Chesterfield Tribunal Suite

HC Deb 23 January 1997 vol 288 cc1146-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

8.44 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

The subject of the debate is the closure of the Chesterfield tribunal suite. In normal circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would be present, as the tribunal is located in his constituency, but he has flu and cannot be with us tonight; my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is present—all three of our constituencies are affected by the closure.

From correspondence that the Minister has sent me, I know that an apology will be made later on certain matters in which he is involved and which affect aspects of the matter under debate.

The Chesterfield tribunal suite operates under the independent tribunal service. It hears about 1,000 cases each year and has a six-month backlog, with 329 cases outstanding on social security matters alone. Throughout the whole of the east midlands last year, 4,591 cases were dealt with, and that figure includes the considerable work load of the Chesterfield tribunal suite.

Five types of case are heard: appeals on social security matters, appeals on disability living allowance and so on, child support appeals, vaccine damage appeals and medical appeals. Sixty per cent. of the Chesterfield tribunal suite's cases are social security appeals, 20 per cent. are disability appeals and 20 per cent. cover the other three types.

The catchment area is wide, covering sections of west Derbyshire from Buxton to Matlock, virtually all the constituencies and districts of Amber Valley, Bolsover, North-East Derbyshire and Chesterfield. As the Mansfield suite was closed in February 1996, cases from Nottinghamshire are also occasionally dealt with in Chesterfield.

In many cases, representatives appear on behalf of the appellant. It is estimated that 50 per cent. of Chesterfield's cases are attended by representatives of various organisations assisting the appellant. That compares with a figure of 25 per cent. nationally and for the east midlands. The Minister may have more accurate information; those figures were supplied by the organisations involved.

The bodies that represent appellants include the welfare rights service of Derbyshire county council, which covers about 60 per cent. of cases. Nottinghamshire county council's similar service is occasionally involved. Representatives of citizens advice bureaux from a wide area attend, including those from Chesterfield, Staveley, North-East Derbyshire, Matlock and Worksop. Trade unions such as Unison, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the GMB and the National Union of Mineworkers, and bodies such as the Chesterfield law centre, the Derbyshire unemployed workers centre, the Chesterfield support network and Incapacity Action are involved. A wide range of organisations, many centred in Chesterfield, are concerned with the well-being of citizens who are dependent on benefits, and who often encounter difficulty in the interpretation of their cases and need assistance.

The appeals procedures were changed last year under SI 2540, Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996. I believe that that change affects four of the five areas—vaccine damage is excepted—that I have mentioned. However, the traditional pattern of procedure still operates—I shall describe that which applies in the social security area. Recommendations are issued by the independent tribunal service, which supervises the activities of tribunals, and hearings are held in public unless there are agreed exceptional circumstances. If hearings are to be public, I think that it is more sensible to hold them locally. Any decisions reached by tribunals are likely to have local significance and to affect local organisations, including some of those that I have mentioned. If hearings were held further afield, it would be more difficult to translate the information at a local level.

People have a right to attend appeals hearings and be heard—although it is argued that the statutory instrument to which I referred discourages that practice. It is much easier for people to attend, present their case and be heard if hearings are held locally. People will feel much more comfortable in a local setting. The appeals procedure is traumatic enough without requiring people to travel to distant parts and present their case in unfamiliar surroundings.

The independent tribunal service procedure guidelines state that appellants should be put at ease. That is much more likely to occur—although it will always be difficult to achieve—if hearings are held in familiar surroundings where people may be represented by local bodies with which they are associated. The appeals board is expected to determine the facts by questioning the appellants and their representatives—although the statutory instrument seems to suggest that it should deal with matters of law and that the facts of the case should be resolved at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, the sequence of events is significant.

The results of appeals are very interesting. The Minister provided some figures on 4 November 1996 in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about social security appeals and the all work test. They show that 46.2 per cent of appeals were successful. The success rate was roughly the same for cases that were presented by either the appellant or his representative—46.3 per cent. for the appellant and 45.8 per cent for the appellant's representative. However, 67.3 per cent of cases were successful when the appellant and the representative appeared together. When neither the appellant nor his representative attended the hearing, the success rate was only 6.5 per cent.

The results for other tribunals follow a similar pattern, and the pattern in Chesterfield is of that nature: the most successful hearings by far are those where the appellant and his representative appear together, and the least successful are those where no one turns up. If the Chesterfield tribunal suite is closed and people are forced to travel further afield, there is an increased danger that they will fail to attend hearings—or, at best, only the appellant will turn up. That will reduce the appellant's chance of achieving a successful outcome, as the best results are achieved when both the appellant and his representative are in attendance. I cannot stress that point too strongly: the success rate of appeals hearings will suffer if the closure takes place.

Why has the tribunal been threatened with closure? I refer to "The Annual Report of the Council of Tribunals for 1995–96", which was laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor and Lord Advocate pursuant to section 4(7) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. It was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on 17 December 1996. Page 52 states: The President"— the president of the independent tribunal service— informed our Chairman in December 1995 that they had appointed an Estates Manager to establish their accommodation policy, and it was hoped that the appointee would be reporting on needs, demands and overall policy, by the autumn 1996. The Estates Manager subsequently explained to our Secretariat that the Independent Tribunal Service were preparing their accommodation plan against a requirement to reduce their accommodation costs by 30 per cent. over three years. The policy to reduce accommodation costs considerably is affecting the tribunal service. Between January and early November 1996, no fewer than nine venues were closed—at Mansfield, which is near Chesterfield, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypridd, Gloucester, Yeovil, Huddersfield, Scunthorpe and Paisley. Those closures took place despite the fact that the tribunal's report said that it would move towards considerable cuts late in 1996. Those cuts took place in advance of the schedule set out in the report.

