Westminster Hall Sitting of 3 February 2004

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

All-postal Ballots
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
John Robertson: It is a pleasure to have secured this debate. Some colleagues whom I expected to attend are serving on Standing Committees this morning; it is a bad morning for the debate, but I know that the hon. Members present will do their best to make it interesting.
This is the second opportunity that I have had to exchange views with the Minister. I was able briefly to make a few relevant points in the previous Session on Second Reading and in Committee on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the wider issues raised in the debate.
In setting out the case for all-postal ballots, I shall begin by placing the debate in the historical context of the development of representative democracy in Britain, and the philosophical context of the rights of the citizen in such a democracy. I shall then negotiate my way through the details of whether all-postal ballots are practicable and finally examine the implications of my analysis for British elections.
It is necessary to begin from first principles. Why is voting important? The idea of democracy was discussed as far back as "The Histories" by Herodotus as an alternative to hereditary autocracy. Direct democracy was implemented in Athens and, although it may have been practical in a Greek city state where the polis was small—this has nothing to do with the Glasgow polis that I know—in a large state, some kind of representation became necessary. Whether the nature of democratic participation is direct or representative, the principle of active involvement by citizens in the political process remains.
In the British context, debates have focused on, first, who should have the right to vote, and secondly, the manner in which that right should be exercised. I believe that all-postal voting follows logically from the progressive widening of the franchise in Britain. In the past, voting was restricted on the basis of wealth, poverty and sex. Those who had the right to vote were forced to exercise it in public, without the protection of a secret ballot. The reform and representation of people Acts of the 19th and 20th centuries gradually altered the situation. We now recognise that every adult of sound mind should be permitted to vote, irrespective of background or knowledge. We are all rational and moral agents, and a person's capacity to will freely as a rational agent is not dependent on any empirical capacities that he or she may have. In practice, many are prevented from exercising the right to vote that follows on from that premise.
180WH
The 2001 general election turnout was the lowest since 1918. In the last European elections, fewer than one in four voters went to the polling station. Low turnouts are noticeably concentrated in the poorest socio-economic groups and in certain geographical areas. The people who did not vote are not lazy, and many were not making a positive abstention because of their disagreement with the policies of every political party. Many of them are simply in pressured jobs and have substantial family commitments. Many are socially excluded. The law says that those people have the right to vote, but in practice it is more difficult for them to do so.
If we are to make the legal right into a practical reality, it is necessary to find easier ways for people to vote. All-postal voting could provide one of the solutions to that problem, because it works. The Representation of the People Act 2000 introduced new provisions on postal voting and resulted in important changes to absent voting arrangements, including the introduction of postal voting on demand. In my constituency, the turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections in May was 45 per cent., which is down 5 per cent. on 2001. Postal votes, however, were returned at a rate of 72 per cent.—almost 2,500 votes.
The pilot schemes for all-postal ballots also had excellent results. Among the most notable was that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). Turnout in the 1998 local elections in Chorley was 31.3 per cent., but in 2002 it was 61.5 per cent. Further remarkable improvements have been seen in pilots from Tyneside to Trafford and from Bolton to Brighton.
It is not only hon. Members—well, most of them—who have expressed approval of that development. The Electoral Commission has concluded that all local elections should be run as all-postal elections unless there are compelling reasons against doing so. The commission made a series of recommendations about making such ballots easier and more secure. For example, it recommended that the current declaration of identity should be replaced by a new security statement and that staff delivery posts should be provided as part of the ballot to allow voters to have access to assistance and to deliver their completed postal vote by hand. The commission also recommended the creation of a new offence of intending fraudulently to apply for a postal or proxy vote, and tough new penalties.
We are not, therefore, considering a whim for some new-fangled development or a party political stunt. All-postal voting is a serious option backed by serious research. Nevertheless, the opposition, especially from the Conservatives, has been considerable, as was particularly evident in debates on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) declared that he would have to give me a reality check. He mentioned fraud and compared postal voting with the pinnacle of confidentiality supposedly provided by voting at a polling station, but he conveniently forgot the enormous potential for fraud when all that one needs to do to obtain a ballot paper is state a name to an officer at a polling station. He and other hon. Members should pay close attention to the Electoral Commission recommendations to which I have referred.

181WH
Likewise, the hon. Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) expressed concerns that there would be a detrimental impact on voter confidence if all-postal voting were introduced. The hon. Lady and others advancing that argument would do well to remember that the most telling indication of voter confidence in the process is voter participation. The most effective rebuttal of their argument, therefore, is reference to the substantial increase in turnout that occurred in the majority of areas in which pilots took place.
It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Upminster was forced to resort to spurious arguments about ceremony and to saying that going to a polling station gives the act of voting more significance. Such comments remind me of a long-running historical theme—Tory opposition to measures that empower more people to participate in the democratic process. I fear that we are seeing the latest chapter in a long history.
Students of history will recall that at the time of the Reform Act 1832, the Duke of Wellington declared that the House of Commons would end up rotten to the core if poor people were ever allowed to vote. We are used to Tories clutching at straws when trying to ensure that only Tories get out to vote. Of course, Tory antipathy to making the franchise a reality is understandable. The most significant occasion on which a Tory Government widened the franchise was the introduction of the second Reform Act, of 1867. Within months of that legislation being passed, the newly enfranchised masses booted the Tories out by a landslide.
Whereas the Tories of the 19th century sought to defeat legislation that would give people the legal right to vote, the Tories of the 21st century oppose measures that will make it easier for people to exercise what is already their legal right. They do not even like Scottish Members of Parliament exercising their right to vote as equal Members of the House.
It might be interesting to see what participation there has been and what questions have been asked by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) asked a question about postal ballots on 12 May 2003 and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked one on 30 June. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked a question on 2 July, and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale asked one on 12 September. They all asked roughly the same question. I shall read out the last one:
"To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many trial postal ballots have been conducted in local elections; where they were held; and how much each one cost."—[Official Report, 18 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 966W.]
That series of questions suggests that the Opposition were looking for excuses not to conduct a postal ballot. I am sure that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will tell us why, even though the Opposition want nothing to do with such ballots, they are so concerned about them that they had to ask those questions.
What lessons can be learned? First, we should select appropriate locations for pilot schemes in the European and local elections this year, for which I believe Scotland
182WH
is ideally suited. Secondly, depending on the operation of pilot schemes in those elections, we should consider the possibility of an all-postal ballot in general elections. I am disappointed that the Electoral Commission decided not to recommend that Scotland be chosen as one of the pilot zones. In my view, it fulfilled all the necessary criteria.
Pete Wishart: What are the hon. Gentleman's conclusions on why Scotland has not been selected, given that the Minister was close to declaring that it would be selected during the final stages of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill? I understand that the change has occurred on the initiative of the returning officer. What is the hon. Gentleman's view of what happened?
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has asked a valid question. If he can be patient, he will find that my view will be well laid out in this speech.
The low turnout in much of the country means that there is a greater urgency and much more potential for improvement. That is proven by the track record in constituencies such as mine of campaigns to encourage postal votes. The situation would also be helped by the fact that, unlike in the English regions, no local elections would be held on the same day as European Parliament elections. A change in turnout could be affected as much by local matters as by the introduction of different voting methods. Holding a pilot scheme in an area in which two different elections are taking place on the same day would complicate matters further. Furthermore, the European and local elections will be taking place under different voting systems. My view is not new, but was echoed by many on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. Unfortunately, it appeared to fall on deaf ears.
Mr. David Heath: That view did not entirely fall on deaf ears as far as the Electoral Commission is concerned, as Scotland was identified as the second best region that meets the criteria. So why on earth have the Government chosen two English regions rather than Scotland?
John Robertson: That question is not for me to answer, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will address it.
The multiplicity of variables in the elections in England and Wales next June will make any scientific assessment of the impact of new voting methods much more difficult. In Scotland, however, there will be one election under one voting system with one ballot paper, so it provides the perfect testing ground for the pilot schemes to which the Bill refers.
Even the Electoral Commission recognised what it called "several distinct advantages", notably including Scotland's several separate media outlets, such as the strong Scottish press and clearly defined radio and television markets, which would make any voter awareness campaign much easier. Scotland's own distinctive identity would ensure that electors were well aware that any campaign on Scottish voting arrangements would apply to them.

183WH
Why was the Electoral Commission not convinced? It gave two principal reasons. One was the potential pitfalls of organising a postal ballot in rural areas, some of which do not have access to a daily postal service. The Royal Mail, however, specifically recommended Scotland in its submission. Indeed, it stated:
"Royal Mail recommends that one of the other regions chosen as a pilot should include a mix of rural and urban voters, and Scotland would be an ideal choice from this point of view. It has the largest geographical area of all the regions with the smallest population density. Its large rural profile would allow an all-postal voting scheme to offer the greatest advantage in voter convenience and, therefore, voter turnout. In terms of the knowledge derived from the pilots, such a region would test the capability of Royal Mail to coordinate some of its most remote collections with some of its most urban ones: a challenge we welcome. Furthermore, choosing such a region should lower the cost per vote cast, increasing value for money."
That is a glowing endorsement.
The second reason given by the Electoral Commission was the submission that it received from the regional returning officer, Mr. Tom Aitchison. Its report states:
"The Regional Returning Officer has informed the Commission that he believes there is insufficient time available to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deliver an all-postal pilot with any reasonable guarantee of success."
It has been reported that Mr. Aitchison also raised the problem of resources, but the Minister has indicated that resources could be made available for areas selected for pilots. I have also been told that Mr. Aitchison told Ministers that his colleagues supported him, but my information is that that is not true. Does the Minister know who is right? Did he contact other returning officers, as requested on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill?
Perhaps Mr. Aitchison's reluctance can partly be explained by his experiences in the 1999 Scottish parliamentary elections, when 2,000 ballot papers from the Edinburgh, West constituency, which he oversaw, went missing. If Mr. Aitchison has no faith in his own ability or that of his colleagues, he should stand down and make way for someone with the ability and confidence that he obviously lacks. I would like to know what the Minister's assessment is of the advice received from the regional returning officer for Scotland, and I would appreciate his comments on the situation. Perhaps he can tell me how one gets rid of an electoral returning officer.
It is especially important that that question is cleared up, because the Electoral Commission stated in evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs that Scotland would meet criteria for an all-postal ballot if the Government provided the necessary resources and Royal Mail the necessary commitment. As has been heard, the Minister and the Royal Mail have both given that commitment, so why is Scotland not being considered for a pilot? It would be very unfortunate if the returning officer's decision to oppose an all-postal ballot unnecessarily wrecked our opportunity to enfranchise thousands of people who are often prevented by time or other factors from going out to vote.
Finally, if the pilots in June this year are successful, the Department for Constitutional Affairs should give serious consideration to the use of all-postal ballots
184WH
across the country at general elections. There would have to be areas where people could still deliver their ballot paper by hand, but one such location per constituency would probably be enough, except in more rural areas, where there might be two or three.
I am aware that when the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Mr. Sam Younger, was asked about all-postal voting at general elections, he said:
"Let's not run before we can walk."
However, if the Opposition get their way, we probably will not even start crawling. I agree with Mr. Younger that we must take our time, put effective safeguards in place and ensure that we are well prepared for pilot schemes, but let us still be ambitious and rise to the challenge of increasing voter participation, given that all the identified problems are addressed. In Britain we have a proud tradition of a representative democracy, but we must seek continually to reinvigorate the process. Having listed the problems that we face, I have demonstrated why all-postal voting is required.
In conclusion, I have to ask the following questions for all who are connected with the elections. Why did the Electoral Commission not support Scotland for an all-postal ballot even when the concerns were addressed? Why did the returning officer refuse to allow Scotland to be a pilot for all-postal ballots? His own colleagues wanted the pilot provided that all the concerns were met, as they were. Why would opposition parties want to prevent people from voting? What are their real motives? What is the Minister doing for Scotland given the obvious unfairness that has been shown? I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Minister, have to say.
9.51 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am pleased to contribute to this debate on an issue that has considerable importance, not just for us as party activists and politicians, but for the general public.
The case for all-postal ballots has been made overwhelmingly, not just by the Electoral Commission, political parties and the Government, but, more importantly, by the voters when they have had the opportunity to participate in elections in which the vote has been cast entirely by postal ballots. Recent pilots have demonstrated that the average turnout in local council elections increases by about 50 per cent.—from about 35 per cent. to 49 per cent.—when there are all-postal ballots. Some may argue that that increase is not good enough, but it is far better than the normal situation. Although the average turnout at local council elections is 35 per cent., turnout in some areas is even lower—20 per cent. or less in some cases.
The Electoral Commission has evaluated the pilots since 2000 and has reported that not only has turnout been boosted, but opportunities for abuse and misuse of the system—many have raised that point; no doubt we will hear more on it this morning—are no greater than under the present system of partial postal voting. Nowadays, the hurdles in the way of achieving a postal vote have been removed. People can vote by post if they choose to do so, although they have to apply. A few years ago, there were all sorts of reasons why people applied. For example, they might have been going on

185WH
holiday or have been ill. In those circumstances, they had, for example, to get a signature from a doctor or a family member. Those difficulties have been removed.
Abuse can exist under the present system. Candidates and parties have been accused of building up postal votes in unethical ways. While canvassing, one comes across people who would like to vote, but who will be away or who work long hours and cannot predict when they will come home.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, come election time, those out walking the streets and meeting people find that the electorate always ask how they can cast a vote? They want to know if they can get a postal vote or a proxy vote. In general, there is an increase in activity at that time. Our problem is trying to secure that increase in activity all the time.
Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend is right and demonstrates that he is speaking from experience. He has walked the streets and knocked on doors for years, as we all have. Making personal contact with people, even if they are not initially interested in party politics, means that there is a much higher chance that they will express an interest in issues that affect them and their community—they want to have a say. If they cannot vote at the polling station on a particular day for various reasons, they are often delighted to know that they can do so by post. As I said, that has been made much easier. The process is one of opting in. People can vote by post if they want to in elections in which people can also vote in person at the polling station in the traditional way. Assisting people to participate in elections, by explaining that they can get a postal vote or a proxy vote, is welcomed by the public.
In 25 years of election campaigning activity I have come across only one example of unethical practice with regard to absent votes, which took place in a local council by-election in Bedford. Liberal Democrat activists targeted elderly Labour voters, who had been carefully canvassed, and offered to assist them to cast their vote by proxy, which no doubt the individuals concerned saw as extremely helpful. They may not have felt like going out and getting wet, or may have had difficulty walking. I am sure, because I went and saw some of the voters myself, that it was not made plain that the helpful members of the community who suggested that they might vote on the elderly people's behalf by proxy would cast those votes for the Liberal Democrat candidate. About 20 elderly Labour voters assisted the Liberal Democrat candidate to achieve a narrow victory. I was not happy with that and neither were other people.
There are no doubt examples from elsewhere in the country of an unfair pushing of the ethical line in previous years. However, none of us has campaigned nationally that the principle of absent voting, by post or proxy, is therefore wrong. It is not; it is absolutely right. People welcome it and it should be extended.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps time that the Government wrote to every elector explaining what they can and cannot get in relation to a ballot? People can already get a postal
186WH
ballot on demand. Is it not time to tell people that? Plenty of people do not realise that they can have a postal vote on demand.
Mr. Hall: I have not read any national assessments of whether the electorate in all council areas are told that they can have a postal ballot on demand. I think that that happens in my constituency. In many places, people at least receive something in writing that says that they can opt in, but that should take place in a more rigorous and coherent way. However, I do not think that that message will sink in unless people like us knock on the door and tell voters that they can have a postal ballot. When we do that and they say, "Oh really?", we can then say, "Here's the form" and so on. It is still a little difficult to get people to opt for something that many of them would want if they knew about it. The best way to deal with that issue is to have an all-postal ballot.
I welcome the Government's decision to double the number of all-postal ballots in England next June. They are doing so not only in the north-east and the east midlands, but in the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside. I regret the exclusion of the rest of the country, including the eastern region, where my constituency lies. I am not convinced of the reasons for that. I understand that in the eastern region there was no enthusiasm among returning officers for such a ballot. Indeed, some political party organisers were not too keen either and did not want to risk change. However, the pilots that have taken place, and the further pilots to which we are committed this June, pave the way for the inevitable. That is the way forward.
We will have a three-month evaluation after 10 June this year, the results of which will be published in September. That is the intention. That will provide the opportunity to iron out procedural difficulties before national implementation. I do not want to pre-judge the evaluation. It may be that it raises issues of which I am not aware, requiring us to stop or turn back, but I do not think it will. Experience so far indicates the road along which we are travelling. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to pre-judge that evaluation any more than I would by closing the door on national implementation in 2005. If the lessons so far are anything to go by, higher turnout is there for the taking. Surely that is essential if we wish to restore the credibility of our political system, the quality of our democracy and the legitimacy of the outcomes of our elections.
People often mention the low turnout in the last general election. Although it was low, I am aware that it did not represent a wholesale rejection of the system. The main feeling I got on the doorsteps in the 2001 general election campaign was one of a foregone conclusion. People said that they did not need to bother to vote because they knew what the result was going to be. That does not sound terribly sophisticated, but the public were right. It is not a healthy situation. It gives grounds to those who are cynical about our system to say that there is less and less interest in the system and we are more and more separated from the people we represent. That might be so, but I do not believe that the majority of people want no further say in the system. Declining turnout is worrying, even if people at the last general election could say that they knew what they were doing because the result was a foregone conclusion. All-postal ballots would almost certainly reverse that

