---

Mr. Jenkins: The Chairman will be aware that the report on the memorandum by the OGC said that 10 per
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 218
 
cent. of Departments are still without an up-to-date IT list and were unaware of the memorandum. I know that that means that 90 per cent. were aware of it, but we are interested in the 10 per cent. and improving that figure.

Mr. Leigh: I am sure that Sir Peter Gershon's successor, John Oughton, will continue to make enormous savings. There is no point in excellent recommendations being made if they are not followed through, and perhaps the Minister will address that point when she winds up. Some Government Departments appear to be able to evade their responsibilities, but we look to progress.

I was briefly running through a list of other subjects where targets are weak. I mentioned Warm Front. The saga of the Wembley stadium is well known so I shall not go into details. Our report on hip replacements found that there was a dangerous tendency for too few operations to be performed by consultants. We also looked at the performance of secondary schools.

I mention those subjects to show the enormous breadth of our work. It is a great privilege for all members of the Committee to deal with it and to try to make sense of it and, with the help of the National Audit    Office, to make sensible conclusions and recommendations.

I conclude on the same theme with which I closed my speech during our last debate—making increased investment in public services count. I make no apology for returning to that, as it is a central issue for the Government. In April, we held a hearing on the capacity of Departments to spend the £61 billion increase in resources. Not surprisingly, we focused on health, education and transport and discussed five key risks that need careful attention. Unnecessary complexity in bureaucracy must be removed from the delivery chain; delivery organisations must have enough capacity; resources must be targeted where they are really needed; risks to delivery must be identified and managed; and performance must be properly monitored and evaluated.

Unsurprisingly, the permanent secretaries—distinguished gentlemen in charge of health, education and transport—agreed with the Committee. Perhaps that is blindingly obvious. But again and again we came across instances where one or more of those key factors had been left out. That is when the public can suffer, so we must continue to make our voice heard.

We shall continue to scrutinise the efficiency with which Departments and other bodies spend our money, and the improvements, or failings, in the services that they provide us and our constituents. It is clear to members of the Committee that many lessons can be learned and we hope and believe that our reports will be high on the reading list of officials. In the Committee, we shall work together in a spirit of bipartisan consensus, not going for the lowest common denominator but producing hard-hitting reports that hold the Government to account in delivering better public services for all our citizens.

4.32 pm

Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham) (Lab): As the Chairman of the PAC said, this is our second debate this Session and I reiterate everything I said in my last speech
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 219
 
on the subject a few months ago, especially relating to the National Audit Office, the PAC staff and the Chairman himself. I thanked everybody and congratulated them on their performance. Members will have listened so carefully to my speech that they will of course be able to remember what I said and it will be clear in their minds, so there is no reason to repeat it. I shall not go into great detail, but repeat my thanks to everyone for their work since our last debate.

It shows how much I enjoy the work of the Committee that, this afternoon, I could have been at the centre court at Wimbledon—watching, not playing. However, I declined the invitation as I felt that it was important to participate in the debate.

The Chairman has gone through almost all the reports and has explained the role of the PAC, so I shall not repeat that. We consider about 50 reports a year and he gave an excellent picture of our work. I want to concentrate on two reports.

Each report that we consider has a bearing on our constituents' lives—some have more of a bearing than others. Very often, our constituency postbags include letters from constituents who, frankly, have been given a very bad deal by Departments. In particular, we often receive very harrowing letters about decisions that have been taken with regard to social security benefits and the consequent appeals, as the Chairman of the PAC mentioned in his excellent speech. Very often, that is linked to stories about how people have been treated in the medical assessment procedures according to which their incapacity and disability benefits are determined. So we recently investigated those issues and produced two reports called, "Getting it right, putting it right: Improved decision-making in appeals in social security benefits" and "Progress in improving the medical assessment of incapacity and disability benefits." Those reports were vital to many of my constituents and demonstrate that, frankly, if such things are not done fairly and correctly, a huge amount of misery can be caused to people's lives.

