals received by the social welfare appeals office in 2009 when compared with 2008, which in itself was 27% greater than the numbers received in 2007. There was an increase of a further 44% in the number of appeals received in the first eight months of 2010. Currently it is anticipated that some 33,000 appeals will be received during 2010, which is compared with roughly 15,000 a year for 2007 and in the years preceding 2007. These increases have also caused delays in the processing of appeals.

Improving processing times continues to be a major objective of the social welfare appeals office. A number of initiatives have been put in place to enhance the capacity of the office to deal with the current caseload and inflows. In that regard, two additional appeals officers were assigned to the office in 2009, a number of additional staff were assigned to the administration area of the office, the organisation of the appeals officers' work was changed so to increase productivity, a project to improve the business processes in the office was undertaken and resulted in a number of improvements being implemented, and significant enhancements were made to the office's information technology and phone systems. In addition, it was decided to use experienced retired staff strictly on a short-term basis to supplement the current resources, and the services of eight retired officers have been secured and have been operating on a part-time basis since July. I am assured by the chief appeals officer that she is keeping current processes under continual review with a view to achieving a more effective throughput of appeals while ensuring any progress does not conflict with due process in terms of the rights of appellants and adherence to the requirements of natural justice.

In the case of the person concerned, the social welfare appeals office has advised me that his appeal was registered in that office on 14 November 2009. In line with statutory obligations the appeal was referred back to the deciding officer in the Department for a submission on the grounds of appeal and for the case papers. This process involved a further assessment by a second medical assessor of the Department and the papers were received back in the social welfare appeals office on 9 February 2010. They have been referred to an appeals officer who proposes to hold an oral hearing in this case. Given the logistics involved in organising an oral hearing, a considerable period of time is added to the process. To be fair to all appellants, oral hearings are dealt with in chronological order and for that reason its not possible to give an actual date in this case. The person will be notified when arrangements have been made.

We amended the law to allow retired staff to return on a part-time basis to the Department and I am sure the Senator agrees that was a good change in the law since I became Minister. The social welfare appeals office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

I thank the Minister for his response, although it does not provide me with a date for the appeal. I cannot speak to my constituent and reassure him in any manner because of that. I appreciate that the social welfare appeals office is separate from the Department and must be for obvious reasons. Notwithstanding this, it is important that this independent office be in a position to operate in a more efficient manner. I do not question the efficiency of the staff but if additional resources on top of what has been provided is required, the matter should be considered. I hope an oral hearing for this case will be held as quickly as possible because I fear for this gentleman's safety as well as his mental and physical health.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

There are 20 appeals officers working in the social welfare appeals office and, as the Senator knows, we appointed two extra in January 2009. There are also eight extra experienced retired staff working on a short-term basis to supplement current resources, and they are vetting claims with the aim of deciding a significant number of these on the basis of the documentary evidence and without the need to resort to an oral hearing.

From July until the end of September, these personnel had vetted 4,724 cases, with decisions given in 3,369, with 1,355 cases listed for oral hearing. They have gone through many cases and given a decision, although some require an oral hearing. Such hearings are by far the slowest part of the process as they must be physically organised. I note the Senator's comments and I continue to work with the appeals office on a general level to try to expedite appeals.

We will never get to a stage where oral hearings will take place within six weeks but I have discussed with the office the possibility of a first port of call being a revised decision from the deciding officer. A second port of call would be a summary decision, with a third possibility the oral hearings. We will try to streamline the process and I know the personnel have been doing good work.

This year the throughput of appeals has improved dramatically but the number of appeals has also increased. I am discussing with the office the reasons for the increase in appeals. It is partly because of the increased workload in the Department but we should be considering ways to reduce the need for people to feel they need to appeal decisions and if there are better information systems to be put in place. Fewer appeals would mean we could deal with the genuine and necessary appeals more quickly.