187WH
decline and I want those to take place at the next general election. There will have to be some very good reasons for not introducing them at the next general election.
People nowadays have complex lives, with a lot of demands on their time. They are busy. Perhaps getting to and queueing at a polling station in the rain and cold is not terribly attractive. Having a say, however, remains attractive and most people still believe in it. The method of having a say must be tuned to the more complex and busy lives that most of us lead.
A fully electronic system is not yet available. The technology is not sufficiently secure, people do not have total confidence in the system, which is not user-friendly, and many voters would be averse to an electoral system based entirely on electronic voting. We can, however, be 100 per cent. confident of postal voting. It is 150 years old, and is tried and tested.
From the point of view of political parties, an all-postal ballot election would still require campaigning, people would still expect to meet candidates, and parties would want to remind people to vote, all of which is healthy. It may well be that, under such a system, polling day as such—it would, in fact, not be polling day, but the day on which the process ended—would be an anticlimax for the parties, but so what? The system should not be devised for the entertainment of political hacks and political parties; it must serve the people, and they are not impressed by the build-up to polling day and all the leaflets that go out because, certainly in local elections, the majority take absolutely no notice and do not vote. We may be entertained by it, but that is not the issue.
The test is what the people feel. They have shown that they want all-postal ballots and that they respond to them more than they do to the current system. The facts show that clearly. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, when considering national implementation in 2005, to keep an open mind about the outcome of the evaluation in September.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): It might be opportune to remind the three hon. Members who will respond to the debate that it is accepted practice in the Chamber to divide the remaining time into three equal parts and that any exercise that may infringe on that would be considered infra dig.
10.6 am
Mr. David Heath: I hope that you will not mind, Mr. Cook, if I do not take up my entire allocation, as I may be able to express myself adequately in less time than I have available. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate and on his contribution to it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on his speech—once he had been coaxed to his feet.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that were laid out in the context of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. The Minister knows that whatever the merit of novel forms of electoral practice—and there are some that we want to encourage—we have two principled problems with the current proposals. First, they will create the circumstance in which a single election is held on two
188WH
different bases according to where one is in the country. Secondly, there are still serious issues to address about electoral fraud in all-postal ballots.
I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. There is scope for fraud in conventional systems and we have had postal ballots for a long time. However, if more widespread postal voting is introduced, it will be incumbent on us to do whatever we can to mitigate the opportunity for fraud. The Electoral Commission has come up with some proposals that I hope to see implemented, but there are still problems with the system for houses in multiple occupation, of which we should be aware.
I agree with those who raise the principle of the secret ballot as a valid objection to postal voting. The head of the household or some other dominant person has more scope for inappropriate influence on the individual elector. We should guard against that as far as possible, but there is no wholly acceptable answer to it.
Mr. Hall: Surely the points that the hon. Gentleman has made about the opportunities for postal ballots to be seen by other members of the family or other residents of houses in multiple occupation apply 100 per cent. to the current system—never mind the proposal for all-postal ballots. How would he address the disadvantage of the current system?
Mr. Heath: I thought that I had made my position absolutely plain. Of course opportunities for fraud occur under the current system, but the effect on the outcome of an election is greater in a 100 per cent. postal ballot. It is therefore proper that we address those issues in so far as we are able. No system is absolutely foolproof, but things can be done to improve the situation. Rather than rehearsing those points yet again, I will address what the Government have done since the Bill left the House for the other place.
We have already discussed the Electoral Commission's proposals for the regions that it identified as appropriate for pilot schemes. It came up with only two regions: the north-east and the east midlands. I will not argue about those proposals further; they were the proposals of an independent body. If the Government wish to go ahead, clearly those are the regions that should be taken.
I did, and do, have problems with the fact that the Government said that, although the Electoral Commission identified only two regions as appropriate, there would be more than two and that we would have a repechage event to identify further regions. I thought that that was code for, "We are going to give in to our colleagues in Scotland who feel strongly about this." The Electoral Commission clearly stated:
"The next region that best meets the criteria is Scotland."
I can understand the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland being a little upset. Although he chose to express his upset as criticism of the Electoral Commission, which is not entirely fair, his Minister has chosen to ignore what the commission said—which supported the hon. Gentleman's case that, if there were to be more than two regions, Scotland should be next in the frame. The Minister ignored the claims of Scotland and instead went for two further English regions. The Minister must explain to the hon. Member for Glasgow,

189WH
Anniesland and other Scottish Members why he does not feel able to support what the Electoral Commission clearly said about Scotland.
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman feels that I was overly critical of the commission, but that is not what I intended. The point that I was trying to make was that its concerns had been identified. In its evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, it stated that, provided resources were put in place, it could see no reason why Scotland should not be used for a pilot scheme. Those concerns were taken care of by the Minister.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that means that the situation is worse than I thought. There were no barriers to Scotland being chosen as a region except the Minister's will, which is to entertain the English regions rather than Scotland. He must explain why that is.
The two regions that were chosen do not meet the basic criteria. One is the north-west, which clearly had strong advocates. However, a principal problem stems from one of the criteria that the Government originally set for inclusion, which concerned the number of local authorities in the region and the number holding local elections in June 2004. The Electoral Commission felt unable to recommend the north-west principally because it had so many elections on the day that there was considerable scope for problems. The Government have ignored that. They have not reduced the number of local elections, but have decided to override the criteria and go for the north-west for no apparent reason.
The other region is Yorkshire and Humberside. Again, there is a fundamental problem, as expressed by the Electoral Commission. The complaint in the case of Yorkshire and Humberside is that:
"the Commission notes the distinct preference among Returning Officers and their staff to run the elections on conventional lines."
In this case, the Minister has decided to ignore not just the Electoral Commission but local returning officers.
The result is a pilot scheme that is hardly a pilot at all. The whole of the north of England will have one voting system and the whole of the south of England, Wales and Scotland will have a different one. It is just as well that there has been a good deal of ethnic mixing over the years in this old country of ours, because it looks like the Danelaw has one system but us Saxons and Celts are not able to use that same system.
The Government must explain why that is. They must explain why they do not use the advice of their independent arbiter. They must explain why we are not able to move to a national election. We are to have a quasi-national election that involves a land mass that is bigger than many European countries. Belgium is normally the unit of currency in these matters. I am sure that the land mass and the population involved are bigger than Belgium's. The north of England will have one system and the rest of us poor peasants in the south are to have a different one. Why has the Minister decided that that is a sensible way to run a pilot scheme? My argument is that it is not, and I hope that he will be able to come up with some explanations. His proposal
190WH
gives rise to much concern and suspicion about the Government's motives and a belief that they are applying jiggery-pokery to the independent advice that they were given.
We had a lot of debate about the marked register when discussing the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. We have also had a letter from the Electoral Commission expressing some concerns and suggesting some provisos. Can the Minister help us by explaining his intentions?
This has been a useful debate, if only because it has exposed the fact that the Government ask for independent advice, but ignore it completely when it suits their purposes and do exactly what they want to do, irrespective of whom it upsets, including the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland.
10.16 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I want to follow up what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, especially in his last point. Like him, we are very suspicious about the Government's motivation. I want to say a little more about what the Government have done, which is contrary to what the Minister told us on Report and Third Reading of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, and as recently as 16 December 2003. The Bill is still passing through another place, so the process is far from finished.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who initiated this interesting debate, started his speech by talking about historical and philosophical context, but it turned out that, as I had anticipated, all he really wanted to do was have a serious go at his own Government and the Minister for not accepting Scotland as a pilot region. He has made the same point on many occasions during the passage of the European Parliament and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman decided to make what I can only describe as an ad hominem attack on the regional returning officer for Scotland. In the light of recent events, I would have thought that Labour Members might have learned that it is unwise to make ad hominem attacks on dedicated public servants. I do not know Mr. Aitchison, but I have no doubt that he carried out his duties in reporting his views to the Electoral Commission in a straightforward and sensible way. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not like the conclusions that Mr. Aitchison came to.
I want to draw specific attention to what the Electoral Commission said about Scotland. It is important to bear in mind what the commission said about its reasons for not recommending that Scotland be part of the original proposals for pilot regions:
"Scotland has the fifth highest electorate of those regions we can consider. It is the largest geographically of the European parliamentary regions and is the most sparsely populated, with approximately 49 electors per square kilometre. The degree of population scarcity varies enormously from the very densely populated central belt urban areas to very remote rural areas.
Scotland has 32 unitary authorities; There are no local elections scheduled for 2004 as Scotland combines full council elections with the Scottish Parliament elections (last held in May 2003). This combination of local elections with parliamentary elections has left Scottish authorities with little opportunity to run pilot schemes".

191WH
That is what the Electoral Commission reported and it believes that it is important. It went on to say that that was
"reflected in the minimal level of pilot experience in Scotland—it ranks tenth in terms of percentage of past pilot authorities at 9.3 per cent. and all of these have been at by-elections."
The regional returning officer, Mr. Aitchison, who has been so savagely attacked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, held that post in 1999, and the Electoral Commission's report quite clearly says—this is the crucial point—that his views were supported by "a large urban authority." Listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, one might have thought that the returning officer was speaking purely for himself.
The Electoral Commission goes on to say that the
"regional returning officer has informed the Commission that he believes there is insufficient time available to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deliver an all-postal pilot with any reasonable guarantee of success."
Those are very strong words. The report continues:
"The geographic diversity of Scotland poses particular challenges to an all-postal election. Some remote rural parts of Scotland do not have a daily mail service, and any all-postal elections in these areas would need to examine carefully the provision and position of delivery points; special postal arrangements may be required. More conclusively, the dispersed nature of the Scottish electorate coupled with low rates of home access to the internet would hinder the delivery of an electronic voting pilot."
To our great pleasure, the Government dropped any plans to conduct an electronic voting pilot. They were absolutely right not to do so in Scotland, given that the strong and compelling words of the regional returning officer, whose views were supported by a large urban authority, were among the reasons why the Electoral Commission made its recommendation. The report says that a very large number of Members of Parliament and other people involved in government made individual submissions. They included 45 Members of Parliament, nine Members of the European Parliament, two peers, two Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish First Minister, but not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, who did not make a submission to the Electoral Commission, did not like what it said and has been complaining ever since. In the Opposition's view, the Government were absolutely right to recommend against Scotland, as we said in Committee and on Report and Third Reading of the European Parliament and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
However, we have severe concerns about what the Government have done. On 16 December, the Minister said:
"We remain keen, however, to proceed with all-postal voting in three regions. In scaling up towards a multi-channel general election"—
I made fun of the phrase then, as I do now—
"after 2006, we believe that pressing ahead with a wider range and variation of piloting provides the best opportunity to learn lessons and to develop capabilities in new electoral techniques … The Government will consider in more detail each of the potential candidates with a view to announcing the location of the third all-postal pilot in the coming weeks."
He went on to say:
"we can conclude which third all-postal voting pilot will proceed."
Apparently, he hoped to come to a conclusion soon on
"which region or nation should be the third choice".
192WH
He also said:
"I intend to make a decision relatively quickly on which third region or nation we wish to select."
Later, he said that the Electoral Commission had
"recommended that there should be three all-postal pilots regions."—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1511—1515.]
The Electoral Commission did not make such a recommendation; the Minister was making a mistake. The commission was asked to recommend three regions, including one for an electronic pilot, and it only recommended two, for very good reasons. As recently as 16 December, the Minister said not only once, but about six times over five columns in Hansard, that there were going to be three regions—the two that the Electoral Commission had recommended and a third one.
Suddenly, in a written statement made on 21 January 2004, however, the Minister slipped out this announcement:
"I can today announce … that two further regions will also hold all-postal pilots. These regions will be Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west."—[Official Report, 21 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 64WS.]
Instead of a third region, there was now to be a fourth as well. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the Opposition are bound to be suspicious as to why that division suddenly emerged between Danelaw and the rest of the country, as he wittily put it. Suddenly it was announced that a swathe of the country—the whole of the north of England—would be involved.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend also press the Minister to tell us who was involved in taking those decisions? Was it the totally unelected head of his Department, the Lord Chancellor—or whatever it is we have to call him these days? Was it the Minister himself, whose constituency falls within the added area, who took the decision, or was it taken on a wider basis? The way in which the recommendations came about is important for accountability, bearing in mind that the Electoral Commission was set up and then ignored, and that other areas were added.
Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope the Minister will deal with those points in some detail. I join my hon. Friend in pressing the Minister to say exactly who was involved.
I return to the two extra regions that the Government have now surprisingly added to what the Electoral Commission recommended. As I pointed out on Report and Third Reading on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Electoral Commission is a creature of this Government. It seems to us extraordinary that, after this bureaucratic system has been set up and its independence has been trumpeted by the Minister and others in the Government, its recommendations should be ignored.
Why did the Government ignore what the Electoral Commission said about Yorkshire and the Humber? The report states that Yorkshire and the Humber
"is a mid-ranking region, in terms of opportunities for discrete media campaigns. Its strong daily and weekly press is coupled with a clear regional identity."

193WH
That is one side of the argument, but the report goes on to state:
"Some parts of the region have reported that fraud and the perception of fraud has risen since the introduction of postal voting on demand; the Commission appreciates that such concerns could serve to undermine the acceptance of the election."
In this case, the regional returning officer was in favour of an all-postal pilot for the region. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, however, the commission goes on to say:
"it is clear that returning officers would strongly prefer not to be involved in any all-postal pilot at the combined elections"
in 2004. That is a good reason why Yorkshire and the Humber should not have been added to the all-postal pilot.
For similar reasons, in paragraph 284 of the report, the Electoral Commission says this about the northwest:
"There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the north west in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes in conventional elections. Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004; this would be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting."
Again, those are good and compelling reasons why there should not be an all-postal pilot in either the north-west or Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet the Government have proceeded to ignore their own Electoral Commission.
As we have consistently said, our view is strongly influenced by the Electoral Reform Society, which is totally independent and is not a creation of this Government. We prefer its approach to these matters to that of the Government. We point out to people such as the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Bedford (Mr. Hall) that it is not a universal truth that all-postal voting leads to an increase in turnout. It has done so in some areas, and it certainly did so in part of my constituency, when we succeeded in defeating the Liberal Democrats and getting control of Guildford borough council in May last year on the basis of an all-postal pilot. We therefore do not have a principled objection to all-postal voting everywhere. However, the Electoral Reform Society says this about turnout:
"we note that all-postal ballots are not a guarantee of much higher turnout. In a by-election in Lewisham"—
we discussed this issue in Committee and on Report and Third Reading—
"ending on 23 October 2003, there was a rise of just 2 per cent. to only 24 per cent. turnout despite the ward being hotly contested and changing hands"
in an all-postal ballot.
The Electoral Reform Society also says that, in respect of all-postal ballots, some of the safeguards introduced by the 1872 ballot secrecy legislation with regard to undue influence and bribery have been removed. It states:
"Whilst these risks have always existed with postal votes, until now they could only affect a small minority of votes. Corrupt practices on a grand scale have become feasible again for the first time in 130 years. Of course this is not a guarantee that any such events will occur, but the risk is increased."
194WH
The hon. Members mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow Anniesland—my hon. Friends the Members for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I, have all made clear our belief that there is something significant about voters taking a decision to go to a polling station and vote in person. We are delighted that the Government have made it absolutely clear that the next general election will take place in the traditional way.
Mr. McLoughlin: On increased turnout, my hon. Friend might like to reflect on the situation a few years ago, when the Liberal party, along with the Government, very much supported the new system of electing Members of the European Parliament on a regional basis. They argued that a system of proportional representation would lead to increased turnout. Indeed, that is exactly what the Foreign Secretary, then the Home Secretary, used as his principal argument for introducing the system, which has actually led to a fall in turnout because people do not feel associated with those whom they have elected.
Mr. Hawkins: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. I recall that Conservative Members tabled amendments in Committee to try to bring back first-past-the-post voting. I have no doubt that turnout for European elections would increase again if we were to reintroduce a constituency-based system, because voters would strongly identify with the people whom they elected. They do not feel that they have that link under the list system and PR. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
We are suspicious about what the Government have done, particularly because the Minister completely contradicted in his 23 January announcement what he had said on numerous occasions in the past, and as recently as 16 December. Furthermore, we do not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland.
John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it is a pity that he did not let me in earlier. If I may return to his original point, I would hate to have him think that all my attacks were on the returning officer for Scotland, as there are plenty on the Tory party. As he has plenty of time, I hope that he will try to answer one question: what is his objection to asking people to vote? Why does the Tory party have a problem with people casting their vote? It is an historical activity—it goes back centuries. Once again, he has indicated that he does not want anyone to cast a vote other than by the traditional method. Are we not to encourage people, including those who have difficulties, to vote?
Mr. Hawkins: The modest changes that have been made to enable people to apply for a postal vote if they want one have been successful, but there is no need to go down the slippery slope towards treating elections as if they were some popularity contest like "Big Brother" or "Pop Idol". That is the danger that we have identified.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a problem, in that his own Government have said that they still want general elections to take place in the traditional way, as