In a written answer that will be a matter of some discussion, in which he was given the information about the nine venues that had closed, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West was also informed: The independent tribunal service has no plans to close any other venues."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 386.] The Minister sent me a letter today, before the debate, in which he pointed out that there were inaccuracies in the previous answer and that it should have been different in the circumstances. People in the area are considerably agitated, because things were said in the House that turned out not to be correct, and the independent tribunal service was moving towards closure programmes, which had been denied in the earlier answer.

On 14 January 1997, it was announced at a meeting of tribunal users that the Chesterfield tribunal suite was to be closed. Furthermore, that announcement is in conflict with letters that Members of Parliament for the area have received. I refer in particular to a letter sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield on 6 January, from the operation manager of the Birmingham region of the independent tribunal service, which said: As yet, however, there has been no formal decision about closure. We will continue to consult with all local interested parties and this process will include discussion on whether, having perhaps closed the permanent venue, we can/should identify a suitable casual venue that could be used on an ad-hoc basis. A tribunal user group meeting has been arranged for 14 January and it is hoped that some of the issues raised by local welfare rights groups can be addressed more fully. I will ensure that all interested parties are notified of any developments in this matter. However, at the meeting on 14 January, which was attended by 40 people from user groups, and by those who support user groups, it was announced that the venue was to close and that any consultations would be about not the closure of the venue but the mechanism of transformation, or possibly the establishment of a casual venue. That resulted in a powerful reaction in the area, because people expected that the meeting would occur at a stage in the process of consultation on whether the venue would close.

I have given the Minister prior notice of a number of questions so that he can provide answers. I shall elaborate on each question. First, when was the decision made to close the Chesterfield suite? Was it made by 4 November, when the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West was answered in Hansard? Was it made by 6 January, when the letter went to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield? Had it been made by 17 January, when early-day motion 354 was submitted, which had the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)? Exactly when was the decision taken?

Secondly, who was involved in the decision-making process? Had any prior consultation taken place? The letter that the Minister sent to me earlier suggests that there was some consultation, because letters were flowing between Members of Parliament and the industrial tribunal service. To my knowledge, those letters arose because of objections from Members of Parliament, and they received answers. I think that that was the approach with many user organisations as well.

Thirdly, what criterion is used when deciding to close the venue? Is it mainly costs? Is any consideration given to what benefit the tribunal's operations might have to the local community that it serves? There will be financial benefits within that community. Are they assessed in any way against the revenue costs involved, perhaps per case?

Fourthly, what are the accommodation costs of the Chesterfield suite? Is any consideration given to the moneys, for example, that it raises for the local economy? If we had that information, perhaps we could judge the cost criterion among the interested groups, individuals and Members of Parliament.

Fifthly, what other venues are to be closed? In particular, is the Derby venue safe, given the closure in February 1996 of the nearby Mansfield venue? Derby is a single tribunal suite similar to the Chesterfield model. If it were also under threat, there would be no provision in Derbyshire. That is not to say that the maintenance of the Derby suite would be adequate for north Derbyshire, because many cases would be directed to Sheffield rather than to the other end of the county.

Sixthly, are there plans to abolish and replace the independent tribunal service? A number of people have expressed their concerns about that. Seventhly, is the current closure programme due to pressures on the ITS? Has it come up with a programme of reduced costs in response to those pressures?

Eighthly, why was the closure of the Chesterfield suite announced without proper prior consultation with interested parties? Ninthly, is not the decision to close the suite contrary to the written answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West? I suspect that the Minister will say that it was, but that a further answer has been provided, so there has been a retrospective adjustment. I am not sure that retrospective adjustments are acceptable; it is the information in the original answer that has affected the position until now. Only now, in this debate, will the problems be clearly explained to us, and we can respond to that.

My final question is, can the decision to close the Chesterfield suite be withdrawn, at least to allow the promised consultation on its future genuinely to take place? There are strong reasons for holding such consultation, given the written answers in Hansard on 4 November.

A high representational level at Chesterfield would be helpful to the tribunal service. Welfare rights bodies and bodies such as the unemployed workers centre discuss cases, and if they do not stand much of a chance, because the facts of the case do not comply with the regulations, they are weeded out. It is helpful to have well-organised experts who can advise people locally.

If people want me to put a case to the ombudsman, I feel that it is my duty to ensure that they put their case as fully as possible; otherwise, I say to them, "No, this is not a matter for the ombudsman. You would be better going to a solicitor. There are other avenues that you could take first, so that your case is stronger at a later stage." The bodies in the area are as well organised as they can be with limited resources. They have expertise, and can offer this type of assistance.

The alternative to the Chesterfield suite is in Sheffield. It is not in the centre of Sheffield, so some people have to make three or four bus journeys. It has been argued that that is no different from people having to travel from north Derbyshire to Sheffield for social and shopping purposes, but that is not so. As it is not in the centre, people have to travel to Attercliffe. Judge Keith Bassingthwaighte, president of the industrial tribunal service, advanced that argument in a letter which, although it has been circulated quite widely, has not been sent to local Members of Parliament.

Many people in the area are in the poverty trap. They do not have cars, or access to them. People living in areas in my constituency such as Danesmoor and Holmewood would find it very difficult to get to the other side of Sheffield. The Minister may say that the tribunal service can offer alternative facilities, and in some circumstances it is possible to use taxis, but even with the Chesterfield suite it is not easy to establish such an arrangement.

"A Guide to Reviews and Appeals", NI 260, contains a section on taxis and hired cars. Page 89 states: You can claim for the hire of a taxi or private car if: you are unfit to travel by public transport (this could be because of age or infirmity) or public transport is not available at a suitable time. You will be asked to give a written explanation. You should get a receipt for expenses. If the DSS agrees that a taxi is necessary and you would like the fare to be paid in advance, arrangements can be made with the taxi company for a bill to be sent direct to the DSS for payment. That is clear when we study the detail, but the arrangement is not simple or straightforward for those who are trying to deal with officialdom, and to obtain what assistance they can.

