asked the Minister for Social Welfare the average length of time it takes to process an appeal against the decision of a deciding officer; the plans he has to expedite this procedure; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Appeals Procedure Reform.
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any proposals to reform the system of appeals in the social welfare area in the light of the report in 1980 on its shortcomings by the Coolock Law Centre, Dublin.
I propose to take Question Nos. 16 and 17 together.
Statistics are not kept of the length of time taken to process appeals. Appeals are currently being received at a rate of some 16,500 annally and this figure is increasing. The length of time involved in each case can vary considerably depending on each matter at issue and many cases require further investigation or inquiry before a decision can be given.
I have no specific proposals at the present time to change the system of social welfare appeals. The system is kept under continuous review in the light of its performance and every effort is made by reviewing administrative arrangements to improve the Department's ability to cope with an increasing workload.
While the system may have drawbacks, generally speaking I am satisfied that it performs well in providing a relatively quick, inexpensive and equitable service to claimants in accordance with the requirements of the Social Welfare legislation on which it is based.
It must be borne in mind that many of the more radical proposals which are sometimes made in relation to the appeals system, such, for example, as the setting up of a tribunal or tribunals would involve considerable extra resources and would undoubtedly lengthen considerably the period taken to process appeals.
It is also relevant to mention that the office of Ombudsman, which will commence to function in January next, will provide an additional point of recourse to claimants who may be dissatisfied with the handling of their cases on appeal.
I do not think the last part of the Minister's reply, to the effect that people will have reference to the Ombudsman in January next, is realistic. We are talking about people who are dependent for their livelihood on unemployment assistance. Surely the Minister will accept that the present system was introduced way back in the thirties at a time when a very small number of people were unemployed compared with today? Will the Minister accept that, in view of the number of young people who are unemployed, and the numbers unemployed over a long number of months, there is a lot of frustration felt as a result of it taking four to five months to have a claim processed? The Minister must realise that the system——
That is not a question.
Does the Minister realise that in the processing of a claim for unemployment assistance the documentation goes through four or five different sections of his Department, eventually finding its way to Townsend Street in Dublin, has to back down the line and that this is the cause of the delay? Would the Minister not consider decentralising the administration of unemployment assistance, allowing the employment exchange managers take the decision without the documentation having to go to Dublin, particulary in regard to claims emanating from rural areas? Taking your own constituency, a Cheann Comhairle, the documentation goes from the branch manager in Clones to Dundalk, back to the room next door to the branch manager, to the social welfare officer — it may go to his inspector — back to Dundalk and then on the Townsend Street, Dublin, where a decision is taken. Surely in this day and age it should not be necessary to have an application for unemployment assistance travel round the country, it should be possible to have the decision taken locally and have payment effected within two or three weeks.
I think very few people would recognise that as a question, Deputy, but no matter; the House nearly has me drugged.
In a situation in which there are some 16,500 appeals lodged, in which the 3,500 people working in my Department are subjected to enormous pressure, due to the staff embargo, and have been handling workloads which have increased by 50 to 60 per cent in individual cases, I do not consider that, in such extreme circumstances, a delay of approximately two weeks in Dublin in arranging for an appeal to be heard, or of four weeks outside of Dublin, is abnormal. I have been bringing considerable pressure to bear on the staff of the Department to deal with all appeals as expeditiously as possible. I can only say I have received quite exceptional co-operation from the staffs of exchanges and the head office of the Department during the past 12 months, although they are working under the most severe pressure.
While we could improve some of the information relating to appeals, particularly that being made available to claimants, by trying to get rid of some of the outmoded forms, the terminology used in those forms and explaining entitlements more directly and simply to claimants, by and large the system at present, despite all its shortcomings, is working as well as possible. I am currently examining the appeals procedure. I have met a number of organisations. I propose to continue my consultations with these to improve the administrative structures.
Would the Minister not accept that allowing the branch manager to take decisions in these cases would alleviate many of the problems and delays that arise?
Approximately 50 per cent of the cases are dealt with by appeals officers who decide the cases — if I may use the legal jargon — on a summary basis there and then. About 50 per cent of all appeals are decided in this manner. The others go to oral hearings and when a person seeks an oral hearings he is never refused.
Does the Minister agree that the system in employment exchanges when cases are under appeal is further complicated because it involves the community welfare officers during the period when the cases are under appeal? Would it not be more logical to have the two services provided under the same roof rather than having people running from the employment exchanges in one part of the town chasing around after community welfare officers who are now grossly over-worked in most cases?
I agree there is a need to integrate the community welfare officers and the manpower service in the employment exchanges, but the money I have spent in the past 12 months has been protecting the exchanges from the Provisional IRA and the INLA from robbing the exchanges. We have spent thousands of pounds keeping guard on the taxpayers' money which could have gone into integrating the offices. That is the sad state we are in. Those people have run out of banks and post offices and they are now trying to rob the employment exchanges.
Would the Minister instruct his officers involved in major reassessments to behave with reasonable civility to citizens, to cut out rudeness and bad manners when they are dealing with such cases?
I investigate all such reports. Any letters or other representations of that nature are fully investigated. The numbers of such complaints received in the Department in 1983 could be counted on the fingers of two hands. Any Deputy who has any complaints should make them, but I would point out that our staffs in employment exchanges, working under most severe pressures, have excellent relationships with fellow citizens who go into the exchanges.
I am not talking about the people in the offices. There are other officers outside who are causing grave concern. It is a disgrace.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.