195WH
we do. It is important that electors take voting seriously. The best way of taking it seriously is for people to vote in person at a polling station. As I said, we are delighted that that will continue in the next general election.
Mr. Patrick Hall: On electors taking elections seriously, is the hon. Gentleman making a serious point himself about the clear evidence of much higher participation in all-postal ballots for local council elections? The turnout was significantly higher in those elections. He said that the process is not a guarantee. He is absolutely right, but the evidence is that there was significantly higher participation. Is he actually suggesting that those people were not serious?
Mr. Hawkins: No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying that the evidence is contradictory, as the Electoral Reform Society pointed out. The postal voting system did not increase turnout everywhere. It did so in some places, but not others.
The Electoral Reform Society is also quite right to stress the dangers of electoral fraud. I shall not repeat all that was said in Committee and on Report and Third Reading, but Conservative Members stressed concerns about the need for extra security wherever there is all-postal voting, particularly for houses in multiple occupation. We think that the Government have much more work to do on that issue.
There are balancing factors, but there is no doubt that the best system, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, is a system of first-past-the-post elections with a constituency link, and not an arrangement involving list systems and PR. We should also ensure that people are voting at polling stations if they can do so, with the opportunity to apply for a postal vote if they do not want to vote in that way or find it difficult to get to the polling station. However, it would be detrimental to move down the slippery slope towards treating elections as though they were as trivial as "Big Brother" or "Pop Idol" in a desperate attempt to try to make them trendy.
Although the issue that has been raised has been of some use in allowing us to ventilate the issues further, I deprecate some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, and I am pleased that his Government do not agree with him.
10.35 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate on this important issue. I hope to respond to some of the points made and to set out the Government's wider approach.
It is always my dubious pleasure to follow the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, who says how dreadful and appalling is the Government's desperate attempt to make voting easier and more convenient for people. I am afraid we are guilty of that; it is important for any Government to try to make the democratic process as accessible and convenient as possible. I am disappointed that the Opposition do not share in that fairly worthy aspiration, which I hoped would have been shared on both sides of the House.
196WH
Obviously, the House is aware of the history—how we come to be where we are today. The Representation of the People Act 2000 was the main legislative vehicle to provide initially for the piloting of all-postal and other innovative voting methods in local elections in England and Wales. That was partly in response to calls from election administrators who wanted to try new methods, changing the system of voting that had not had any significant alterations since the ballot legislation in the 19th century. They were keen to innovate and to improve their systems. There were calls, too, from many others who wanted voting made easier and more accessible so that it fits around modern ways of living. That is one reason why the Government set up a working party in 1997 under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The hope then was to make voting more convenient, to find a way to persuade more electors to become inclined to participate and to halt, or try to deal with, some of the decline in turnover in a variety of elections.
In 2000, local pilots were undertaken, some of which were on the voting times of the day, others on electronic voting, methods of counting, mobile ballot boxes, weekend voting and so forth. Postal voting proved by far the most popular; the initial pilots were mostly on a small scale and took place in seven local authorities, but they all showed a significant—in some cases substantial—rise in turnout. For example, in Gateshead, turnout more than doubled. Because of that initial success, we wanted to consider the issues further and to increase the number of pilots. That was not done in 2001 because the local elections were combined with the general election. However, despite that gap, in 2002, 13 authorities ran pilots, some of them across the whole of the authority, and large rises in turnout were the result. In 2003 more local authorities—39 in total—were keen and eager to run all-postal pilots in their area and an increase in turnout, sometimes a substantial increase, was the rule.
Given that experience, which was built up over a wide range of different local authorities, we did not want to ignore the message being sent, not only from the electoral administrators, who were keen on the proposition, but from the public: the electorate were telling us that they preferred this manner of voting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said, they wanted to participate more actively, and local councils were becoming more representative of their electors. The elected representatives thus had a more solid mandate and they, in turn, felt more confident to take forward the policies on which they were elected. That is the enrichment of the democratic process that I am sure that we would all want to see.
Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister says that he genuinely wants to test whether there has been an increase in turnout. One of the ways in which that could be done would be to compare the results with what happened at the last European elections, when we had results for individual constituencies. I understand that the Government have changed the rules in such a way that we will not be able to make those comparisons, because

197WH
we will not get the results for individual constituencies. How will we be able to make a true comparison of whether turnout is better or worse than last time?
Mr. Leslie: We will have results from the European constituencies because the regions are the constituencies. The hon. Gentleman mentioned parliamentary constituencies. The electoral administrators expressed a preference to count on the basis of district council election areas, but whether votes are counted on that basis or at parliamentary constituency level makes no difference to the outcome of the election in a particular European constituency. His point is rather obscure, but I shall let him pursue it.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry that the Minister thinks that the point is obscure. One of the things that people say to us in arguments about turnout is that the turnout in certain areas cannot be seen. If, from now on, we receive only the results for the whole of Liverpool or Manchester, rather than for the constituencies of which those two cities are composed, there will not be the same degree of accuracy as in the last elections, when we were able to see how individual parliamentary constituencies voted. I am sure that there will be many studies on the increase in turnout, but we will not be able to see where that turnout has occurred as well as we could have done if the counting basis had remained the same as in the last European elections.
Mr. Leslie: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. These are not parliamentary elections, but European elections. It is therefore right that they should be counted on the basis of European constituencies. The electoral administrators can then decide how best to break down the different counting areas. I believe that we will be able to carry out a proper analysis of the different effects that occur in relation to all-postal voting versus the conventional arrangements, given that the pilot schemes will be carried out on quite a large scale.
We have had many pilot schemes in local elections, and we now want to move on to a wider regional scale. That takes us into new territory; if we are to extend all-postal voting to a wider range of people, we must take difficult decisions about the scale on which that should be done. We feel that now is the right time to use those constituencies as a comparator for conventional and all-postal voting, not least because of the occurrence of the European elections.
We cannot rely, however, solely on volunteer local authorities—in some areas there may need to be a greater level of compulsion, so that there is uniformity across a particular constituency. That is why we introduced the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). The Bill continues its passage through Parliament in the other place, and will enable the Government to proceed with the planned pilot schemes.
Many hon. Members asked why we recommended and selected particular regions, so it would perhaps be helpful if I were to give the rationale behind that. The regions, and the local authorities within them, that will run all-postal ballots this year were selected on the basis
198WH
of advice from the Electoral Commission, and after discussions with the returning officers—the people who administer the elections. The Electoral Commission's advice indicated that the north-east and the east midlands should be chosen, but also listed a number of second-rank authorities and regions that might run the pilot schemes. It deemed them potentially suitable, but they were less favoured and not positively recommended.
I am aware that Scotland was at the top of that second list and I should like to explain how the discussions about additional regions progressed. We considered the regions in the order of the Electoral Commission's ranking. Initially, there was discussion with Scottish returning officers about the issues that they raised in response to the commission's consultation. Their concerns were largely focused on the same practical issues that affected all the other regions. We made efforts to allay their concerns, but the returning officers remained unconvinced that effective elections could be held in Scotland in June on an all-postal basis. As a consequence of those concerns, which were in essence about operational capability, the Government were advised, particularly by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that we should not proceed with an all-postal pilot in Scotland.
Government officials then spoke to the returning officers for Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west, which were the next in the Electoral Commission's ranking. In Yorkshire, there was little enthusiasm from the returning officers for piloting the election, although the electoral administrators were confident that they could deliver successful pilots. That point was conceded by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath; there is a difference between the returning officers' approach in Scotland and in Yorkshire. Although they expressed little enthusiasm in Yorkshire, they recognised that the region could work together to deliver a successful pilot scheme. The returning officers' level of confidence is very important. Similarly, in the north-west, they were also very confident that they could deliver, despite the Electoral Commission's concerns about the complexity of a successful all-postal election. The electoral administrators' views have become an important part of the ultimate decisions that we hope to take about which regions will be selected.
Although enthusiasm and willingness are important in the consultation exercise, and while the Electoral Commission's recommendations are clear, they are, ultimately, recommendations. It falls to Ministers to make decisions to put before Parliament on which region should be chosen. We have decided that operational capability and capacity to deliver successful elections must be the paramount concerns. That was the rationale behind our decisions.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister says that it must be for Ministers to decide and to put the matter before Parliament, but does he not think that it is completely inappropriate to put the matter before Parliament in a two-paragraph written statement? Should not matters as important as this—when the Government disagree with their own independent Electoral Commission—be debated? Should not everything that the Minister

199WH
announced on 23 January be properly debated in the main Chamber so that we can see whether they were right to reject the Electoral Commission's advice?
Mr. Leslie: First, I do not think that it is inappropriate to make announcements to Parliament in written statements; I think that that is the appropriate manner to make announcements. Secondly, Parliament will have every opportunity to debate the recommendations that Ministers make in the Bill, including any amendments that have been tabled in another place, when the Bill returns to this House. That is a fair approach. We do not want to stifle debate. Heaven knows, we have had every opportunity this morning to investigate many of the issues.
I, together with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor, met returning officers from Yorkshire, Humber and the north-west to investigate how they feel about operational capability and whether they can deliver. I do not want problems to develop in elections. That would clearly not be in our interests. We have been careful to take into account their views on the capacity to deliver. Consequently, we have made decisions about the four regions that we want to recommend. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made fun of the fact that we initially asked the Electoral Commission to recommend three regions. It made two firm recommendations and then suggested a list of others, ranked in order, as potentially suitable. So it is open to us to make a choice from that second-rank list. That is not in conflict with our decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland highlighted a number of significant benefits that arise from all-postal voting. First, he referred to the convenience that it offers the voter. He is absolutely right. Experience shows that a large proportion of the electorate would prefer to vote by post rather than go to a polling station, so postal voting also helps with participation. Secondly, all-postal voting gives voters a greater sense of control when choosing whom to vote for and casting their vote. It is not just about convenience for the elector; it also gives the elector more time, after receiving the ballot paper, to consider the candidates and the news in the media, and to look at the literature from candidates from different parties. Electors do not need to make up their mind on the spot: they can consider the matter in greater detail and become more aware of who is standing for election before casting their vote and returning it in good time. Some critics may have overlooked that benefit.
All-postal voting is extremely popular and higher turnouts also produce other benefits, such as more interest in local politics and a greater sense of mandate for those elected on a higher turnout. The MORI opinion poll commissioned by the European parliamentary office predicted yesterday that only 18 per cent. of the population were certain to vote at the June European elections. We should all be exceptionally concerned about that. One way, though not the only way, in which we can make it easier for people to express their views is to make it more convenient for them to vote by testing all-postal voting on a scaled-up basis. That is precisely the policy that we are pursuing.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised specific concerns about all-postal voting, which he has mentioned before, and the unease felt in
200WH
some quarters. I appreciate that that is the view of the Electoral Reform Society, a body quite different and distinct from the independent Electoral Commission, which comes under the auspices of the House and from which we prefer to take our advice and recommendations. The Electoral Reform Society suggests that there is a possibility of greater fraud with all-postal voting. That criticism does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny, although there have been concerns about ballot papers going astray or falling into the wrong hands.
There is no fail-safe electoral mechanism. We should not look at all-postal voting in isolation and pretend that every other electoral system is watertight. Much can be done to ensure that people are aware of their rights and responsibilities in all-postal voting. Amendments have been tabled to the Bill to extend the ability to prosecute personation, to extend the offence of personation outside the polling station and to ensure that we put other security improvements in the pilot order. The Electoral Commission also recommended a code of practice for political parties and their workers and set out acceptable practices for dealing with postal votes. I fully support the development of such a code of practice and urge all those involved to abide by it. Everybody should know where they stand on the rules.
Mr. McLoughlin: Should the Government's proposals be accepted, and there is every likelihood that they will be, will the Minister assure us that all the rules relating to the last day of recommendation, the last day for ballot papers to be returned and so on are given to the political parties and the regions concerned well in advance of local elections? At the last general election, changes to postal voting were made late in the day for all political parties to be able to understand them. If he introduces such a system, I hope that he has a better timetable than the one used at that election.
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about providing information not just for the public, on their rights and responsibilities with regard to postal voting, but for political parties. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said about not running elections simply for the convenience of political parties and that, although polling day might feel more like an anti-climax under all-postal voting arrangements, we should not consider simply what suits a particular political party. Nevertheless, it is important to allow parties to adjust their campaigning capabilities to the new circumstances. We want personal contact with the electors and for electors to receive information from different candidates. So it is important to share information as widely as possible and I take the point made.
There have been a number of criticisms. The criticism of funding has been addressed by ensuring that pilots will be fully funded from the centre. Those criticisms are not onerous and can be overcome by the work that we have put into the Bill. I hope that the House understands the rationale behind our decision.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend have any intention to distribute literature to explain postal ballots

201WH
and proxy votes, not just in pilot areas but across the country? Everyone should be able to understand their voting rights.
Mr. Leslie: There is certainly a fine balance to strike between the state producing too much literature at expense and us giving people information on how to vote. In the previous European elections, in which the new electoral system was used, a leaflet was distributed to every household to explain that new system. We have no specific plans to repeat that exercise, but I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's concerns.
It is important to commit to improving electoral turnout and to make voting more convenient and attractive for the whole population. Therefore, we intend not only to improve piloting, but carefully to monitor and evaluate that process in conjunction with the Electoral Commission. I hope that the House will continue to scrutinise the issue and will welcome our initiatives.
Mr. Hall: In the few seconds that remain, will my hon. Friend briefly outline the programme that the Government may follow with regard to examining the September report of the evaluation of the elections in June?
Mr. Leslie: There is specific provision in the Bill to make the evaluation and for the Electoral Commission to undertake that independently. We will carefully consider that. We want to extend new forms of voting, but it is important to evaluate each pilot step by step to learn lessons, and I commend that approach to the House.

Feudal Land Law
11 am
Paul Flynn: On new year's day, 40 families in the beautiful village of Peterstone Wentloog, formally known as Llanbedr Gwynllwg, in the rural part of the city of Newport, received a bombshell in the post in the form of a letter demanding 9 per cent. of the value of their homes in return for permission to have vehicular access to those homes—access that they have enjoyed all their lives. The letter also demanded that they pay the legal fees of the person—Mr. Mark Roberts of Friar's Point, Barry island—who claims ownership of the land, in particular the common land, that is near their homes. It threatened litigation if they did not speedily accede to that extortion.
Many of the residents are elderly. Some inherited their homes. They are almost all of modest means and it would be impossible for the great majority of them to pay the sum demanded of between £19,000 and £45,000. Understandably, the letter caused great distress, anger, fear and resentment. The residents sought legal advice immediately, but the news was, for some of them, very depressing. As this area of law is little understood, much of the legal advice was that they would be wise to settle with Mr. Roberts and pay those amounts. The alternative was to go to law. That could cost between £40,000 and £50,000, and they would still have to pay the money demanded.
In addition to the threats in the letter, a caution was placed, through the Land Registry, on land near the residents' homes. That made their homes unsellable because if people sought to buy them, they would discover the caution and, understandably, would not want to face the possibility of bills of between £20,000 and £100,000 on the purchase of properties that are, in some cases, worth less than that.
That extraordinary situation is not unique and has been raised in the House of Commons before. It relates to a part of the law that has been exploited by two people, Mr. Michael Farrow and Mr. Mark Roberts, in other parts of the country. I am grateful for the help that I have received from other hon. Members who have experienced similar problems in their constituencies as far back as 1999. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Farrow have deployed the scam in places such as Newtown, near Newbury, where a campaign has been going on for five years, in Alstonefield in the Peak district, in Chalfont St. Giles and in Holmbury St. Mary near Guildford.
The claim to ownership of the land known as Broadstreet common in Peterstone Wentloog is based on the manor of Romney title, which Mr. Mark Roberts purchased at an auction. As a result, he claims ownership of common land. Many of us probably believe that no one owns common land but, sadly, at least half the commons in the country have owners and it is possible that they could make claims.
The legal position is a morass. It goes back to changes in the Law of Property Act 1925. Rules were changed that were beneficial to home owners, allowing them to gain access to their homes, particularly if they had been using that access for 20 years. To simplify a highly complex situation, let me explain that, sadly, a decision taken in a notorious court case in 1993—Hanning v.