Not only appellants but bodies representing them will be affected. In many cases, the further afield they are supposed to be going, the harder they will find it to act on behalf of individuals. The problem will be as bad for them as it is for appellants, if not worse.

It is difficult for people even to use the current provision. In many instances, the pressure of dealing with an alien system full of rules and difficulties puts people off. The Derbyshire unemployed workers centre, operating from Chesterfield, published the case of a Mansfield man who had written to the centre. He had tried to cancel his appeal, and had then refused to attend. He wrote: I have been made sick by the trauma which has been put on me and I wish I had never started this nightmare. The laws and rules are against you before you start anything. I have not been sleeping at night worrying about the Tribunal. I will stay on my small pension. It's worse than being tried for murder. So please do as you like. I can't do anything about it. I am trying to put the nightmare out of my mind. Please, please leave me alone and let me forget this nightmare". We do not know the details of that case. Perhaps the individual concerned had a particular problem; perhaps a bit of counselling and assistance would have enabled the case to be pursued. It does, however, illustrate the daunting nature of the procedure for many people, and that procedure should not be made even more daunting.

The context of the tribunal procedures has been affected by the statutory instrument to which I referred earlier. Many people feel that they are under pressure to forgo oral hearings. Things will be more difficult in the Chesterfield tribunal, but the move to Sheffield will add to the problems.

I forwarded to the Minister a letter from my constituent, Mr. Marsden-Jones of Holymoorside, who helps at a citizens advice bureau. The Minister replied: Mr. Marsden-Jones is concerned with oral hearings, on which there has been a misunderstanding of the effect of the regulations. Articles in the Press have fuelled that misunderstanding. Those opposed to the change have contended that it represents a reduction in an appellant's rights. I can assure you that it does not; the right to an oral hearing remains absolute. I know that that right remains, but the rest of the Minister's explanation suggests why people might turn to the procedures less and less. He continued: Appellants are being asked at the outset if they want to attend the hearing of their appeal and if they do not reply, or say no, arrangements will be made for the appeal to be heard on the papers. Appellants can change their minds at any time up to the issue of the tribunal decision on the case. This change is designed to identify in advance those appellants who will not be attending so that the Independent Tribunal Service can arrange its work more efficiently. However, that change also means that appellants are more likely to be persuaded by the rules to forgo their right of appearance; they will be encouraged to pursue appeals through written documentation.

The Minister's letter continued: As Mr. Marsden-Jones is aware, some appellants undoubtedly find the prospect of appearing at even an informal hearing daunting. We believe that they would welcome the opportunity to appeal, and still have the opportunity to respond to the adjudication officer's contentions, but not feel obliged to appear in person. I grant that there is a sense in which that might be true for some people, but the Minister is really saying that the procedure is good because it works in cutting the number of oral cases. I do not think that its operation will benefit the people concerned.

Mr. Marsden-Jones said:

As a volunteer in the CAB for over nine years my experience is with the 'real world'. The average member of the public cannot be aware of the implications for them of the ever increasing benefit and disability legislation, consequently we only see a very small percentage of those with legitimate claims. It is crucial therefore that these changes do not further prejudice their chances at appeal. I feel strongly that these changes should be challenged and that careful monitoring will prove this to be well founded. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I persuade the Minister to put off closure of the Chesterfield tribunal suite, many problems will remain for it and its equivalents elsewhere. Certainly, the difficulties increase the further away such services are from centres of population.

Until now, the House has been misled about whether there would be further closures, but I know that that situation will be corrected. Retrospective answers are not entirely satisfactory. That is another reason why the closure statement should be withdrawn. User organisations should be able to enter into proper consultations so that their points can be fully put and weighed.

Today I received a copy of a letter from Philip Robinson, chairman of CHART '99—the Chesterfield area regeneration team—to the president of the independent tribunal service. He states: The main purpose of CHART '99 is the economic regeneration of North Derbyshire and most of our activity is directed to the supply side of market activities. We are, as may appear obvious, also concerned with the demand side of economic life in our area though our interventions are typically more problematic and probably have a tendency towards maintaining positions rather than increasing them.

In our area blighted by pit closures and general 'downsizing' in other local industries, too many of our citizens, through no fault of their own, are dependent on welfare benefits. Our task is to reduce their number by creating jobs. However we can only be concerned that, until we have made significant progress in that direction, the legitimate take up of benefits is maximised. He goes on to say: I am led to understand that just one of the Chesterfield based agencies recovered over £250,000 following appeals and £1.3 million totally. In a stressed economy such as ours, that is not an insignificant sum to place in jeopardy. I am sure my Board would support me in appealing that you reconsider your decision to remove tribunal facilities in Chesterfield. There is therefore widespread feeling against closing the suite among trade unions and organisations in the Chesterfield area—such as CHART '99, for example. They are very concerned about the matter and urge the Government to ensure that the doors are not closed and that a consultation exercise—which they had expected to occur—is undertaken. They understand that the ITS is involved in a rationalisation programme, but believe that there should first be consultation. I ask that we first fully consider all the factors, so that perhaps some of the heat that has built up on the issue in the Chesterfield area can be diffused.

9.21 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for stepping in for me last week on a point of order on this matter to Madam Speaker. He asked her whether she could intervene in the issue, and she very kindly told him that he should use his ways and means to try to raise it in the House, and that he might be allowed 15 minutes to do so. Today, the net result has been that he has been able to speak on it at much greater length than we had expected, because the House finished its business early.