Millions of those benefit decisions are taken each year, and many are very complex. Most people accept the decisions that are made, but others appeal, as they have every right to do. In 1999, the appeals system changed owing to the concerns that were expressed in Parliament. In fact, since then, the number of appeals has reduced by 15 to 20 per cent. and waiting times for appeals has also reduced; but, unfortunately, we found no proof that the standard of decision making has improved. At least 20 per cent. of those decisions still contain serious errors, and 45 per cent of the decisions that relate to attendance allowance and disability living allowance are incorrect. That is not a very good story, particularly for the people about whom wrong decisions are made. Incidentally, 38 per cent. of income support decisions were incorrect in 2002—the last year that those cases were looked at. Decisions that relate to medically assessed benefits have the highest rate of overturn on appeal.

The 1999 reforms abolished the role of the chief adjudication officer and transferred responsibility for decision standards to the Department's agency chief executives. At the time, that was a very controversial decision. Under the new rules, the Secretary of State is now required to report to Parliament on performance in benefit decision making, yet the first two reports in 2001
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 220
 
and 2002 were both published about 15 months late and the exercise cost the taxpayer £62 million. So there is still room for much improvement.

Disability living allowance is a self-assessed benefit, but the decision maker can seek medical evidence from other sources, which may include a medical examination. The claim form is 47 pages long and is undoubtedly onerous to complete. Obviously, we found that it needs simplifying. Some 90,000 cases—one in 12—go to appeal, which is not surprising given the methods involved, and 50 per cent. of them are found in favour of the appellant. Since the 1999 reforms, the number of appeals has risen—obviously, more mistakes are being made.

The Department's officials do not see the client face to face when they make their initial decision and the decision letters sent out are often confusing and unhelpful. Again, that needs rectifying. There are very large variations—about an eight times difference between the best and the worst—in the time taken by Jobcentre Plus districts to prepare appeal submissions. Appellants may attend the hearings and meetings, and the evidence shows that people are more likely to receive a favourable outcome if they are present face to face. The figures show that 61 per cent. of people who turn up win their cases, while only 34 per cent. of those who do not turn up win. However, people are not told that it is better for them to attend the appeal meeting, so that problem should be put right.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is right. Does he agree that we lack an advocacy service for people who attend appeals? Individuals often need people to attend such meetings with them and although the citizens advice bureau and other voluntary organisations can offer a degree of advocacy to assist with such cases, we simply do not have sufficient advocacy services throughout the country.

Mr. Steinberg: I agree with the hon. Lady. People have the right to take a third party to such meetings, but many people who make appeals are not told that. As she says, it is sometimes difficult for people to find individuals to accompany them. I have often been asked to represent people at appeals, but that is difficult if one does not know the case personally and must get time off to attend.

It is unacceptable for people to have to wait 90 days for a hearing given that they have probably waited about 10 weeks to reach that stage in the first place. As I said, people are not told that their appeal is more likely to be successful if they attend the hearing.

We found several examples of people not pursuing an appeal because the process was too distressing and demanding. I am greatly worried that often only people who are sufficiently articulate make successful cases, which means that the process has little to do with the validity of cases and more to do with an appellant's ability to construct and present an argument. I know of two cases in my constituency, and I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of similar examples, which showed me that people who were persistent and able to construct an articulate case were more likely to be awarded a benefit than those who are less articulate. On
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 221
 
the face of it, such people might be more worthy of winning their cases, despite the fact that they are less orally gifted.

For example, I knew of a highly intelligent individual with an undoubted ability to present an argument who was successfully awarded incapacity benefit following an appeal. I am not suggesting that that decision was not right, but saying that the appeal was successful and that he was articulate. On the other hand, I met a cleaner in a community centre who was unable to move or lift tables and chairs after she had had a colostomy reversal, but whose appeal was turned down. Again, I am not making accusations, but it seemed peculiar that the person who was articulate made a successful appeal while the cleaner who was in tremendous difficulty did not.

I turn to the second part of the report regarding progress made on improving the medical assessment for incapacity and disability benefits. Those benefits cost the taxpayer about £18 billion a year, so we must get things right. Apart from that, however, people should get the benefits to which they are entitled. Part of the test for eligibility is a medical assessment, and although claimants' doctors provide some evidence, more than 1 million medical reports are produced each year by Schlumberger medical services, which holds the contract for medical appeals. The situation worries me greatly because it is clear that the quality of the service provided to claimants by the company's doctors varies greatly.

---