203WH
Top Deck Travel Group—allows the loophole to be exploited. That is now the settled law. The decision that has been exploited was taken on the basis that no one should be granted a right of access for vehicles under the 20-year rule, because crossing the land in a vehicle was a criminal offence.
That has a perverse effect as far as my constituents and those of several other hon. Members are concerned. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) for their help with the debate. They have all been affected by similar scams.
One of the groups—the Newtown Common action group—has conducted a vigorous campaign during the past four years. I pay tribute to it because it is made up of people of modest means who have had to spend more than £100,000, which they raised in whist drives and other fundraising events, to take their appeal against the judgment in the case of Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group through the courts. The case has reached the House of Lords, where the Law Lords will make their decision on 25 and 26 February. The group's fight is about the right to use access ways across common land that have been established for 20 years or longer. If the decision goes the right way, there is hope that there will be some relief for my constituents.
The Peterstone Wentloog village group has formed a resourceful and energetic action team. I attended a meeting a fortnight ago, at which there was great gloom and despair because it had just received the threat. The mood was low. Another depressing factor was that at least two families who live nearby had already acceded to the demands of Mr. Mark Roberts. Deciding to cut their losses, they paid the amount involved. I cannot give details because the court placed a gagging order to prevent them from discussing it. However, the villagers are aware of those payments, which have added to the pressure on them.
There was more optimism at a meeting on Sunday because several beneficial things had happened. One problem was the difference in the laws in England and Wales, but that was solved thanks to the swift work of my colleague Mrs. Rosemary Butler, the Assembly Member for Newport West. She has persuaded Carwyn Jones, the relevant Minister in the Welsh Assembly, to introduce secondary legislation this week. It will be retrospective and mean that an outrageous claim for 9 per cent. can no longer be made. The maximum will be 2 per cent., which is still an unfair amount when people are effectively paying for nothing, but at least the sums that are demanded are being reduced. There has also been further action from Newport city council, which has sent a letter to Mr. Mark Roberts to demand that he provides more evidence of his claim to ownership of the land.
We are going over ground that was covered some years ago by the village group in Alstonefield. One of the leading campaigners, Sue Fowler, is contemptuous of Mark Roberts' claims. She reports that he did not produce any convincing evidence when he was challenged in court to prove ownership of the land. It was all very nebulous: he reproduced ancient statutes, but nothing to convince people that he was entitled to
204WH
the ownership of the land involved. Sue Fowler also reports that the whole legal area is greatly uncertain. It consists of what remains of a feudal system that is little understood by many lawyers, civil servants, land registry officials or government bodies. Consequently, people are left wide open to abuses by unscrupulous people, such as the two I mentioned.
Sue Fowler also said that historians and other scholars had advised her that the titles, which are often up for auction and bought for vanity, are empty and have no powers attached to them. It is likely that the claims made by Mr. Mark Roberts are baseless, but even if it is discovered that there is no substance to his claims, my constituents and people in other villages will have been subjected to enormous distress and expense in defending their case.
The laws relating to manorial laws were laid down by common law rather than statute, which is reminiscent of many cases we hear about. There was a famous story of a student at Oxford turning up at an examination and producing an ancient statute that said he had the right to have a pot of ale during his examination. The university authorities provided him with a pot of ale but fined him a large sum for not wearing a sword.
There are things with which the lord of the manor in this case has not complied. I am informed that for a manor court to exist it must have a lord and suitors and established customs. To claim a manorial lordship the lord must hold a court of recognition at which his free and unfree tenants "do suit". In other words, they must acknowledge his or her lordship. The lordship must hold a court in the manor at least once a year to which all suitors over whom he claims jurisdiction have been summoned. Without that annual event the lordship ceases to be. That is further convincing evidence that the claims of Mr. Mark Roberts about his lordships are empty.
The victims of this scam have run their campaigns at their own expense. They have borne an enormous burden financially as well emotionally. They do not fight just for themselves. Contrary to popular belief, many commons and common land in Britain are in private ownership. The scam could multiply throughout the land and affect many millions of people. If land ownership is established by someone buying a title, they could make similar demands for wayleaves, public utilities, electricity lines, power cables and sewers that run through the land. There will be enormous repercussions if those two men get away with it.
I am grateful for the attention that the Minister has given the matter. Does he know of any national funding that could be made available to help those groups, which are fighting a national cause? I have been in correspondence with Baroness Scotland who has kindly kept me up to date on the effect of other proposals to reform land law. I understand that no final decisions have been taken. In the light of what has happened in Peterstone Wentloog and other villages, a review of manorial land law should be a priority above all others in that reform. I understand that the consideration of what the review should include has been going on for some years now. Will the Minister energetically back manorial reform in the package?
I should also like an overdue change in the law that would exempt homeowners and tenants from easements. There might be a case in some circumstances

205WH
for charging for easements in areas where the landowners are conscientiously caring for it and keeping it in good order. That is not the case with the case that concerns me. The two individuals involved have no interest in maintaining the common land and live many miles from it. What about ending the sales of titles? Many of those sales are entirely fraudulent and the one highlighted on the internet site showed that half the manorial rights that were being sold were entirely fictitious and had no basis in history.
I informed the solicitors who produced this atrocious letter that I would name them today if they still had Mr. Mark Roberts as a client. Yesterday they told me that they had had a meeting with the solicitor and his partners and decided that they would continue to serve Mr. Roberts in his campaign of extortion. Their clients, and potential clients, should note their names if they are considering doing business with them and decide for themselves how scrupulous they might be in serving their clients. Their names are: Donald Gray, Bethan Darwin, Jason Smith and Rhodri Lewis. What they are doing may be legal, but such extortion is unethical, unprincipled, cruel and immoral. Mark Roberts and Michael Farrow are parasites feeding off others; the solicitors who feed off them are the parasites' parasites.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing the debate and bringing to the attention of the House the need for reform of the remnants of feudal and manorial law, which in some parts of the country are causing serious problems in people's everyday lives. He made his case thoroughly and powerfully.
The Government have introduced specific reforms that should address the worst of the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend, but fundamental reform of this difficult and complex area of law may be needed. That would be a significant undertaking requiring considerable expertise.
My hon. Friend made his case by highlighting the sufferings of his constituents in Peterstone Wentloog, where properties adjoin the Broadstreet common. They have endured a campaign by the said Mark Roberts, the so-called Lord Marcher of Trellech, who, effectively, has forced them to buy the rights of their vehicle access to their own homes, asking prices that are more than 400 per cent. greater than will prevail when section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduces a statutory right to a vehicular right of way. That is already in force in England, and it will come into effect in Wales later this year.
We have heard about the campaign that is affecting these good people, many of whom are elderly, and about the hardship, stress and pain that they have suffered. This matter involves more than just the vanity of the Lord Marcher of Trellech; to some extent, it is a means of exploiting the lacunae in the law. In Wales, the law relating to common land is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, which is therefore responsible for the implementation in Wales of section 68 of the 2000
206WH
Act. Like my hon. Friend, I was delighted to learn yesterday that Carwyn Jones, the Assembly Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside, has decided to use the executive procedure to implement section 68 later this month, rather than waiting until the present consultation exercise is complete. I hope that that will do a great deal to bring immediate relief to the home owners of Peterstone Wentloog.
However, rights of vehicular access over common land are not the only remnant of feudal and manorial land law that might cause problems to ordinary people. My hon. Friend referred to the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Land Registry in their report "Land Registration for the 21st century: A Conveyancing Revolution", published in 2001. They recommended that there should be a clear and comprehensive legal framework to govern both the holding of the land by the Crown and the royal duchies, and the circumstances in which ownerless land passes to them. They also commented that they could not immediately see any good reason for the retention of the remnants of feudalism in land law in England and Wales.
At much the same time, problems similar to those at Peterstone Wentloog, involving the same Mark Roberts, were occurring at Alstonefield in Staffordshire, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). Concern about those problems highlighted the need for consideration to be given to the reform of the remnants of the manorial system. Since then, as I have mentioned, section 68 of the 2000 Act has come into force in England and we can look forward to it doing so in Wales.
In addition, we have brought the Land Registration Act 2002 into force, which has made significant changes to the law relating to manors. Most importantly, manorial land will now have to be registered in the same way as any other land when it changes hands and, after a 10-year transitional period, manorial rights will have to be registered to bind purchasers of the land that they affect. That should do much to dispel the uncertainty and confusion created by purchasers buying strips of land in such a way and felt by those needing access to that land. However, neither Act modernises the underlying remnants of feudal and manorial law. To test the need for reform, my Department carried out a limited consultation with other interested Government and Crown bodies. It established that there was general support for fundamental reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West has said much about the antiquated nature of the laws in this area, and the legal theory underpinning the ownership of even the smallest piece of land in England and Wales can be traced with relatively few evolutionary steps back to the Norman conquest. If you, Mr. Cook, or I own freehold property, we are tenants in chief of the Crown or one of the royal duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster. We do not own the land; we own an estate in land known to all land law students as a fee simple absolute in possession. I suspect that that legal theory does not bear much relation to everyday life, and it causes few problems in practice.
The same cannot be said of the rules that apply if, following insolvency or intestacy, a freehold estate reverts to the Crown. Therefore, there are benefits from

207WH
that side. That happens about 300 times a year. I will not go into too much detail, but Charles Harpum, the former law commissioner, in something of an understatement, commented:
"The present state of the law can be described rather charitably as nonsensical."
Following discussions with my Department, the Law Commission is considering whether the proposed reviews should form part of its ninth programme of law reform. I have no doubt that it will pay much heed to what Charles Harpum said. The draft programme will be sent to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs for approval later this year. Whether the reviews of the feudal and manorial systems will be included in the programme depends on their relative priority compared with other proposed reforms. The proposals have no special priority in the assessment process; there are always several worthy contenders for each place on the programme. Any further reform that results from the process will, of course, have to comply with the European convention on human rights.
My hon. Friend asked whether funds would be available, and I have to say that no special funds would be. Clearly, in all areas there is a question of priority and my Department would have to balance scarce resources. However, I hope that section 68 and capping the amount involved at 2 per cent. will alleviate many problems. I am also aware of the pending appeal to the Law Lords, which may provide additional comfort to my hon. Friend's constituents, although equally it may not. We must wait for the Law Lords' decision on that case.
In conclusion, I hope that the measures that the Government and the National Assembly have taken will alleviate the problems of the people of Peterstone Wentloog and ensure that such exploitation cannot be repeated. I also hope that a way will be found to replace the remnants of feudal and manorial law with a clear modern code that fits with the current environment. We in the Department for Constitutional Affairs have done much to update arrangements and I am sure that this is also a worthy case.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

Sickness and Disability Benefits
2 pm
Sir Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to spend some time this afternoon discussing some of the implications of the important report produced by Citizens Advice Scotland at the end of last year, entitled "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster". The report reminds us that, although we are always looking to the future and seeking to improve policy—which is right and proper—there are significant lessons to be learned from examining how the existing system works. I hope that we shall be able to get the Minister to listen to some of the real experiences of people that are mentioned in the report. We can learn from the existing system, and we must, if we are to do justice to the needs of our constituents who suffer from sickness and various sorts of mental illness and other disability.
I am sure that I echo the view of all colleagues in saying that we recognise the service that citizens advice bureaux provide nationally, as well as in Scotland. As professional politicians we can never be experts in all things, but the valuable service, volunteers and expertise that are enshrined in the citizens advice network make up an invaluable resource, assisting our deliberations and helping our constituents to get the entitlements that they deserve. I hope that this debate will be taken in that spirit.
Reading the report, I was struck by the extent to which we do not consider disability in a long-term way. I know the particular circumstances of the Government's drive to abolish child poverty by 2020. That is an ambitious plan and it has made the research community and the pressure groups involved think a little bit more about the long term. Perhaps that is a lesson that we can learn from by applying the same long-term thinking to sickness and disability. I hope that the Government will start thinking about that in future.
I have come to the conclusion that the piecemeal review and reform process that we have had until now has left us with a conflicting system that is contributory and means-tested, has an element of medical testing and is increasingly work-related. In relation to sickness benefit, it becomes ineffably complicated—even those of us who study such matters struggle. Perhaps there is a case for asking, if we want to change things in the long term by 2010 or 2020, where we want to be at that stage. That would give us a focus with which the rest of the policy could be configured. Such things take time to change, and if one adopts a piecemeal approach the temptation will be to fix a short-term problem, which means one ends up adding to the complexity. The question is not an easy one, but a longer-term view—a five or 10-year strategy—on sickness and disability is greatly needed.
In the short term, there are things that we can do to fix the existing system, and I want to concentrate on the contribution that the Citizens Advice Scotland report makes in that regard. I acknowledge at the beginning that the Government have done an enormous amount in the field of benefit policy and reform. Work-focused active benefit policies have been successful, but it is fair to say that it is now time to turn to the other half of the promise. Arguably, not nearly so much has been done

209WH
for those who have no realistic prospect of work. We must turn our attention to giving security to those who cannot be expected to work.
Perhaps the Minister can put me right, but I do not believe that the Government have stated recently which cohort of the population they consider to be excluded from work. Which people in today's circumstances does society believe can legitimately be excused from work? There must be some, and we need to be clear about how we serve them, as well as those who compete in an increasingly competitive labour market.
From my constituency experience and from watching carefully the work of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, it is increasingly obvious that the transition phases are often the worst for sickness and disability claimants. The transition from school to work—going from the education system to the benefit system—is not always easy, nor is the transition when a person falls out of work and goes back to benefits. People always find it difficult to deal with transition phases. Finally, the transition into retirement is another vulnerable period in a person's life history, particularly if they are on incapacity benefit. It would be constructive if we were to start concentrating a bit more on how changes take place in transitional phases.
Jobcentre Plus must be monitored very carefully, because whatever successes it may have in its more active focus on work, there are real and exceptional needs for the specialist expertise that is available in its regime, as well as for the package of continuing support that must be offered to disabled and sick claimants. I have always believed that the success or otherwise of the work-focused policy depends on realistic case loads. I sometimes worry and fret when I hear stories about case loads that I consider unrealistic in terms of meaningful delivery of support and back-up, even for able-bodied claimants trying to get back into the labour market. If that is true for such claimants, it is certainly true of people with sickness and disability. New structures by themselves are not the whole answer, particularly when there is still, alas, a highly discriminatory aspect of the labour market that is often a hurdle on which people who are seeking work, and especially those with disabilities, flounder.
If that is all true for people who are sick and disabled, it is certainly true in spades for people with mental illness. I have noticed a dramatic change in my constituency during the past 20 years. I do not know whether diagnoses are cleverer or whether the medical services are better at picking up on mental illness, but it is now a huge issue. If that is true in a constituency such as mine, it must be more so in urban constituencies and centres.
That is some background to issues that Parliament must consider. The report, "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster", was very stimulating. Nothing that I read took me by surprise, but I came to the conclusion that we really need a period of considered reflection on some of the evidence that it presents. It was compiled on the basis of real evidence and was submitted by Citizens Advice Scotland, including the excellent CAB in Hawick.
210WH
The report examines the complex statutory regime governing entitlement to social security benefits for sickness and disability. It reports experiences of CAB clients throughout the whole process, not just when claiming benefits but from decision making and medical examination all the way through to the appeals system. It is true and fair to say that the report finds that obstacles are being put in the way of legitimate claimants at every stage in that process.
While the report recognises, as I do, that the Department for Work and Pensions is pursuing several initiatives and that it hopes to improve the way in which medical benefits are assessed and administered in future, it concludes that the present system is not delivering what the Government have promised, and if that is true we must consider the matter further. I hope that the Minister will get a chance to answer some of the points raised in this afternoon's debate.
The report covers a lot of ground, and it would be impossible to do it justice in the course of a 15 or 20-minute opening statement. I shall consider just two aspects for illustration: incapacity benefit and disability benefit. I have some constituency experiences in this regard, and I think they would be valuable to share with colleagues.
On incapacity benefit, the report rightly highlights the question of permitted work. The changes to the new permitted work rules came up in evidence to the Select Committee when the Secretary of State was in front of us, and it was my hon. Friend—I call her that in the context of our Select Committee work—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) who acutely raised the important question of the different phases of the 26-week rule for permitted work. The new rules disregard income for those in permitted work, working fewer than 16 hours a week on average, with earnings of no more than £67.50—but that lasts for only 26 weeks. That period can be extended for a further 26 weeks if a person is working with a personal adviser or a job broker, and if that adviser agrees that another 26 weeks will help them move towards work of 16 hours or more, but after that time the disregard falls to £20. As the hon. Lady acutely pointed out to the Secretary of State, there is a real danger of ping-pong as people float between the two rates.
In April this year, I understand that the system will have been in operation for two years. It would be interesting to have figures on the permitted work regime—what proportion of people are on the higher rate and what proportion are on the lower: how many have had that 26-week period extended, and indeed how many go on to raise their hours beyond 16. The Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Lady that he was trying to increase the then therapeutic earnings from a 1 or 2 per cent. base to a 2 to 4 per cent. base, and it would be interesting to know whether that has been achieved. I would not expect the Minister necessarily to have that information off the top of her head, but it would be helpful if she could write me a note on the matter if the figures are available.
The CAS report raised the fact that, while incapacity benefit may not be affected by the permitted work income, that is not the case with housing benefit and council tax benefit. They do not disregard these earnings, which means that a lot of people do not really