I also compliment my hon. Friend on his chronology of events leading up to the meeting with Mr. Coulthard, the regional director of the independent tribunal service. Last week, in Chesterfield, Mr. Coulthard met my friends and other people's friends, who thought that they were going to meet him for consultation on the proposed closure of the Chesterfield tribunal suite.

Those people thought that the meeting would allow them an opportunity to make a case against the closure, but, lo and behold, it turned out to be a completely different type of meeting. Contrary to what we have been told by the Tory Minister, who said that consultation was on the way, the director told them, "There ain't any consultation; we've come here to sound a death knell," such as has been sounded over factories and pits across Britain, especially in our area.

For some years before I was elected as a Member of Parliament, I represented many people—mostly miners with whom I worked in the coalfield—at tribunals. It was not unusual for me to go to places such as Sutton in Ashfield, which is in a neighbouring constituency, to Chesterfield, to Mansfield or to a medical appeal tribunal in Nottingham to represent disabled people. Although we occasionally fought other cases, by and large we made representations on behalf of people who worked in the coal mining industry who would be gasping for breath when we met them on the stairs. They were casualties of the coal mining industry and people who needed help, and we operated with that in mind.

My job as those people's representative was to make a case on their behalf and say, "Look here, you got it wrong. This person should have the special hardship allowance." The Government changed the hardship allowance to the reduced earnings allowance, and then reduced the reduced earnings allowance from about £40 to about £9 a week. The people represented at last week's meeting are the same type of casualties who want to appeal against what they regard as harsh decisions. As my hon. Friend pointed out, other groups now need to be represented, some of whose appeals relate to disablement benefits. However, in the main, it is still the same kind of operation with which I was involved.

Recently—since I came to the House—the Sutton in Ashfield venue was closed, and then the Mansfield venue closed. That meant more people having to go to the Chesterfield tribunal to have their cases heard. As my hon. Friend asked, is it any wonder that Chesterfield not only has to deal with more than 1,000 cases a year but has a backlog of more than 300, according to the local social security office? They are not our figures—we have not culled them from a Marxist periodical—but the Government's figures.

We fervently believed that our friends were going to take part in a consultation to try to convince the regional director of the need to keep the Chesterfield venue open. Parts of a total of six constituencies are affected. The total area covered includes High Peak and Buxton and extends to west Derbyshire. Much of the area is rural and descends into Bolsover, which is nearly 30 miles long and contains 20-odd villages. My hon. Friend's constituency probably also has 20 villages.

Bus services in those areas are poor, and the people affected by the closure are the very ones who had difficulty getting even to Chesterfield, but are now being required to make the long trek not just to Sheffield but to the far side of Sheffield. We have calculated that, in future, some people going to appeal against decisions will have one train ride and two or three bus rides—in some cases, four.

In the past few years, some of us—my hon. Friend in particular—have been fighting for equal rights for disabled people. We have been told time without number that the Government are anxious to help the disabled and give them equal rights, so they introduced a Bill—it was a tinpot Bill and not what we wanted, but the Government claimed that it was going to provide some form of equality.

I have to say that one cannot provide equality to disabled people by closing appeal venues and calling on those people to go to Chesterfield station, down the steep hill—it is not on the flat—get off the train at Sheffield and find their way to the other side of the city. And all for what? Presumably the aim is to save money.

The people affected live in an area where there used to be 30-odd coal mines and some factories associated with the mining industry. They have all been closed; not a single pit remains—but the casualties are still there.

Surveys carried out in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend found that, in some areas, unemployment is more than 50 per cent. Of course, not all the unemployed get unemployment benefit. Some get the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred—that is the nature of things. The unemployment figures are phoney. We are dealing not with the same work force that we once had but with people who probably need benefits of one kind or another, and need to appeal against decisions on those benefits to a greater extent than was the case when all the pits were open.

The area is generally rural. If it was a chunk of a city, I could understand some civil servants sitting in their room and charting out a little place for a tribunal venue. We are talking, however, about all or part of six constituencies; we are talking about a population of well over 300,000. All those involved are having to tramp up and down to get their cases heard.

We are not talking about golden handshakes, are we? There is a world of difference between somebody receiving a golden handshake and somebody appealing at the Chesterfield tribunal for a benefit of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire described. We are talking about a few pounds a week in some cases, not about the golden handshakes that are handed out to the fat cats in the City. Is it any wonder that, when the consultations took place last week, there were 30-odd representatives from the unemployed workers centre, from every local authority, from all the unions concerned and from the citizens advice bureau, whose workers do their jobs on a voluntary basis?

It was not just Labour people who attended the meeting; there were people from other political parties. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire referred to Mr. Robinson. He is part of a well-known Tory family in Chesterfield; there are not many left. He is head of some quango, as one would expect, but even he has put his name alongside the names of those who want the Chesterfield tribunal to remain in operation.

This is a class issue; I know that this is only an Adjournment debate, but it is a class issue. There are people who can make money when they leave their jobs, but we are talking about people who are scratching about for a few pounds a week, and who are being told that they have got to go to Sheffield.

The net result—they probably know this—is that the Government will save a bit of money because some people will not be able to make the journey. Everyone knows that disabled people have to weigh up the consequences of marching here, there and everywhere. For disabled people, it is a matter not just of sitting on a bus, but of the problem of having to go through a bit of exercise. The time they will have to spend is also a problem. Some of them want to be at home; they do not want to travel for more than two hours to Sheffield, attend the tribunal and then have a journey of more than two hours back home.

The Government should play the game. The answers that I and my hon. Friends received led us to believe that there would be a nice little consultation and that we could rely on the people from the local authorities and the others to put forward such a sterling case that the tribunal would be able to survive. That did not happen, and it is unfair.

