Vol. 531 No. 3
27 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he is satisfied with the length of time it takes the social welfare appeals office to process claims; the average waiting time in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5695/01]
The social welfare appeals system is a quasi-judicial one and the procedures involved are designed to ensure every appellant's case gets full and satisfactory consideration. There is an inevitable time lag in such a process which is governed by statutory and fair procedure requirements.
The average time taken to process all appeals closed during 2000 was just under 21 weeks. This average period includes all phases of appeals, including the additional time involved in the determination of appeals where, for example, further investigations have to be made or where adjournments have been sought by the appellant or by the legal representative acting on his behalf. The corresponding figure in 1996 was 18 weeks and was around the 21 to 22 week mark in the three following years. Since 1996, however, when the number of appeals received was just over 12,000, the annual intake of appeals has increased by 45% and, in the past year, 17,650 appeals were received.
Notwithstanding these increases, average processing times have been broadly maintained during the past four years. While processing times in the social welfare appeals office compare favourably with international experience in this area, the achievement of improvements in processing times is a major objective of the office. It is necessary to ensure progress in this regard is achieved in a manner that is not in conflict with, or at a cost to, the demands of justice and the requirement that every appeal be fully investigated and examined on all its merits. To cope with the increasing workload, two additional appeals officers were appointed in 1997 and two more were assigned during 1999. A further officer is expected to take up duty at the appeals office next week.
During this year a management consultancy study will be undertaken of the role, functions and organisation of the social welfare appeals office, including examination of all the processes involved in dealing with claims to the appeals stage. Any procedural improvements identified in the course of this examination will be implemented.
Is the Minister admitting that, given the average waiting time at the end of last year was 21 weeks, he has appointed one additional officer to process all these claims? Given that he has been in office for the past four years, as he likes to tell us, and the average waiting time has increased since 1997, how can he stand over a system which is grossly unfair to large sections of people who depend on small incomes such as this?
The way the Deputy asks the question infers that people are destitute while they await the outcome of their appeals. That is not the case because the system is designed in such a way that they will have sufficient income pending their appeal.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Duplication.
The waiting time has increased.
They are turned down by the appeals office.
The international experience is that we are—
The experience is the issue.
Allow the Minister speak without interruption.
The average waiting time in the United Kingdom was 26.4 weeks in 1998. The workload here has increased by 45%. Since 1997, four additional appeals officers have been recruited with a fifth coming on stream. The average time of 21 weeks for a decision on an appeal is normal given the experience of other European countries.
The next time I speak to people waiting for appeals, I will lecture them on the importance of the international experience. I am sure they will be fascinated by it. Will the Minister tell the House the number of successful appeals and what percentage that is of the total number of appeals?
The Deputy has gone outside the scope of the question.
This is directly related to the appeals office. How many cases have been ruled in favour of claimants?
I do not have the figures. Perhaps the Deputy would table a separate question.