211WH
gain financially from their permitted work. This is a shame, as the permitted work mechanism has a lot of potential and could be expanded. It may just be that the Government plan to run the current rules for a couple of years, see how it goes and then look at the possibility of expansion, and I hope that they will be encouraged to do that, but it would assist the rest of us in making sense of how effective the scheme is if the figures were available.
It will come as no surprise to any of us that passported benefits are raised in the report—I am sure that the issue comes up regularly in all our surgery casework. The report clearly shows a number of continuing problems relating to incapacity benefit. The most obvious one is that because the benefit is contributory, those in receipt of it do not automatically qualify for passported benefits—although they can if they are getting another means-tested benefit such as income support. Assistance in the form of free prescriptions is also sometimes available to incapacity benefit claimants through the lower income scheme.
One case that sticks in my mind is that of the incapacity benefit claimant whose payment was uprated by £2.50, but the amount relating to income support was uprated by only £1.20. The differential method of uprating income-related benefits and contributory benefits meant that he was no longer able to get passported benefits. That can involve a dramatic increase in weekly costs.
Another case clearly demonstrates the point in another way. A person who spends £20 a week on prescriptions had his application refused on the grounds that his income exceeded his requirements by just 15p a week. His income was £74.60 and his assessed requirement was £74.45. That is a high tightrope to fall off when £20 a week is being spent on essential medicines.
The report suggests creating some sort of buffer zone. I know that it is not easy. It would complicate the system, and I have already said that it is about time we simplified the system. I understand that such situations are complex and difficult, but the cases that are highlighted starkly and clearly in the report are unfair and should be considered.
The review process for incapacity benefit needs to be reconsidered. There are exceptions to the rule that incapacity benefit awards must be reviewed every three or five years. People entitled to the high-rate care component are an example. The report also found examples of people entitled to the high-rate care component within disability living allowance who continued to receive review questionnaires. The Government should consider that.
In passing, the report also makes the point that claimants waiting for an appeal relating to incapacity benefit face claiming jobseeker's allowance, which they do not like to do, or moving to income support, but suffering a 20 per cent. deduction. I remind hon. Members that the Government claim that the applicable amount for a single person over the age of 25 is £54.65 a week. If 20 per cent. is taken off, we are asking single people over the age of 25 to live on £43.72 a week. That is not fair.
It struck me in reading the report that the standards of decision making for disability living allowance are getting worse—if I read the figures correctly. I went
212WH
back and checked, and according to last year's report on the standards of decision making in 2001—02, 55 per cent. of all decisions taken were correct. In 2000—01, the accuracy level was 61 per cent., so it seems to be slipping, which is a matter for concern. I would expect Ministers to be asking some pretty pertinent questions about the systems if they have been presented with those figures. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that.
About 20,000 appeals are lodged each quarter. The figures for the second quarter of 2003 for disability living allowance and attendance allowance appeals show that in 62 per cent. of oral hearings the applicant was successful. That almost makes appeals relating to DLA and AA the most successful of all benefits appeals. The compensation recovery unit comes out top, with a success rate of 84 per cent., but far fewer cases are involved. That raises some real questions.
It was the conclusion of Judge Michael Harris, in his latest president's report on decision making within the Department's agencies, that the decision-making process, and in particular the process of information and evidence gathering that takes place at the first stage and subsequently, when the decision is reviewed following the appeal, ought to be more rigorous. That is true. The evidence in "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster" underscored that for me very graphically indeed.
The example that leaps from the page and demonstrates the truth of the points that have been made is the case of the son suffering from a rare genetic metabolic disease that is new to me, called medium chain acyl-coa dehydrogenase deficiency, or MCAD. The diagnosis was confirmed by the child's GP and a consultant. His care needs were extensive. His claim was turned down, but his brother, who suffers from the same condition, got the award. It seems to me impossible to understand how the system can come up with two such blindingly different decisions. Poor decision making causes financial and emotional distress. I do not see enough evidence that it is being tackled by the Government, though it is a problem that they recognise.
I have raised the periodic inquiry process for DLA in the House before, because I am still concerned that the evidence shows that one in five who have DLA awards are underpaid. Every time I consider the results of the periodic inquiries, I find that that does not change. It is true to say that a small number of cases are overpaid, but it is always the case that significant numbers receive less than they are entitled to. The last time I did the calculation was in 2002. When I added up how much it might amount to if everybody's DLA was reviewed, the net cost of changes in the sample was more than £160,000 a week. That was something like a 3 per cent. sample, and grossing it all up would suggest that one in five DLA recipients are being short-changed throughout the United Kingdom, to the tune of about £5 million a week. That is a concern to myself and to colleagues.
To give a closing example from the report, there is evidence—I have had a recent example of this in my constituency—of people being afraid to challenge a DLA award. If claimants have both elements of a DLA award, both are considered, so someone who wants to challenge a higher-rate mobility and a lower-rate care award risks having both elements reviewed. People are frightened to take the risk, despite the fact that they

213WH
think they have had a bad decision. I know that the situation is not an easy one to deal with, but I think that the Minister should consider it.
Moving away from the report, I was struck by the idea that John Wheatley floated in an article in The Guardian last week or the week before, that citizens advice bureaux might be able to act as electronic intermediaries for clients. The Department is spending a lot of money on getting the ICT system sorted out and it is troublesome because large technology projects are not always easy to implement, but if we could get to a situation where clients, working with dedicated CAB computers, such as in the Hawick office, have a direct link into the official system, and there is a direct delegated authority available to the Department from the client, the John Wheatley case is that, in those restricted, carefully controlled circumstances, CAB advisers could deal with complicated sickness and disability cases. There is a case for considering that as a way of short-circuiting the process and making it more transparent, providing a better service for the clients. All sorts of complications might make that difficult to do, but it is something that the Department should consider.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to spend a little time recognising the work done on the report and that CABs do generally. We should consider some of the benefits strategically and in the longer term. If it were left to me, I would take five or 10 years and ruthlessly simplify the whole thing. I would work with the research community and pressure groups and say to them that over that period we must make the system more understandable. It is too complicated even for me, and I am supposed to be a specialist. If it is too complicated for me, it is too complicated to be relied on to serve our constituents well.
2.24 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) for securing the debate. I commend much of what he said—I hope that this does not sound too much like a Select Committee love-in, with cross-party agreement on the various things done—but, rather than repeating it, I start by paying tribute to the work of the Minister, who has always listened to the points that we have repeatedly made with regard to sickness and disability benefits.
The Minister understands the subject extremely well, and I think she is more aware than anyone of the difficulty of bringing about changes to those benefits. That is partly due to their complicated nature, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned: if we start changing one aspect of one benefit, that can have repercussions that not everyone appreciates, so it is very difficult to model or plan the exact impact on the other benefits.
Although I had not intended to say this when I came to the debate, I am tempted by what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps we should be looking to the future, and some strategic plan for how we can involve the disabled community and society in general in a debate on where we want to be by perhaps 2015 or 2020 with
214WH
regard to disability benefits, simply because the system is extremely complicated. We would hope that there is a means of simplifying it.
That must be a long-term aim, and we must engage with those who will be affected, because whenever any reform is suggested with regard to disability benefits there is a fear, first, that the Government are bent on saving money and, secondly, that in any reform there are often winners as well as losers. We must guard against that.
The discussion must be held more widely than within the confines of this place so as to look ahead and get some strategic views on how we can deal with this issue. Now is probably the time to start that, thanks to a lot of the work that the Government have already done, particularly in changing the attitude that once someone is on an incapacity or disability benefit, that is it— are essentially written off by society, and we no longer need to engage with them because they are getting their benefit, they do not need to bother anyone any more and they certainly should not be looking for work.
It has been interesting watching how the change has come about in my own constituency and elsewhere in Aberdeen. When it was proposed that the Government would perhaps like to get more people with disabilities into work, there was a lot of suspicion and anxiety as well as the fear that people would be forced into finding work. Now, a few years down the line, I have organisations coming to me seeking advice on how they can engage in the process and how they can get their client group into work and make them more work-ready. Voluntary sector organisations, which know that groups of people are sitting on incapacity benefit, are seeking advice on how they can get that group of people engaged.
I must also pay tribute to the work done locally by Jobcentre Plus, which has been very good at engaging with voluntary sector organisations and others in Aberdeen and has, in some cases, used them as subcontractors, which leaves the specialists to help people with disabilities into work. There is an enthusiasm that was not there five years ago, when there was fear and anxiety. Perhaps that is a lesson. We must ensure that if any changes are proposed to disability and incapacity benefits, they happen with the participation and consent of those who will be most affected.
I want to throw out for discussion a subject that I have pontificated on quite often—although I have not done the statistical and modelling work—and which is certainly something we have discussed in the Select Committee, and that is why incapacity benefit should exist at all. Why should there not be just one out-of-work benefit for everyone? Why should we let the benefits that deal with people's incapacity or disability involve differentiation between someone who is out of work because of disability and someone who is out of work because of unemployment?
I think that, sometimes, that is a false distinction, and the creation of one benefit would do away with the stigma of being on incapacity benefit or having to make the case that a person is unfit for work. The problem with incapacity benefit is that those who qualify have to make the case that they are unfit for work, when we want people to be judged on what they can do, rather than on what they cannot do. In spite of the introduction of the

215WH
personal capability test, the thinking is still that someone has to prove how bad they are, so that they can get their incapacity benefit, rather than worrying about getting the right level of benefit or the appropriate work for them. It is worth looking into that.
Most of the other points that I would like to make I have already mentioned to the Minister. One is about disability living allowance and its associated problems. I have no argument with disability living allowance being a difficult benefit to get—it should be, because we want to ensure that the people who get it are genuine cases and that it goes to the right people. It is also a passport benefit that leads to many other benefits, so, if someone is judged to require the higher rate for care or mobility with regard to disability living allowance, the door is open for a lot of other benefits.
The criteria are very strict, which is absolutely right, but we should ensure not only that they are strict, but that they do not act as a barrier to the genuine claimant. This is a difficult assessment for the doctors to make, and very difficult for those making the judgement according to a filled-in form. The fraudster with an invisible disability can lie through their teeth—that their back is so sore that they cannot get out of bed in the morning—and what they say might be difficult to disprove, whereas, very often, the genuine claimant goes out of their way to show how much they can do.
I give as an example the lady who, when the doctor from medical services arrives, puts on a spread like your granny would put on, with all the scones and the tea, and the doilies and everything. The fact that she has done all that makes the medical examiner think that this woman can certainly look after herself, but he might not realise that it may have taken her three days to put the spread together and it will take her another four to recover.
I appreciate that there are difficulties, but one of the problems, which has been identified from a particular individual's case, is that sometimes the assessment is too mechanistic—there is too much box ticking to deal with whether something can or cannot be done. The example I am thinking of came out of a periodic review; I will come back to problems with those.
My constituent is partly blind and partly deaf, and has a bad back, but, because in the periodic review he did not hit the percentages needed to qualify automatically for his former level of DLA—regarding blindness or deafness or because of his bad back—his DLA was reduced. Anyone who knows this particular individual, and I know him very well, knows that, all those things considered, he is very disabled.
On my reckoning, my constituent should qualify for the higher rates of DLA, both in mobility and in care. He recovered some DLA on appeal, but there was a problem in the mechanistic way that the medical examiner considered his disability. Sometimes, a combination of different disabilities in the same person might make them extremely disabled because of the interplay of those disabilities and illnesses—it is not a case of 30 per cent. blindness and 30 per cent. deafness making someone 60 per cent. disabled.
I said I would come back to the issue of the periodic review. The same constituent and a number of others have found the same problem: if they go through a periodic review where the mobility element of DLA is reduced, they lose access to their Motability car. The
216WH
problem is that if they get their mobility element reinstated on appeal, it is too late because in the intervening two or three months they have lost their Motability car and have been unable to get around.
Moreover, my constituent was considerably out of pocket, because he could not access a new Motability car that he had already ordered and paid a deposit for. Perhaps it would be worth awaiting the outcome of the appeal before removing the mobility element, particularly when a Motability car is involved and the loss of the benefit cannot be backdated. The use of a car that someone has not had for the previous three months cannot be backdated, so, where possible, the final decision should not be taken until the appeal has been heard.
If my constituent had been aware, in the periodic review, that he needed to get supporting evidence at the time of the initial contact with the medical examiner, as he did for his appeal, he might have been able to hand it over then. He did that subsequently—after he had lost his benefit—which is probably why his appeal was successful. Therefore, there should be a warning mechanism to let people know that, when they face a periodic review, it is better if they have all the evidence available for the medical examiner.
I also want to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said about it being time to look again at the permitted work rules. I have used the words "hon. Friend" too—is there a Select Committee love-in going on? Those rules have certainly encouraged a number of people to go back to work, but I know of someone who is ping-ponging backwards and forwards. That person has had a year on permitted work but is now going back to the lower rate of £20 a week—the old therapeutic earnings—and in a year's time may be able to do permitted work again.
There is a group of people—I have spoken to the Minister about this before—for whom the 16 hours will never be possible, and seven or eight are all they can manage. The permitted work rules allow them to do that. Would it be possible for them to stay on permitted work a little longer or could they move on to something else that reflects the permanent nature of the disability? I appreciate, as the Minister pointed out, that people cannot stay on benefit for ever and keep earning money on top of that for ever, but there may be some leeway in the permitted work rules to take account of that example.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put this case, which I have spoken and written to the Minister about, on the record. I hope that, in years to come, we will be back here discussing the new strategic design for incapacity and invalidity benefits.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): I should perhaps remind the Chamber that it is customary to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the termination of proceedings—in other words, in 22 minutes.
2.39 pm
Annabelle Ewing: I assure you, Mr.Cook, that I shall not take up the remaining 22 minutes.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on securing this important debate. Having heard the two contributions

217WH
that have been made so far, I hope that I do not unduly upset the Select Committee love-in, but I have a few strident things to say. I see that the Minister is not the slightest bit surprised to hear that.
The issue of sickness and disability benefits is of importance throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, I believe that in Scotland, some 13 per cent. of the population receive a sickness or disability benefit. The key question today is whether unnecessary and/or disproportionate difficulties are encountered in claiming the benefits. To put it another way, the question is about how effective the social security system is in supporting those who are sick or disabled.
In my experience to date as an MP, which is not quite as long as that of the other hon. Members who have spoken, and in seeing constituents who have had problems vis-à-vis the social security system, I have found that the system is not particularly effective in providing the necessary support. Constituents to whom I have spoken perceive the process as unduly complex and full of unnecessary uncertainty.
Many share that perception, which echoes concerns raised by the Citizens Advice Scotland report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I should like to associate myself with his comments on the report, which is excellent. Indeed, I appreciate the invaluable work done in Scotland and elsewhere by citizens advice bureaux. I imagine that an invaluable service has been provided to the Department for Work and Pensions, as many people are being referred to the helpful staff working at the bureaux.
The report noted the uncertainty facing claimants and potential claimants as a result of the ongoing assessment of entitlement. No one is suggesting that there should never be a review, but many people consider the frequency of reviews intrusive in some cases. The fear is that they are simply designed to take away benefits. I recall cases in which a review has resulted in benefits being reduced or taken away despite the fact that the claimant's circumstances have apparently not changed one iota. That must be looked at very carefully. It is a pity that discretion has not been reintroduced to the benefits system, as it would benefit from such an approach.
The decision-making system was another key area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He mentioned statistics for the last quarter of 2003, and I received another set of statistics for the year 2002–03 on 27 January in response to a written question. It appears that, in the year to November 2003, about 53 per cent. of disability living allowance appeals were successful and 48 per cent. of appeals about personal capability assessment under incapacity benefit were successful.
From my previous life as a lawyer, I find those figures alarming, because they suggest that there are serious flaws in the accuracy of the initial decision making. I wonder why that is the case. The matter must be considered because, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, those appeal rates, excepting a few other specifics, far outweigh the success rates for any other benefit. There must be something that can be done to improve the initial decisions.
218WH
Reference has already been made to the quality of medical reports. The Citizens Advice Scotland report says that underestimation of disability is the problem, and that is a serious matter. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) rightly said that there might have been a failure to consider the situation of individuals in the round rather than with regard to the ticking of boxes. It has certainly been my constituents' experience with the DLA that the approach is to tick a box, and that if they fall outside the categories or do not have enough ticks, that is it. That is a peculiar way of assessing whether someone is capable of doing various tasks.
I hope that we shall find out more from the Minister about why so many appeals are successful in comparison with appeals on other benefits. I also hope that she will comment on the quality of initial decision making and on the medical assessments, which frequently differ from those of the GP. I have always found it curious when someone has been a patient with the same GP for many years, but that GP's knowledge of the patient seems to be completely at odds with the view of the official medical investigator.
The quality of decision making is central. If people are knocked back when applying for the DLA, they may be deterred from pursuing their claim further. If the appeals success rate is 53 per cent., however, such people will be well advised to continue the process, as I always tell my constituents. However, many people are put off, and that should worry the Department. I wonder what estimate the Government have made of the current level of disability benefits that remain unclaimed. I fear that the number is unduly high.
I want to end on a slightly optimistic note, which may surprise the Minister, by welcoming the good news that the over-complex and long forms are to be simplified. I believe that there is currently a pilot project. Such a project could have been introduced sooner, but I welcome it now and I hope that it will be assessed and implemented throughout the UK as quickly as possible. I hope that simplification will mean simplification and that we will not see yet another example of the Government's increasingly flexible use of the English language in the benefits system. I welcome the attempts to simplify the form, but I caution the Minister that the other problems that have been identified must be addressed, as simplification of the form will not by itself solve the problem of the difficulties that people perceive when trying to claim sickness or disability benefits.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): For the benefit of the House, it might be advisable to remember that it is customary for those making winding-up speeches to take no more than one third of the time remaining in the debate, although they may take less if they want to do so.
2.48 pm
Paul Holmes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on securing this debate. He speaks with great knowledge as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and with his long experience in Parliament, working on behalf of his constituents.