On that count alone, the Minister should say, "Let's turn the clock back. A wrong has been done." The Minister gave me a parliamentary answer that turned out not to be true. We think that he will admit that tonight; he has already done so in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire. A mistake has been made. As the Minister has made a mistake—he may have done so inadvertently, but a mistake has been made, and somebody has been led up the garden path—he should do the decent thing and say that the Department will start all over again. We are not talking about £60 million for a royal yacht. I only say that en passant, but I am trying to make a comparison. We are talking about a small amount.

The Minister should be big enough to say, "Yes, a wrong has been done. I made a false statement. I didn't realise that the information I received was wrong, and I passed it on to the House. I am sorry. As there has been a mistake, we are going to start the process again." I have a suggestion for the Minister—my hon. Friend has more or less put it to him as well. Let us not close the door today. Let us have a meeting between Members of Parliament, to which we will bring some of the representatives who were at the meeting last week, so that the case can be put again and they will know that at least some consultation has taken place. If the Minister agrees to that, they will be able to convince him—perhaps more effectively than myself and my hon. Friend—why it is necessary to keep the place open.

Some people say that the Chesterfield tribunal suite is going to close because of the cost. I should tell the Minister, in case he does not know, that the lease for the suite includes other rooms—some of which are unoccupied. That is not the fault of the representatives who go there to put cases on behalf of their clients from the unemployed workers centre, welfare rights groups or citizens advice bureau. It is part of the Government's philosophy to keep such rooms empty. The Government should not blame the representatives for part of the block not being let, or say that the costs are so extreme because of it.

The Minister should not tell us, either—I do not think that he will, although my hon. Friend and I suspect that it is true—that the service is being shifted to Sheffield because his Department has some spare space up there as well. The disabled people who are going to be plodding down the hill to Chesterfield station, plodding back up the other one in Sheffield—another hilly city—and then getting on a bus will have to suffer just because the Minister's Department has not been able to deal with things that are out of other people's control and ensure that the leases get full value for money. That responsibility should belong with the Government.

I could draw a comparison with the Department of Trade and Industry. I have been walking up Victoria street for the past 20-odd years, and over the past five or six, I have been passing closed DTI offices. That closure has cost a small fortune; a third of Victoria street has not been let. It belongs to the Government and has been paid for by the taxpayer. Now, it has opened again. How much has that cost?

We are talking about a little place, where a few representatives go along to meet the chairman of the tribunal, someone from one side of industry and someone from the other to hear the case of someone who has come up the stairs coughing their lungs up, or someone who has a leg missing, or someone who does not have two ha'pennies to rub together. That is a far cry from all the money that has been spent on the DTI offices just up the road.

I could cite many more examples of how the Government have wasted money, such as £6 million on refurbishing the Tea Rooms and other facilities in this place during the long recess. Our friends up in north-east Derbyshire, Bolsover and Chesterfield read the papers, and they cannot understand why they have been picked on in such a fashion. First their jobs have been taken away from them, and then, when they have to appeal to get a few benefits, they are kicked in the gutter.

Judge Bassingthwaighte has told us that his information is that there was a noisy meeting last week with our friends the representatives. They were bound to be noisy. Such was the nature of the response, there were not enough seats. It is very rare to get representatives of every local authority and welfare rights group together in one fell swoop. They had to sit and listen to this fellow say, "There is no consultation. I have come to tell you that the place is going to close." I am told that, at one point in the meeting, there was a little chink of light, when it was indicated that there might be an opportunity to use another Chesterfield venue on occasions. I do not know whether the Minister knows that.

I have another proposition to put to the Minister, apart from suggesting another meeting. We have a place called the miners' offices, which have a lot of space—after all, there are only a few miners left. If there are cost problems at the Chesterfield suite, the Minister should try the miners' offices—they will come a lot cheaper. Those offices would be ideal, and they are in a good situation in the middle of Chesterfield.

There is a case to be made. The Government's parliamentary answer was not correct: people were led up the garden path. People also felt that that they had a raw deal from consultation. Somebody has to climb down and give those people a second chance to ensure that their cases are put. We are ready and willing—myself, my hon.

Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when he has got over the flu—to meet the Minister.

The Minister or some of his civil servants should go and look at the place. They should visit a few villages. As I said earlier, the tribunal area starts at the bottom of my constituency, including Pinxton and South Normanton, and it extends way out to West Derbyshire and up to Buxton. The Minister or his civil servants should go and see those pretty villages which are all part of that hinterland. Chesterfield and Staveley are highly populated, but the rest are old-fashioned pit villages or farming areas. The area is too big for the tribunal to be moved to Sheffield. The Minister should have a site visit, and take a fresh look before the matter is closed for good.

The issue will not benefit my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and me. I do not suppose that we would be inconvenienced if the suite closed. We would feel guilty about it, but the issue is not about us. It is about disabled people, because most of those people who use that place in order to appeal against threatened reductions in benefits have been damaged in some way, either by their work or in other ways. In many cases, mother nature has not has been as kind to those people as she has to my hon. Friend, the Minister and me. Some of them have been born with disabilities, and are constantly fighting against the system. Instead of telling them that they must travel another 20 or 30 miles to make their appeal, a decent society should enable those people to go round the corner to their village hall or local town council.

The case has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, and I am here to help him to ask the Minister not to close the book. Give us a another chance to ensure that the Chesterfield tribunal suite, or some other place in Chesterfield, remains open for those people, many of whom are disabled.

9.43 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans)

It is one of the glories of the House of Commons that hon. Members can raise serious constituency interests at length, as has been done this evening. We have listened to two very powerful speeches. I am especially grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for writing to me today and setting out a list of his queries. He outlined those queries in his speech, but I have had the courtesy of notice from him and I hope to answer as many of his questions as possible.