219WH
I associate myself with many of my hon. Friend's comments, including those in support of some of the Government's improvements to benefits provision, which is certainly much better than it was before 1997. I also associate myself with his praise for the excellent report from Citizens Advice Scotland. The report and its contents apply not just to Scotland, but are widely echoed in England and in the report from the excellent citizens advice bureau in Chesterfield. I know from my work as a local councillor for more than 12 years and now as a Member of Parliament, as well as from my dealings with, for example, the unemployed workers' centre in Chesterfield, that the sort of issues, difficulties and problem that the CAS report picked up on are certainly reflected throughout Chesterfield.
The report highlights several different issues, which hon. Members have mentioned. I will not repeat what they said, but I will highlight one or two of the things it covers, including the sheer complexity of the system, the multitude of benefits and the different ways of gaining access to them. As Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend is a specialist and probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the country on how the labour system works, but even he has trouble understanding it. People have brought me forms in my role as party spokesman on the subject or as a constituency MP, but I have had trouble understanding them because of the complexity of the system. I am a graduate—I also have a post-graduate certificate—and I find the forms very complex.
The system is so complicated that there is an industry to help people to unravel it. I mentioned the citizens advice bureaux and in many areas there are excellent unemployed workers' centres, which pick up much of the work. In Chesterfield, Derbyshire, there are county and borough council advisers who try to plug the gaps in the system and help to guide people through it. In addition, many people go to their councillors and their MPs' surgeries for help. An industry is devoted desperately to trying to clarify the complex system for individuals who are caught up in it.
Some Government policies make the system more complicated. The means-testing of different types of benefit is increasingly complex, which makes the entire system more difficult to use. The time available for people who work in the system is reduced by the introduction of blanket work-focused interviewing for various things, in particular for IB recipients, which adds to the strains on the system.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) referred to the fear engendered in many people when they receive a summons to attend a compulsory work-focused interview. Many disabled people worry that it will lead to the removal of their benefit, often after many months or years spent establishing their right to it. Many cases in Chesterfield reflect the experience of those in Aberdeen.
The hon. Lady gave examples of how many disability organisations are trying to overcome that fear by working more positively with the system. That has been my experience when I have talked to organisations throughout the country. However, individuals who receive a summons to attend an interview are still fearful; they often feel that the interview is too brief and that they are dealt with rather brusquely.
220WH
I echo the hon. Lady's comment that in assessing disabled people, we need to shift the system from focusing on asking disabled people to prove what they are incapable of doing to emphasising what they are capable of doing. For a long time, my party's policy has been to have a partial incapacity benefit rather than an all-or-nothing system. People would be able to do some work rather than having to prove either that they are totally unfit for work or that they are capable of doing full-time work. Progress is needed on that.
The role of the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions is crucial. For most people they are the front line—their first contact with the benefits system. The report from Citizens Advice Scotland gives some examples. It tells of a local DWP office in Scotland which stated that it was not the responsibility of front-desk staff to advise people on their entitlement. Even though that is the first port of call for almost everyone, they are being told by the local office, "That's not our job. Find out for yourself."
The report also mentions 22 per cent. of DLA and attendance allowance cases that were overturned on appeal. The president of the appeal system said that the the initial decision maker was unwilling to accept evidence that was available at the start of the process. The tribunal, however, did accept that evidence and overturned the decision.
Clearly, there are problems in the service as delivered through DWP staff, but that is not to blame those workers. The Public and Commercial Services union released a survey in May 2003 which reported that 72 per cent. of its staff working in DWP offices had thought of resigning because they were overworked and lacked staff. Low pay is a big issue among those Government staff. People who work in Jobcentre Plus offices have told me that, as the system is rolled out across the country, their work loads are increasing dramatically compared with work under the initial Jobcentre Plus pilots. The sheer quantity of casework that individuals are supposed to deal with has been mentioned. Talking to Jobcentre Plus staff in Sheffield, I was told that the training available has been cut as the work load has increased. However, as the regulations change regularly, the need for constant up-to-date training becomes more, not less, important.
The report also discussed the shift in the regulations from therapeutic work to permitted work, as hon. Members mentioned. I have two examples of that. The first is a public example, because it appeared in the local press in the west country. Carole Lilly, who lives in the Truro constituency, is 47 years old and is disabled. In 1999, her doctor told her to finish work completely because of her disabilities. After a while, she felt that she could not cope with staying at home watching television 24 hours a day and doing nothing with her life. She returned to work for a reduced work load of 10 hours per week. Under the new rules on permitted work, as opposed to therapeutic work, she will have to give up work. She calculates not only that that will have a negative effect on her self-esteem and her life, but that it will cost the Government an extra £3,000 in benefits because she will give up the low amount of work that she can do.
Another example is anonymous. It was passed to me only this morning, so I have not had time to check whether to make the name public. It concerns someone

221WH
who wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 January. She is a 28-year-old fully trained nurse who has had to give up work because of arthritis, osteoporosis and reflex sympathetic dystrophy. She did not want to waste her training as a nurse and did not want to spend her life
"sitting in front of daytime television",
as she put it in her letter. Having retrained as a medical secretary, she has gone back to work for six hours a week of voluntary work in her local hospital. She will be forced to give that up under the new rules that relate to permitted work rather than therapeutic work. She says in her letter to the Prime Minister that that will have an intense effect on her depression. Her doctor encouraged her to do some work because of that depression, which she fears will only return.
Miss Begg: It is worth pointing out that no one will be forced to give up work. If someone on the new permitted work rules is not working for 16 hours a week after a year, there is still provision for them to move to the £20 therapeutic earnings. Plenty of people—my cousin is one—work three days a week and still earn only £20 because they are on therapeutic earnings and have not shifted to permitted work. I accept, however, that the situation is not ideal and I want the Minister to consider the system. I hope that people are not saying, "I have to give up work." They are not allowed to earn as much as they did the previous year, but they still have their benefits and the extra £20.
Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Lady for that explanation. In the first case I mentioned, the person works for 10 hours, but fears that she will have to give up that work. She gives the example of a colleague in the same situation who has already given up work. Whether, after going into the details of the system, she will have to give up work is another matter. The second instance—as I said, I received it only this morning and have not had time to reply to it—may fall into the category that the hon. Lady describes.
The system is complex. Many people's initial response to the complex regulations that they get through the post, and the instructions on how they reply to them, is often one of fear. The system must be simpler and better explained, and there should be more up-front support and advice from the Department for Work and Pensions. What we have is a network of other people, such as the CAB, unemployed workers' centres and MPs' surgeries, having to piece everything together.
On the issue of appeals, the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) picked up on the alarmingly high rate of successful appeals in some categories. I asked parliamentary questions on 9 June 2003, which I updated on 13 January 2004, on the number of successful appeals by the PCS. The rate of successful appeals is climbing markedly. In 1998, the successful rate of appeals was 41 per cent., which rose to 45 per cent. in 2002. In response to my January question, the most up-to-date figures, up to November 2003, showed that the rate had risen to 48 per cent. A Public Accounts Committee report on the subject found that there is clearly something wrong with any system that has a successful appeal rate of more than 40 per cent. Given
222WH
that successful PCS appeals have risen from 41 per cent. to 48 per cent. in five years, there must be something wrong with the system.
So what is wrong with the system? It is clear from my dealings with constituents and Schlumberger Sema—it has shortened its title to Schlumberger—that there are alarming issues, which at least one hon. Member highlighted. The Scottish report points out that the time allowed for assessments is sometimes too short. People feel that the compulsory assessment by a doctor from Schlumberger is far too short to judge properly their medical capabilities. The report includes the comment from one doctor that the living room was neat and tidy, as if that had any relevance to the case.
Last November, a constituent of mine told me that the Schlumberger doctor commented that the garden was well maintained and that the recipient must be fit and capable because they opened a heavy garage door to park their car. If the doctor had asked about that, the recipient would have told them that the car—an automatic—is always parked on the road and the garage is never used. He would also have been told that the family tend the garden. In response to my intervention in that case, I received a letter apologising for the doctor's behaviour. It is interesting that the Scottish report outlines similar examples.
3.2 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: At the cost of being accused of prolonging a Select Committee love-in, I begin by congratulating, as I always say, my Chairman on the Select Committee, under whom I am happy to serve, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), on instigating this intimate but important debate and on tabling early-day motion 496 on "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster".
The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) was right to draw attention to her experiences at her citizens advice bureau, and I attended a quarterly meeting of my local CAB on Friday. All hon. Members present will know that top of the list of items raised by people going to CABs is the complexity of the benefits system. That was the case in High Wycombe on Friday, and I expect it to be so when I return.
The charity Carers UK claims that between 40 and 60 per cent. of disability-related benefits go unclaimed. That is only one example of the intrinsic difficulties to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred. He perhaps did not have an opportunity to put on record the words of Kaliani Lyle from Citizens Advice Scotland on the report that is the centrepiece of the debate, who said:
"Even civil servants and medical professionals don't always understand the regulations".
As the hon. Gentleman said, we often do not understand the regulations ourselves. Ms Lyle continued:
"The welfare system should work smoothly to give people with sickness and ill-health an opportunity to live their lives with some dignity and security, not condemn them to a roller-coaster experience of labyrinthine regulations, endless reviews and poverty incomes".
She also said that the system
"too often fails those with a disability or illness".

223WH
Those are strong words, but I want to step back from them, be fair to the Government and point to the intrinsic difficulty faced by all Governments, to which the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire both referred.
At the risk of saying something that I might regret later, it occurs to me that there is a peculiar aspect of disability-related benefits that might not apply to all others. If one is a member of an ethnic minority, for example, one is always a member of that minority, whatever choices one may make in life. It is not the same for people with disabilities, as one can move in and out of disability, as I have done myself. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South referred to the interplay of disabilities, which is another complexity. Governments of any party will always have to deal with assessments and appeals and the difficulty with time lags—the hon. Lady referred to that in relation to Motability.
Having bent over backwards to be fair to the Government, I should also say that the system is far too complex and rigid, and it does not seem to be in the process of being made much simpler. The hon. Lady made an interesting suggestion, which she has made in the Select Committee in relation to the Employers Forum report, about having a single work-related benefit and reconsidering incapacity benefit. That is the type of long-term reform to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred in introducing the debate. As the hon. Members for Perth and for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) said, if the number of successful appeals is rising, there must be a flaw in the system somewhere.
In the remaining time, I shall rattle through a series of quick questions to the Minister. I realise that she will not be able to answer them all today, but she may be able to deal with them in writing. Will she make a formal response to the CAS report? Does she have an estimate of the sum of benefit entitlement unclaimed by potential claimants with disabilities?
Representations might have been made to the Minister about extending the winter fuel allowance to those who receive the middle or higher rate of the disability living allowance mobility component. She may, like me, also have had representations about extending the allowance to those who care for children with severe disabilities. Has she made any costing on that, and what is her view of the proposal?
The Minister will also have had representations on incapacity benefit and prescription charges. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also referred to that, so will she comment on whether any estimate has been made of the cost, and her view of the proposal? She will also have had representations about extending disability and attendance allowances to 52 weeks for those who are hospitalised. Has she estimated the cost of that proposal, and what is her view of it?
Representations will also have been made on people who are over 65 with mobility needs, who are inevitably a growing group, and attendance allowance, which does not include a mobility component, and we would all be interested to hear the Minister's views. It was announced that the disability and carers service is to gain formal Executive agency status. Does the Minister have any news on when that is likely to happen and when a chief executive may be appointed?
224WH
I want also to probe the Minister on the Downing street strategy review on disability that I understand is taking place. It has been suggested that the review is largely concerned with incapacity benefit. Any comment that she has on that would be welcome, as would any comment on the extent to which she will examine the issues that we have debated this afternoon, which were encapsulated in the CAS report that has been the centrepiece of our discussion.
3.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I add to the general congratulations that are being aimed at the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). I feel rather alone, although I know that I am not completely alone, in not being on his Committee. He is to be congratulated on securing the debate and on setting out with such clarity his reactions, some of which were quite strategic, to the report and to the questions that he believes arise from it. I intend to do my best to deal with the points that have been made, but there will inevitably not be enough time to deal with all of them. However, I undertake to do what I can to plug any gaps that remain at the end of the debate by writing to hon. Members.
Let me also add my congratulations to citizens advice bureaux in Scotland. I am sure that they are similar to those in England and Wales. I believe that all hon. Members find them a tremendously valuable asset. We all have two or three in our constituency and tend to swap case loads: they send stuff to us and we send stuff to them, and that is of mutual benefit in all kinds of ways. They do a valuable job in my constituency, and I am sure that that is the case elsewhere. I can tell that that is the case in Scotland on the basis of the quality of the report that we have been discussing.
The report raises some serious issues of administration and policy, although some issues that appear to be about administration are actually about policy, but let us not quibble. Let me just say a little about the modernisation programme. The Department for Work and Pensions has undertaken a rather enormous programme of modernisation. When one deals with it on a day-to-basis as I do, it is tempting sometimes to assume that everyone out there knows about it. Alas, people do not follow such things with quite the assiduity with which they follow the activities of their local football club, so it is wrong of me to assume that everyone knows about the programme. The Department is making improvements to its programme for people who claim incapacity and disability benefits. I am grateful for the general acknowledgments in this Chamber that some improvements have been made, although they are always offered with a caveat.
The Department follows some key principles: first, to provide a better service for all its customers, including those who are on sickness and incapacity benefit, whether or not they are trying to get back to work. We talk a great deal about the work focus, but as the hon. Gentleman said, the other half of the equation is about making things better and improving security for those who cannot work. We all accept that work is not a sensible option for many people, so we want a better service for all our customers.