I shall begin with the matter of a parliamentary answer, which has been mentioned several times. I gave a written answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn): To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which venues have ceased to be used by social security appeals tribunals since January 1996; and which venues it is proposed to cease using. I answered by listing the nine venues referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, and I will not delay the House by repeating them. I then added: The independent tribunal service has no plans to close any other venues".—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 386.] I will explain what happened in detail, and then explain why, in my view in retrospect, that was not a satisfactory answer. I shall also apologise. From the point of order raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on 15 January, I was aware that the answer had been queried. Since then, I have asked for a number of inquiries to discover precisely what happened.

When a parliamentary question is asked about the activities of the ITS—which is an independent service—information is requested by my officials from the ITS. Officials of the ITS and my Department then liaise on the reply. It is done in this way to be as helpful as possible to parliamentary colleagues and to avoid having to refer them directly to the ITS. At the time that I approved the draft answer submitted to me, I believed that the reply was correct. After the point of order was raised, I ordered a thorough investigation to be made into the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the answer.

What had happened was that the parliamentary question was faxed to an official of the ITS, and a reply was given by telephone. I do not have a written answer from the ITS or a note of that telephone conversation, but it seems reasonable to say that there was a misunderstanding between the two people who dealt with this as to the extent and nature of the question and the reply. When I answered that there were no plans to close any other venues the language was too simple for what was at stake. Does "plan" mean a settled and determined course that has been finally decided? Does it mean a mere proposal? Is it a promise—as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire believed—that nothing will happen in the future? That kind of ambiguity should have been resolved by a more detailed wording to explain the background. My view, in retrospect, is that the answer should have stated that the ITS constantly reviews its running costs—of which accommodation forms a large part—and that the ITS was considering the continued usage of a number of tribunal venues. The answer should have stated that liaison with local users was also taking place.

The hon. Member for Bolsover told us this evening—although I was unaware of it at the time of the answer—that he and other parliamentary colleagues had corresponded with the ITS on the Chesterfield situation. Open correspondence concerning Chesterfield had been raised as early as March 1996, and continued with various local interested parties for the rest of the year. But I stress that no firm decision had been made at the time I gave the answer on 4 November.

After making further inquiries, I have been informed that it was not until 17 December 1996 at a management meeting that a provisional conclusion about the viability of the venue was reached. That provisional conclusion remained such so that a meeting could be held with local users on 14 January 1997 where arguments in favour of keeping the venue open could be considered. It is clear from everything that I have read—and from what I have been told this evening—that the meeting of 14 January was, if I can use the most neutral language, not a happy occasion.

The intention of ITS was that arguments could be listened to, and that the decision would be made afterwards. The ITS took the view that no persuasive arguments were raised at that meeting and the decision was made, I am told, the next day—15 January—when it began to be circulated. I apologise unreservedly, as I should have been aware of more of that detail. I should have made further inquiries. Unhappily, I did not, and I gave a simple answer to what was clearly a complex history and background of which, at that time, I was unaware.

I should like to deal with the serious, immediate and practical issues involved, particularly those raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire about where do we go from here. The hon. Member for Bolsover made a powerful peroration to the effect, "Would the Minister do that and would the Minister do this?" I shall specifically answer his questions in a moment, but the position is not quite as simple as his speech might have suggested.

The independent tribunal service is by statute just that. The responsibility for running the ITS rests with its president, his honour Judge Keith Bassingthwaighte, who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the Social Security Administration Act 1992. He is both the judicial and—this is the unusual feature—the administrative head of the ITS. He is responsible for providing the forum to hear appeals against decisions of adjudicating officers. It is a matter of statute that decisions about tribunal venues, for example—the material matter which we are considering this evening—are a matter for him.

I cannot think of another parallel in Government or in the judicial system in which a judge is responsible by law for administrative matters. It is one of the oddities or unusual features of the ITS. That is one of the very matters considered in the consultation paper on improving decision making and appeals in social security which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. It is a matter which the Government are considering now. In due course decisions will be made and subsequently announced.

That is the background to the debate. I should now like to consider the 10 specific questions that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire asked me. First, he asked when the decision was made to close the Chesterfield tribunal suite. A number of different dates were put to me.

I am advised by the ITS that the final firm decision was made on 15 January 1997 following the unhappy meeting the day before on the 14th. That news was communicated in a press release on 15 January and in a subsequent letter on 20 January from the president to interested parties, including some hon. Members who attended the meeting.

Mr. Barnes

The Minister mentioned a meeting on 17 December 1996 at which a provisional proposal for closure was put forward. It was then made the subject of consultation at the meeting on 14 January. There are clear differences of perception about what occurred at the meeting on 14 January. The ITS is treating it as a consultation meeting at which the user organisations would not focus on the issue. They went away on 15 January and finally made their decision. That is not the perception of the user organisations, which all argue that its representatives were told from the start that the venue was to be closed and that they were only there to be consulted about the method of closure. There is a case to look again more closely at what happened on 14 January because it affects the procedures involved. Although it was not satisfactory to have consultation on the 14th and the decision made on the 15th, with hardly any time to mull things over, it was procedurally permissible because it represented a certain order of things. Did the process occur like that? If not, there is a good case for going back to the beginning of the process.

Mr. Evans

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will outline what we should do next when I have finished answering his 10 questions. The hon. Gentleman is saying quite clearly that there is a conflict of view about exactly what happened at the meeting on 14 January. One party appears to take the view that it was a fait accompli and that it was just a question of the mechanics. I readily concede that that is not a proper consultation. The other view, which I gave on instruction, was that the meeting was a consultation.

In fairness, I was not there any more than you were, Mr. Deputy Speaker—all that we can do is rely on those who were and their recollections. His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte wrote a letter to the various interested parties on 20 January. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman may have seen it. I shall quote from the letter because it is important that both views of the meeting are given. He said: I directed that tribunal user groups should be set up throughout the ITS because I wanted to build a better relationship between the ITS and those who use the facilities which we provide. I did so expecting to provide a forum for rational and considered discussion by people who are willing at least to accept that different viewpoints exist, whether or not those viewpoints are ones upon which agreement can be reached. Such meetings have been held widely throughout the ITS during 1996 and have generally been successful, ordered and well received. I am saddened to hear that the meeting on 14 January was ill-tempered"— the judge was not there; he was reporting what his officials had told him— and at times abusive and that a group of representatives left the meeting in a demonstration of dissent. Such behaviour does not augur well for future such meetings. Neither I nor the judge was there. There are conflicting reports of what happened, but I think that I can describe that meeting with fair accuracy as not a happy one.

Mr. Skinner

The judge does not know any more than us, does he? Many of the people who went to Chesterfield had been to Mansfield earlier in 1996 when it was proposed that Mansfield should close. They did not view the matter with the same importance and they took part in the consultation, which seemed to be at a different level. Many of those who went to Chesterfield were at Mansfield, where there was no animosity, nobody got terribly excited and the decision was finally accepted. The reason why there was such ill-feeling and rancour at the Chesterfield meeting was simply that, having arrived in a crowded room where there were not enough chairs for everyone, people were told, "What's the point of you being here? We're going to close it."

Mr. Evans

I was not present and I cannot helpfully comment on that account, but I readily agree that if that is what happened, it was not a happy way to spend the evening and it was not a constructive consultation exercise.

I was asked who was involved in the decision-making process. I understand that the final decision was taken by the president after consultation with senior and local managers. I was asked what criteria are used when deciding to close a venue. That is a difficult question to answer helpfully. I am advised that the broad principles taken into account include accessibility, suitability, usage of venues and value for money. Having regard to those principles, the ITS decided that Chesterfield did not meet the criteria for remaining open. I was asked what that meant; I was asked what the accommodation costs were at Chesterfield.

I am instructed that the ITS is liable for £128,000 a year in respect of rent and rates and for certain maintenance and utility costs of another £3,500. The point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is correct: the ITS occupies only a portion of the building and pays about £28,000 of the rental costs. The ITS is responsible, on its budget, for the balance. Of the ITS budget, £7 million is spent on accommodation; if £100,000 is spent on unutilised accommodation—however it has arisen and whatever the circumstances—that is a sufficiently large sum for concern.

I was asked, not merely to correct the position in respect of Chesterfield, but about what other venues were to be closed. Understandably, the hon. Member for Bolsover asked me specifically about Derby. Let me bring the picture up to date. I stress that it is a matter for the ITS, but I am advised that Derby remains a core area for the maintenance of a tribunal venue for the foreseeable future.

In fairness to other hon. Members, having asked further inquiries to be made, I shall give the picture for other parts of the country. Consideration is being given to a new venue at Chelmsford that would replace the current leased venue at Colchester and poor-quality, casually hired venues in Essex. In Newport, Isle of Wight, consideration is being given to replacing a leased venue with casually hired premises. Bury St. Edmunds cases have been transferred to Ipswich. There is some rationalisation of casually hired venues in London. Barking and Walthamstow appeals are being heard in central London at Whittington house. Discussions are taking place on future plans for Edmonton. On the other hand, new premises have been opened in Blackburn and further new premises are planned for Motherwell.

I was asked specifically whether all that was due to pressure relating to the future of ITS—is it all about abolition? The answer is simply no. Decisions on venues are a matter for ITS. Decisions on the future of the appeals process are elaborately discussed in the document that was mentioned earlier. As I have indicated, the Government are considering the consultation and will make decisions and announce them in due course.

ITS has responsibility for its budget and it has to deal with the problems facing it. It is important that I stress the problems—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Timothy Wood.]

Mr. Evans

There are serious problems facing ITS. The figures that the hon. Member for Bolsover quoted do not come from Marxist comics; they are, in part, the Department's figures. The striking figure was the six-month wait to get an appeal heard, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, which is typical throughout the country. It is too long and is especially unfortunate because, generally speaking, no benefit is received without the appeal being heard. Cases such as we have discussed should be tried more quickly.

What has happened is that the numbers of appeals have been rising dramatically in recent years. That is partly due to the introduction of incapacity benefit, but there are several other factors. The appeals intake in 1993–94 was 198,000, in the next year, it was 210,000, in 1995–96 it was 236,000, in 1996–97 it was 291,000 and it is anticipated to reach 334,000 in 1997–98. ITS has had the resources to match that. Strikingly, in 1994–95 there was actually an underspend of £5 million and the money was returned to the Department. There was a £2.3 million underspend in 1995 on a budget of £52 million. In 1996, the budget was increased to £54 million and it is not expected that there will be an underspend, but it is intended—this was part of the changed programme of economy measures—that somehow administration costs must be reduced. For 1997–98, the budget in the books is £49 million.

The effect of all that is that while in 1993–94 there were 35,000 sessions a year, that figure will rise to 68,000 in 1996–97. In other words, ITS has almost doubled the number of cases that it is hearing. That is extremely important in the interests of the public and Ministers are greatly concerned that that progress be maintained.

Mr. Skinner

It sounds to me as if, instead of closing the suites, the Government should be turning their attention to opening more. Here we have a massive backlog of cases and a rising number of people who are appealing—mainly, as the Minister said, for incapacity benefit, because about 4 million people have no job. Instead of closing the Chesterfield suite, the Government should open a few more.