225WH
Better assessment of disability or incapacity for work in order to improve the quality of decision making about benefits, and better work-focused help for those who in the past have been written off but who these days want to get back to work and feel that they have something to offer are also important. In conjunction with the improvements that we are making in civil rights and in tackling discrimination, those people have a right to expect us to be ambitious about their future, just as much as anyone else's.
On the process of claiming incapacity or disability benefit, the hon. Gentleman quoted from the report and referred to obstacles put in the way of legitimate claimants. That is not something that we seek to do. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made the point rather kindly—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) also mentioned this-that there is a legitimate requirement to ensure that those people who are entitled to benefits should receive them, because we spend a great deal of money on them in the average year.
There is no doubt that we have to have proper and rigorous assessment, but it is very difficult to get it right if a benefit involves a medical element. Both disability living allowance and incapacity benefit have an element of medical assessment, although its importance varies from one to the other. There is no perfect way of getting that right, but we know that we have to improve the way in which we deal with it.
I recognise that the need for care and help with mobility can be a very personal matter. The effects of a disability, and how one copes with those effects, can vary tremendously from one person to another, as can the ability to express those needs, particularly in respect of disability living allowance. The benefit is designed to take that into account. Disabled people sometimes find it difficult to express their needs: they make the best of it, when perhaps they should be a bit more honest with the doctors and make it clear how bad things are. It can also sometimes sound—and be—impertinent to ask such personal questions. People get offended by the forms and by feeling that they have to jump through hoops to make their entitlement clear. We are sorry about that, and do our best to minimise it, but inevitably that can be a problem.
The very diversity that the benefits have to cater for has meant that the system has become more complex to administer, and in an attempt to enable people to express the full range of their needs, the claiming process has become unwieldy. Until recently, changes to the claim forms meant that they increased rather than decreased in size. However, we have now acknowledged that it is not possible to devise one claim form that fits everyone, nor is it desirable or sensible as a means of dealing with those issues, because that is not sufficiently sensitive to the individual needs of our customers. Our IT improvements are helping us to address that issue.
Hence, as the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) acknowledged—I am grateful to her for doing so—there has been some improvement in the forms. We have introduced a new single-part attendance allowance claim form, which is 16 pages shorter. It is a single pack instead of a double pack. A new disability living
226WH
allowance claim form, based on a similar model, is currently being tested at the Wembley disability benefits centre, with a view to introducing it at the earliest opportunity, if it proves as effective as the attendance allowance form. The reaction from our customers and their advisers has been generally positive in respect of the attendance allowance claim form, which is encouraging. If the exercise is successful, we will have halved the size of both those forms. That is harder to achieve than one might think, and is certainly a move in the right direction.
The changes focus on devising a more interactive form, designed to discern the needs of the individual by speaking to them. That might not be a revolutionary concept outside Government, but is sometimes hard to do when one is administering a massive system that deals with millions of claims. The idea of talking personally to people is not always as obvious as it might seem to the rest of humanity—but we have made progress. The changes encourage greater interaction and a more personal relationship, which should lead to better understanding between us and our customers and to better decision making.
We are helped in that progress by improvements in our IT, which will assist us in providing a more modern and customer-focused service. I am sure that most of the hon. Members who served on the Select Committee have visited a disability benefits centre. When I, as a Minister, first went to visit one, I was shocked by how old-fashioned the administration was. Our decision makers were still using paper and pen—I nearly said quill and ink—to set out their decisions. We were therefore starting from a difficult base, but we are now seeing some important improvements, because of the kit that we have been able to put on people's desks. There is more to do, but we are moving in the right direction.
The Government set stringent medical targets covering the speed, accuracy and quality of the medical advice that informs decision making on benefit entitlement. We review those targets monthly, and the vast majority are met, although there are always blips. Last October, the National Audit Office acknowledged that good progress had been made and there had been significant improvements in the contracted service. That is not to say that it is perfect, but there have been improvements.
All our medical services doctors receive specific and ongoing training in the specialist field of disability assessment medicine. We are developing a computer-supported system in medical services to try to improve medical assessments, to ensure that they are performed in a fair and consistent manner, and supported with up-to-date, evidence-based medical information.
We should also acknowledge that only a very small proportion of assessments result in a complaint about the doctor. I know that there are people who do not complain when they feel that they would like to. I urge hon. Members to get their constituents to complain if there is a valid reason to do so. We do not defend the actions of doctors who fall short of the high standards expected of them. We heard one or two anecdotal instances from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) about the kind of thing that can happen. We will not tolerate such poor practice. We have peer review, and we have retraining, and if at the end of the day doctors do not come up to our required standard,

227WH
we throw them off our lists and we stop using them. Over the past year we threw 58 doctors off our lists for not achieving high standards. That shows our determination to ensure that we get this right.
Miss Begg: Has the Minister thought about her Department giving any advice to GPs, not those who are working through the medical services? I often find that constituents have been told by their GP that they cannot work any more. What the GP means is that they cannot be forced to work and should qualify for incapacity benefit, but if they are feeling better they should be encouraged to work. There is quite a job to be done at that level with GPs. Attitudes have changed, and someone who is ill today need not be out of work for the rest of their life.
Maria Eagle: That is an important point. GPs may not often want this, but they have a role to play in the original certification for an IB or statutory sick pay claim. They are the clinical adviser of our customers. Of course, our customers take what they have to say very seriously, so we recognise the important role that GPs play in providing advice on fitness for work. We do our best to ensure that GPs understand this. Many of them do not come at this from the point of view of work: they rightly come at it from the point of view of clinical advice to their patients.
The Department's chief medical adviser issues advice to all GPs, which tries to deal with many of these issues. We have a website link that GPs can use. Some interesting work is going on in the pathways pilot areas. We are trying to work much more closely with GPs on what people coming into incapacity benefit might gain from seeking to return to work. My Department and the Department of Health are working closely together on this. It will be interesting to see what impact that has both on the relationships that we manage to have with GPs in the local area and on our customers who often feel that their GP has definitely told them not to touch work with a bargepole. We are doing some work in that area.
I shall try to deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate. I will deal first with permitted work, because almost everyone who spoke had something to say about it. I am particularly interested in this. I get many letters, including some from hon. Members, about permitted work and the change from the therapeutic earnings rules to the permitted work rules and the impact that has had. The hon. Member for Wycombe raised it as one of his specific issues.
The aim of the change was to try to remove the need for our customers to get a doctor to say that it would be therapeutic for them to take advantage of this. That is entirely right. Another aim was to ensure that the rules act as a stepping stone from not working and being on incapacity benefit into work: hence the rules about 26 weeks and another 26 weeks. We have to bear in mind the fact that incapacity benefit is an out-of-work benefit. It is not generally available for those who are in work. We do not want there to be a huge cohort of people claiming incapacity benefit for ever, while working. We need an arrangement to ensure that it does not go on for ever: hence the limit.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, it is almost two years now since the changes came in, and we are evaluating them. I cannot tell the
228WH
Chamber when I shall have the information that emerges from that evaluation, but we are considering carefully how the rules work.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that I might not have to hand the figures for the number of those on higher-level, lower-level and supported permitted work. By some great feat of organisation on the part of my officials, I do have them here. About 1 to 2 per cent. of the IB case load—about the same level as those taking advantage of therapeutic earnings—are on some form of permitted work. The numbers at 15 January were 12,705 on permitted work lower limit, 14,635 on permitted work higher limit and 9,010 on supported permitted work. That is as accurate as I can be. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. We shall keep the figures updated. Because permitted work is seen as a stepping stone back into work, we want to see what happens to those with a deteriorating, chronic condition who are never likely to aspire to go back to 16 hours. We need to find a way to provide support for those people, but I have not found the answer yet, so answers on a postcard, please, if hon. Members have any great ideas.
The other broad theme in the contributions to the debate related to the accuracy of decision making. I acknowledge that there is a high level of successful appeals. I think that the reasons in DLA are slightly different from those in IB personal capability assessments, although, the personal capability assessment being a medical assessment, there is always scope for disagreement. With PCAs it is much more about the evidence that is available at a certain time, and often the appeals are successful because more evidence comes forward.
With DLA, it is not about finding a diagnosis, so that one can then have the benefit, but about the impact that the disability or the illness has on one's ability to look after oneself or get around—care or mobility—and that can vary. The same diagnosis can require radically different levels of support. A person who loses a leg may sit in their chair in the front room for ever, being depressed about it, and never stand up again. The reaction of another person is to get a prosthesis and run a marathon. The second person would not retain their DLA once they started walking well again.
That is a radical example, but similar examples occur in DLA all the time. The benefit is not designed to recognise a medical diagnosis—the disability lobby would lobby us if we said that it was—but is about the impact that a disability has on a person's ability to look after themselves or get around. That must be borne in mind when considering the number of successful appeals for DLA, but I am not trying to hide the fact that there are many successful appeals, and always have been.
The increase in the number of successful DLA claims is still high and is still increasing at about 5 per cent. of spend a year. Indeed, I believe that there has been a 44 per cent. increase in successful claims for DLA in the hon Gentleman's constituency. He is clearly working hard, but there is no evidence that complaints about the obstacles are stopping people making successful claims and getting the benefit, because the levels of benefit are significantly increasing recipients' spend.

229WH
I realise that I am running out of time and I have not dealt with half the questions that were raised. However, I undertake to write to hon. Members to try to answer some of the points that I have been unable to deal with.

Magistrates Courts (Mid-Wales)
3.30 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I am pleased to have a chance to raise with the Minister this afternoon an issue that is causing a great deal of concern in my constituency and in the whole of mid-Wales. It concerns the proposals that have been made by the magistrates courts committee to reduce the access to the criminal justice system of people living in the area. Such has been the concern that people living in the area around Llandrindod Wells—the court in that town is one of those identified for closure—have raised a petition of 3,500 names. That gives some indication of the level of concern. This is not a topic that often raises a tremendous amount of emotion and enthusiasm, but people see what is happening as a real attack on services in rural areas.
Before I go on to the meat of the issue, I must place on record the fact that my wife is a magistrate sitting in the Brecon court, and she sometimes also sits in the Llandrindod Wells and Ystradgynlais courts. It is about the latter two courts that I feel deep concern. People are worried about the proposals and about the process that led to their being made. In particular, they are worried about the magistrates courts committee, how responsive it is and what accountability it has to the people whom it serves. People are also worried about Powys county council, their paying authority, which had the opportunity to object to the proposals, but chose not to do so. In taking that decision, the authority received representations only from the magistrates courts committee, which made the proposals, and it did not have the opportunity to receive representations from other court users, such as members of the legal profession and representatives of Victim Support. In a way, it saw only one side of the argument.
I am also worried about the role of the then Lord Chancellor's Department, which is now the Department for Constitutional Affairs. While the Department claimed that the decision was a local one, it seemed to have a certain central control over the matter—a centralised iron fist within the velvet glove of localism. However, we will come back to those issues later.
I should like to set the matter in the context of the geographic and demographic nature of the area served by the courts. When I brought a delegation to Westminster to meet the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was then a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, she looked at the case sympathetically. She pointed out that she needed an objection from the paying authority—in this case, Powys county council—before she could take any action in the matter.
The hon. Lady was also well apprised of how sparsely populated the area in question is. Some people who live in England may be more familiar with Cumbria as a sparsely populated area, for example, but the county of Powys is three times more sparsely populated. That gives some idea of the rural nature of the area. Without using visual aids, it is very difficult to give an indication of the nature of the area, so I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I try to explain it. If one put a hinge at the bottom of Powys and tipped it towards London,

231WH
it would reach almost to the Greater London area, but the magistrates courts committee's proposal is to serve the area with two magistrates courts. If one were to carry out the same hinging operation on my own constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire, it would reach to Swindon, and the proposal is that there will be only one magistrates court in that area.
The area also has very little public transport. For instance, if the magistrates court in Llandrindod Wells were closed, people would have to travel 25 miles to the court at Newtown, but the only bus service leaves at 7.40 am and does not return until 5 o'clock. That might not be so bad in some ways, but many of the people concerned live six, 10 or 12 miles from Llandrindod Wells, and have to get into Llandrindod in time to catch the bus to Newtown. Those who live in Knighton and Presteigne have no access to either Llandrindod Wells or Newtown, and we already have anecdotal stories of people hitch-hiking to court and of witnesses having to be ferried to court by solicitors. That is not very satisfactory.
Lembit Öpik: Lawyers feel that when they are ferrying defendants around in their cars while having to conduct other business, it compromises their ability to do their job. On occasions when it is not possible for them to do so, individuals such as Robert Hanratty, a local lawyer, have sometimes found that justice has not been served because people have had such trouble getting to court that they have not been able to turn up at all.
Mr. Williams: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are both aware of a case in which a young mother was unable to attend a court a long distance away when the issue at stake was whether the council should take her children into care. The situation raises human rights issues.
Circumstances are the same in Ystradgynlais, where travelling to Brecon over the mountain in winter conditions is sometimes impossible. Ammanford is the next magistrates court in the Dyfed-Powys area. If someone wanted to go to Swansea, they would be looking outside that area. Since the decisions have been taken, new legislation has been enacted, including the Courts Act 2003, one of whose implications is that more emphasis has been placed on the accessibility of courts. Magistrates courts committees are to be abolished under the Act, and a new system is to be put into place.
In making its case, the magistrates courts committee placed great emphasis on the problem of substandard buildings. That is understandable, but my constituents are more concerned about people than buildings. Justice delivered locally is better than justice that is delivered in an accessible building 30 or 40 miles away. Over the weekend, one of my constituents said to me that justice is a right, not a luxury. However, it is becoming something that is available to the rich with access to transport but not to the poor and less well-off in society. Poor people are as often the victims of crime as rich people, although crime against celebrities and the rich is reported in the papers.
Powys is a low-crime area because we have an efficient police service that detects a high number of crimes. Criminals are taken to court, and if they are found
232WH
guilty, they are given an appropriate sentence. The certainty of apprehension, conviction and sentence makes ours a low-crime area, because criminals know that they cannot operate there with impunity. I am sure that the Minister would like to see Powys remain a low-crime area; the people who live there would certainly like it to remain as such, because they value it very much.
The running costs of the courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells are very low. The extra expenditure that would be generated by the extra costs of ferrying witnesses on longer journeys and the extra remuneration from Legal Aid to solicitors because of their longer journeys and the longer time spent on a case would soon do away with any savings on running costs in respect of discontinued buildings.
Ystradgynlais is a deprived community that was based around its mine. When that industry closed, very little employment was available. The area is now pulling itself together, and there is a better environment and sense of community. The Welsh Assembly has identified it as one of the Communities First areas into which it puts regeneration money. Communities First included the 100 most deprived wards in Wales. Doing away with the court in Ystradgynlais will do nothing to enhance the sense of civic pride there. Llandrindod Wells is one of the areas in my constituency that has the highest unemployment, and many of the same arguments apply there.
I return to the process that led to what we believe is rather flawed decision making. The people felt that the magistrates courts committee did not consult them enough. They did not understand what was happening or what the outcome of the consultation process would be. Indeed, a number of threats were made by the magistrates courts committee. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the clerk to the magistrates court:
"The procurement of the two Court Houses for Powys has reached a critical stage. If it is undermined now, then the investment which is planned for Powys will be lost. The support of the Local Authorities has been critical"
for
"the achievement of this investment and any wavering of this support could be fatal to both schemes.
There is a real risk, that not only will the investment in new Courts for Powys be lost, but the current Court Houses will be closed sooner rather than later because they do not meet the standards required of them. Powys could be left with no effective Court … provision at all.
The employment of that sort of bullying tactic by the clerk to the magistrates court has done nothing to prevent a huge wave of opposition building up in the Llandrindod Wells area. None of us wants to see a lack of investment in either Brecon or Newtown. We understand the necessity in that respect, but what we are saying is that justice will not be available to a great many of the people living in Powys unless we have better coverage of magistrates courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells.
I turn now to Powys county council. There was concern when the position was put to it. It heard some threatening talk involving the suggestion that if it objected to the proposals, it could lose all the magistrates courts in Powys. Naturally, some representatives—particularly those representing the Newtown and Brecon areas—felt that they could not object because of the risk of losing their courts as well.

233WH
They were put in an intolerably difficult position. Also, as I said earlier, while representations were made to them by representatives of the magistrates court, they were not able to hear representations by Victim Support, which is such a wonderful organisation in ensuring that victims can get to court and are supported in giving their evidence.
The Government have put accessibility to justice at the centre of their criminal justice system. I do not believe that the closure of the courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells will do anything to further the Government's objectives, which I support. The Minister has already agreed to meet me and I thank him for that; I have no doubt that we will discuss the issues again. The point that the people of Radnorshire and Ystradgynlais are making, however, is that this was a flawed process and it should be rerun. I am sure that he will not be able to respond to that point today, but that is the position that we are coming from, and over the weeks and months to come, we shall return to the subject again.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): For the second time under your chairmanship today, Mr. Cook, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) on securing this important opportunity to express his views on access to magistrates courts in mid-Wales, even though the annunciator screen refers to widows' benefits, which are not quite the subject of this debate.
As the hon. Gentleman said, magistrates courts are managed by local magistrates courts committees, as is set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Many people are unfamiliar with that arrangement, and they sometimes feel that Ministers have a system of dictating what goes on at the local level. At present, there are 42 different magistrates courts committees. The arrangement is likely to change eventually with unified administration, but for the time being, we operate under that system.
Each of the magistrates courts committees is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area. It is for the MCCs to determine how many courthouses, whether they are urban or rural, and what other accommodation might be needed locally. In discharging their statutory responsibility, we expect MCCs to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. The strategic aims of the MCCs, the facilities needed and the results of user surveys are just some of the factors that MCCs take into consideration when undertaking their reviews.
Decisions to close or retain magistrates courts are also the responsibility of MCCs after consultation with the local paying authority—the local council. It is common for MCCs to consult more widely than the local paying authority, as we and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire would expect. Consultees usually include the magistrates, court staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, Members of Parliament and other professional users.
234WH
The Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees has published a good practice guide on courthouse closure. The guide is very comprehensive and includes guidance on the impact of new legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998. It is an invaluable reference document when considering courthouse closure and the hon. Gentleman would find it well worth referring to.
The Dyfed-Powys MCC published the reasons behind the closure of courthouses in its estate strategy document, dated April 2000. It stated that, of the 14 courthouses in Dyfed Powys, 15 per cent. required major refurbishment and the remaining 85 per cent. could not be brought up to standard and had only a short-term life. To address that position, the MCC embarked on a major estate strategy to provide for sustainable and modern courthouse provision with the facilities to meet both current and foreseeable needs.
On 18 February 2003, the Dyfed-Powys MCC made a determination to close four courts in Powys—Ystradgynlais, Llandrindod Wells, Machynlleth and Welshpool. The local paying authority, Dyfed-Powys county council, did not lodge an appeal with my Department against those closures. That is a very important point. The work from Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells will be transferred to a refurbished courthouse in Brecon and the new courthouse in Newtown and the work from Machynlleth and Welshpool will also be transferred to the new courthouse in Newtown.
The decision to close the courts was reached after a period of consultation with both the paying authority and a wide variety of stakeholders, and it went beyond the guidance note issued by the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. The overall consultation period lasted from February to April 2001 and a total of 73 responses were received, which the MCC fully considered. The Dyfed-Powys police, the witness service, which is a voice for Victim Support, and the CPS supported the MCC's proposals, but there is a difference in understanding and I want to get to the bottom of it. I am told that the witness service at least supports the proposals.
The MCC's consultation document was submitted to Powys county council and meetings were held with the individual shire committees in the county council area. Powys county council in particular discussed both the proposed closures and the provision of new courthouses at a full county council meeting in public on 16 January 2003 and, in a vote of the full council, it voted to support both. I have not had a chance to speak to Councillor Jones, the chairman of the council, but it will be interesting to know the rationale for that decision.
If a formal determination is made by an MCC and an appeal is lodged by the local paying authority with the Lord Chancellor within one month of receipt of the notification, I can have a specific role in the matter. My role in magistrates court closures is as an appellant authority in the event of an appeal being lodged. I will consider any appeal with my Department on the merits of the case presented by each party when dialogue has ended between the relevant paying authority and officials. In this case, an appeal has not been lodged, so I have not had an opportunity to decide one way or the other because the court closure is not subject to appeal.

235WH
As the county council did not see fit to appeal, I have no role to play. That is not my choice; it is set out section 56(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
I understand the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the need always to try to improve access to justice and about having a strong sense of local justice. In this country we not only have justice that is administered by our peers but we expect magistrates to have a strong local connection and to live or work in the area in which they serve.
We must be realistic about what we mean by local justice. Clearly, local justice does not mean having a court on every street corner, which would be absurd. We must always balance the different factors affecting access to justice. Geographical access, important as it is, is not the only factor. Other factors such as disabled access to buildings and facilities for victims and witnesses are also important. For example, victims and witnesses may feel intimidated if they do not have separate facilities, wherever they may be. Magistrates courts committees have a difficult job to ensure that they deliver the best combination of services for an entire area, provide value for money and look to some of the other aspects of their schemes.
The term "rural proofing" is used by Government quite a lot these days. It may not mean much to most people outside, but it comes into our decision making at a local level. It means that when a decision comes forward, there is a process by which the effect on a rural area is properly analysed and considered. We have been working with the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees to promote rural issues within the considerations of magistrates courts committees so that that they can focus on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. I feel a little powerless today only in so far as we have not had an appeal, although it allows me to talk a little more about the particular situation.
There is some good news for the people who will need to use court services in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere. The Dyfed-Powys and Gwent magistrates courts committees have worked with the Court Service and local authorities during the past few years and have managed to put together a fairly bold and improving private finance initiative scheme to improve and upgrade much of the court estate in mid-Wales. The proposals are for new courthouses to be provided at Newport, Ebbw Vale, Newtown and Carmarthen, as well as refurbished court facilities at Abergavenny. The magistrates courts committees have had to make a case to the Department and to the paying authorities for the resources for replacement courthouses. They were able to consider many different issues, including work load, travel distances, costs and so on, and consulted widely over a two-year period until 2002, producing a strategy for the provision of more modern courthouses which will go a lot further towards meeting the requirements of legislation and key services.
Lembit Öpik: I am delighted that Newtown will eventually get its court and I am pleased that the Minister is sympathetic to that plan, but he will be aware that many of the lawyers in my constituency are concerned about the timetable because it is taking a long time. I do not expect him to provide specific information
236WH
on that issue now, but I would be grateful if he could find out through whatever channels are available to him whether the process can be speeded up.
Mr. Leslie: I shall certainly talk to my officials about the time scale. I know that there is a lot of anxiety locally, and that people want the process to be speeded up so that improved facilities are delivered as quickly as possible. We are all anxious to see those facilities, and all the local authorities involved have been supportive of the scheme. They want the new and refurbished courthouses to be completed as quickly as possible. Powys county council, which has discussed the proposed closures and the new courts at its public meeting, was supportive of the private finance initiative package.
My Department is considering closely the work that takes place between the Court Service and the magistrates courts committees, and the needs of court users—victims, witnesses and so on—so that we can find a way of improving services. We are even looking at combining the locations of county courts and crown courts so that we can overcome some of the problems that existed in the estate to date.
Mr. Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for covering that point in such a complete way. One of the reasons given for the closure of the Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells courts was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but that Act was introduced not to close facilities for the disabled, but to improve the standard of access. We thought that that was a poor argument.
Mr. Leslie: It is certainly not the case that the only rationale for those closures related to disability. In fact, some of the primary reasons were more to do with court security. Poor security related not only to the fact that defendants were sometimes sharing an entrance with the public and magistrates, but to dock facilities and poor holding areas for imprisoned defendants. There was a need to take radical action.
The procurement process for the public-private partnership arrangement is due to commence early this year, which will mean some of the new court facilities will be provided in 2007. That is our broad timetable. We know that such matters can be subject to change, but I hope that we can stick to that timetable. The capital funding arrangements have been quite generous, particularly for Welsh facilities. In 2002–03, approximately £2.7 million was provided for courthouses in Wales. In the last financial year, £2.8 million was provided, and we anticipate a further £4 million in the current financial year. That will not only allow the completion of the new courthouse at Haverford West, but help to upgrade some of the other facilities outside the public-private finance package of schemes.
I reiterate that, given that there was no appeal from the paying authority, I have had a limited ability to intervene. The decision was very much a local one that was made with the support of the county council, which is where I suggest with respect that many of the hon. Gentleman's questions should be focused. Nevertheless, the Government and my Department remain keen to ensure that we provide investment so that good

237WH
decisions can be made about new courthouse facilities. That is exceptionally important not only in serving the wider public, but in ensuring that we raise confidence in the justice system as far as we can. I know that we shall have a continuing dialogue on this matter.

Widows' Benefits
4 pm
Mr. Colin Challen: I apologise in advance if my voice gets croaky because am halfway through a heavy cold. If I get into a fit of coughing, I shall crave your indulgence, Mr. Cook.
I thank Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to have this debate, which deals with a tragic and infuriating case. My constituent, Mrs. Diane Johnson, approached me last year to help her win a pension, which she believes is her due. Mrs. Johnson's husband, Mark, worked for a company called Carlton Cards for 10 years, but in 2001 was diagnosed with cancer. On 2 August 2002, Mr. Johnson died. For eight years prior to his death, Mr. Johnson had been paying into the AG pension plan and reasonably expected that, should he die in service, his widow would receive a lump sum calculated on his salary in addition to a widow's pension.
However, earlier in 2002 the trustees of the pension plan changed its terms, effectively removing any rights for a widow to claim a pension. The new rule became effective on 1 August 2002, one day before Mr. Johnson's death. The decision to change the rule was not communicated to Mrs. Johnson. She only received, three weeks after her husband's death, a copy of an internal letter sent to employees.
Mrs. Johnson has since spent a lot of time on the problem and has spent much money on legal fees trying to get justice. While no one could claim that the company did not have a right to change the plan, the way in which it did so without consulting the plan's members, and its attitude to Mrs. Johnson's case, show that it is bereft of any moral or ethical standing. I make a point of saying that because the parent company of Carlton Cards is American Greetings—the "AG" of the pension plan, I assume—and its mission statement says that it will
"adhere to the highest standards of moral and ethical conduct in dealing with our customers, suppliers, shareholders, associates and the community at large".
In this context "associates" means employees. In that vein of false sincerity, its mission statement also says:
"American Greetings helps people everywhere express their innermost thoughts and feelings, enhance meaningful relationships and celebrate life's milestones and special occasions".
That did not extend to sending Mrs. Johnson a bereavement card.
Mrs. Johnson wrote to the president of that $2 billion a year business, Mr. Morry Weiss, to seek his support for her claim. In a reply from their director of human resources, she was told:
"management did contact the insurance carrier and attempted to have the policy reinstated to cover you with a pension. Unfortunately the carrier was unwilling to make such an accommodation".
That hardly comes as a surprise. If the company had taken such benefits off risk they would presumably have to restart paying premiums of some description to get Mrs. Johnson back on risk. The apparent act of seeking to help Mrs. Johnson was as empty and meaningless as their mission statement—a complete red herring.

239WH
I have tried to contact American Greetings to advance Mrs. Johnson's case. I wrote to it on 24 November last year and received no reply. I faxed my letter to it on 6 January this year and again have had no reply. I rang the company on 21 January and was told that I would be called back. Again, I heard nothing. I take it that American Greetings sets the rules of the game for its subsidiary companies, since it was American Greetings that decided to change the plan on costs grounds. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider intervening in this case with the American authorities to see if they can urge American Greetings to see the light and honour its much-publicised commitment to behaving morally and ethically? I know that is a long shot, but surely our American friends might listen to the pleas of their closest ally.
That set of tragic circumstances is unlikely to set a precedent—it is clearly a one-off that cannot be repeated—but if the situation is not rectified American Greetings, a company that claims to "say it best", should be exposed for the parsimonious callousness that it has displayed in Mrs. Johnson's case. She has been forced to give up her legal battle for justice because of mounting costs. She is still pursuing the matter through the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service, but the company is likely to drag that process out as long as it can.
Apart from the above request, I will not press my hon. Friend to comment on the merits of Mrs. Johnson's particular case. However, given the part of the law involved and the number of companies that are reducing their pension schemes because of various belt-tightening pressures, others may behave in the same way as American Greetings. Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 stipulates a duty on pension trustees to consult their members if they intend to alter their scheme. According to subsection (2) of section 67, the power to modify the scheme
"cannot be exercised on any occasion in a manner which would or might affect any entitlement, or accrued right, of any member of the scheme acquired before the power is exercised unless the requirements under subsection (3) are satisfied."
The requirements in subsection (3) relate to the consent of the members to proposed changes.
Mrs. Johnson was not a member, but her husband was. In a complex set of interpretations of the words "entitlement", "accrued" and "contingent", the company has escaped its clear moral and ethical commitments to Mrs. Johnson. It appears that this wriggle room was created by the timing of Mr. Johnson's death. Had he died 25 hours earlier, Mrs. Johnson would have had her pension. It would have been her "contingent" entitlement. The company said, through its solicitors, that the decision to change the scheme was made early in 2002 and that it was announced by an internal memo, which by definition Mr. Johnson was never going to see, on 30 July 2002. There was plenty of time to consult and to ensure that scheme members, if they wished, could make alternative arrangements. In Mr. Johnson's case, it may, for example, have been better had he taken early retirement, but the couple had no way of knowing that they needed to consider other options.
As there is no case law to help clear up the interpretation of this particular aspect of the law, particularly as it may impact on beneficiaries who are
240WH
not members, the Government should consider making it plain how the law affects such things as widows' occupational pensions. It should not be for Mrs. Johnson, who has already suffered enough, to enter a lengthy and expensive legal battle to achieve that. So these are my two requests: to ask the Government to use their influence to seek an amicable settlement of this particular case, and to look at the 1995 Act to see if it can be made less ambiguous in regard to widows' pensions.
If anybody from American Greetings or Carlton Cards happens to be listening, I urge them to pre-empt my first request. In addition, they might also look again at what they owe Mr. Johnson's estate in other regards. The company he worked for relocated its premises and paid employees a relocation grant. It appears that because of his long-term illness, the company only paid a third of that money. They also appear to have reduced the lump sum that his pension plan was to pay out. Before he fell ill, Mr. Johnson was earning £28,000 a year. After his long-term absence, his pay was reduced to £16,000 a year. It was on the latter amount that his lump sum was calculated. The lesson here is that whatever one does, do not fall ill: it can make you considerably poorer.
To be fair, eight years' worth of Mr. Johnson's pension contributions were refunded, a sum of around £9,000, plus some interest. Solicitors claim that that was hardly going to pay for much of a pension—a few hundred pounds perhaps—so why should Mrs. Johnson be so bothered about it? In their eagerness to dismiss Mrs. Johnson's claim, however, they forgot that the whole point of the exercise was to save the company money. Thus they failed to say what had happened to the employer contributions over that time. How much has the company saved? What has happened to the contributions made in respect of Mr. Johnson? Is the sum so vast that it would bankrupt the company to use it for its intended purpose? This company, in its initial actions and in all its dealings with Mrs. Johnson since her husband's death, has displayed a disgraceful disregard for its associates. I hope that it will see sense and do something positive to start honouring its solemn mission statement.
4.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on such an important subject and at such an opportune time. He deserves tribute for keeping the interests of his constituents in the spotlight. May I also take this opportunity to add my condolences to Mrs. Diane Johnston, especially given the tragic circumstances in which she lost her husband? I know that the whole House will understand her concerns at this time.
Mrs. Johnson is going through the internal disputes procedure with Carlton Cards and the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service, as my hon. Friend explained. Hon. Members will understand that it would therefore be inappropriate for me to discuss the case before knowing the outcome of that procedure. My hon. Friend asked whether I might make representations to AG on the issue, but he will understand that such political intervention would be inappropriate, as Mrs. Johnson is going through the proper procedures at

241WH
present. However, I am sure that AG and Carlton Cards will read our proceedings this afternoon and realise the seriousness with which this House treats such matters.
The issues raised in this debate highlight the importance of the partnership between the Government, employers, trade unions and individuals, which we believe is essential to deliver safe and secure pensions in the future. My hon. Friend referred to section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995, which requires that trustees consult scheme members before closing a scheme. I can confirm that section 67 prevents changes from being made to the rules of a scheme that would reduce a member's accrued pension rights without his or her consent. It preserves not just the value of the member's rights but the rights themselves. Clearly, in this situation, that will have to be determined through the internal disputes procedure and, subsequently, perhaps the ombudsman. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide whether the changes made by Carlton Cards breach section 67, although I note my hon. Friend's point that Mrs. Johnson is unable to take the matter through the full legal procedures.
In general, for section 67 purposes, the fundamental question is whether the changes that are being introduced will have a detrimental effect on members' accrued pension rights. That may not be simple to determine and may depend on the precise wording of the rules of the scheme, on which I cannot comment for the reasons that I have given. I should make it clear that, in general, trustees may approve changes within section 67 if they will benefit members as a whole, even if individual members are disadvantaged.
Our proposals, announced in "Action on Occupational Pensions—Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement" in June will amend the legislation so that schemes will be able to make changes to members' accrued pension rights without obtaining the consent of affected members, but only if the total actuarial value of each member's accrued rights at the point of change is maintained, and if the change does not involve converting any defined benefit pension rights into defined contribution rights.
This debate raises wider issues about the future of pensions. Mrs. Johnson's situation is reflected in different ways around the country by people who feel that their contributions over time have not been honoured in the pension and security with which they are provided in retirement. That is why we take seriously our role in partnership and why we are taking such positive action to protect current and future pensioners and to promote savings and adequate pension provision. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, this is a crucial time for pensions. It seems that not a day passes without some aspect of pensions coming under the
242WH
spotlight. I again congratulate him on ensuring that this afternoon the spotlight is focused clearly on the situation in which Mrs. Johnson finds herself.
The Government believe that pensions are too important to be used as a political football. They affect the quality of people's lives in retirement, and that is why we take them seriously. However, we also seek to build consensus for the future. The case before us highlights the reality of the need to take action now that will strengthen, secure and simplify pensions provision in the UK. The pensions Bill, which will be introduced in the near future, will take forward the Government's proposals to bolster confidence in the pensions industry. It will provide a balanced package of measures to ease the financial and administrative burden on employers and will also bring forward measures to ensure that the pensions promise made to individuals is a promise kept without exception.
The new legislation will introduce a pension protection fund that will, for the first time in the UK, step in to protect members of defined benefit schemes if their sponsoring employer becomes insolvent and the scheme is underfunded. There will be a new proactive pensions regulator who will concentrate on the areas of greatest risk to members' benefits. The Government are committed to long-term reform to enable individuals to plan for their retirement and make informed choices about saving and how long they work. We are taking forward some important reforms in the occupational pensions area, including the pensions protection fund and the proposals on full buy-out—several small schemes have been recently wound up by solvent employers where the schemes were not fully funded. Hon. Members will know that we are seeking to change the priority order when schemes have been wound up. That is to ensure fairness between the treatment of different members of the scheme.
Through all of these measures, we are trying to strike a better balance of interests that will be fairer to all scheme members. We believe that the sustainable future of pension provision in this country is dependent on a continuing mix of provision between the state, occupational and private schemes. Our policies are aimed at promoting that continuing partnership, and on demonstrating that it remains worth while for people to save for a pension in the knowledge that their pension savings will be secure and there when they—or in this case, their survivors—need them.
We sympathise with Mrs. Johnson's situation and with other pension scheme members who may have lost out due to changes in their occupational pension scheme. We hope that the matter will be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Four o'clock.