Mr. Evans

Would that it was quite as easy as that. The problem is how to use such resources as are at ITS's disposal in the most effective way. I am not making this point in respect of Chesterfield, but, in the past, ITS venues have grown up haphazardly over a large number of years.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire talked about the problem of oral hearings—indeed, one of his concerns was that, for several reasons, fewer people would attend, which argument he developed powerfully in connection with Chesterfield. Our change to the appeals regulations in asking people to request an oral hearing was made because, quite often, people filled in the form saying that they wanted to appeal, but did not explain what the issue was all about and then never turned up. If six cases are listed for a hearing before an appeals tribunal in a morning or an afternoon and one, two or three people whose appearance was expected and awaited and provided for then fail to turn up—often they never had any intention of turning up—it causes massive dislocation. It is an inefficient deployment of resources and forces other people to wait.

The Government have looked at that problem, which is why we have tried to improve the adjudication regulations. It is really a matter of domestic housekeeping to try to make the system work more smoothly and increase throughput. I stress that it is not a case of deterring people from appealing, nor of hoping, as the hon. Member for Bolsover suggested in one of his more rhetorical passages, that we would save programme expenditure, as we are processing nearly twice as many appeals. We are trying to get the system moving more quickly because we are faced with a large caseload.

Mr. Barnes

I presume that people's failure to turn up for oral hearings and the problems that that creates for the ITS would be a smaller issue in Chesterfield than in many other areas. My argument was that in 50 per cent. of cases people were represented but only 25 per cent. of people were represented nationally. The strong organisations that exist in the area are feeding people through and sorting out some of the problems. They are ensuring that the cases are not simply speculative with no information behind them. It can therefore be said that Chesterfield is doing the type of job that many other bodies should be doing.

Mr. Evans

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and, in my judgment, it was a striking feature of his speech that he made that point. I am not trying to argue—I would not dream of doing so—that, if the appellant and the person representing him are there, they will not do better. The hon. Member for Bolsover has represented people before such tribunals, and I did not practise at the Bar for more than 20 years without appreciating that advocacy occasionally produces results. We all know from our constituency surgeries, when we help people, that if one is there to help and advise, the chances are that one will identify the problem at least and point people in the right direction. If people go along to argue, that is better. I shall certainly draw Judge Bassingthwaighte's attention to that matter.

The next issue that I was asked was why the closure of the Chesterfield suite was announced without proper prior consultation with the relevant interests, a promise having been made in a letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on 6 January 1997. Let me say straight away that there is clearly a conflict about the history of what actually happened, and I shall come to what we shall do about that in a moment.

The next question that I was asked—realistically, this is the most important question—was whether Chesterfield's closure could be withdrawn at least to allow the promised consultation about its future to take place on a genuine basis. The hon. Member for Bolsover ended his speech on a very powerful note. I respectfully say that I was moved by it. He said, "A mistake has been made; do the decent thing and start all over again." Indeed, he asked me personally to do that.

I have a genuine difficulty: I cannot say that we shall start again because that is a decision for the judge, not for me. However, I can certainly say, and I will if it is desired by either of the hon. Gentlemen or their colleagues, that if they want to discuss the matter my door is open and I shall happily see them. It may be more constructive and helpful for them to meet representatives of the ITS because I think that what they really want to do is persuade the ITS that it should give the matter another thorough examination with an open mind. I cannot direct that such a meeting take place but I have heard the arguments—

Mr. Skinner

You can give them a nudge though, can you not?

Mr. Evans

I shall send the ITS a copy of Hansard, including the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover and that of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on the matter. It makes one unhappy when one has the sense that what has happened was not fair. That is not satisfactory.

Let us be practical for a moment. There are real problems with the present premises for a variety of reasons, of which I suspect the £100,000-worth of vacant space is the greatest. I surmise that it would be more practical to come up with some other venue in Chesterfield. The hon. Member for Bolsover made a specific proposal, but I will not play estate agent with him. I will communicate it to the independent tribunal service. It may be a helpful suggestion, which I will be happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman later. It may be appropriate for the owners of the building to make a formal proposal in writing.

To sum up, there has been an unhappy clash over the past couple of weeks and an unhappy meeting on 14 January. A reorganisation may be necessary, and the ITS considers that there are compelling reasons to leave the present accommodation.

With regard to the inconvenience that would be caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituents if they had to travel to Sheffield, I am not familiar with the geography of the area.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire referred once or twice to the industrial tribunals service—an easy slip of the tongue, but an entirely different organisation.

The independent tribunal service was said to be limited and daunting, but one of its striking features is its offer to pay for public transport or taxis to bring people to a hearing, and there are occasions when tribunals can be convened in people's homes. People who claim to have been unfairly dismissed would not get such treatment, but those who are unable to move might get it. It is a matter for the independent tribunal service. I shall re-examine the guidance. If there are difficulties in the way in which it is drawn and it puts people off, we will see whether anything more can be done.

Mr. Barnes

The Minister's contribution has been helpful. He has not opened the door in the way that we requested—he said that he could not do so, and that it was a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service—but he has not closed the door on us. He has given us some hope, and will pass on some material to the ITS. We might then have an opportunity to meet that body and, if necessary, the Minister.

Mr. Evans

I stress that I cannot open the door, as it is not my door, but that of the Independent Tribunal Service. I will meet the hon. Gentlemen and commend to the ITS the desirability of an early meeting. If the hon. Gentleman could put together alternative proposals for Chesterfield as quickly as possible, that would be helpful.

This has been an unfortunate matter as far as I am concerned, which began with the answer to a parliamentary question. I did not dream of the complications that lay beneath what appeared to be a simple matter to answer. Now that I have been informed of the facts, it is clear that there was more to it. I repeat the apology that I made earlier to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.