§ Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether he will give the detailed reasons why it took him until 8th December 1978 to reply to the letter sent to him on 24th October 1978, together with a communication from Mr. Mark Allen, editor of theNursing Mirroron the question of nurses' pay; what was contained in the original letter or the reply which necessitated a wait of six weeks before he replied; and whether he will expedite his replies to correspondence in the future.
§ Mr. Deakins:My colleagues and I try to deal with all our correspondence as expeditiously as possible, but we do not always achieve as quick a response as we would wish, especially during periods of pressure. The letter to which my hon. Friend refers was one of a number re-
Appeals heard Appeals successful Percentage (a) Appellant neither present nor represented … … … 30,518 2,081 7. 0 (b) Appellant present but not represented … … … 18,074 4,714 26.0 (c) Appellant not present but represented … … … 2,379 816 34.0 (d) Appellant both present and represented … … … 11,925 4,394 37.0 It is not possible to distinguish between cases where an appellant was specifically represented, as opposed to being accompanied, by a third party but about two-thirds of those representing or accompanying appellants were classified as "family or relatives".
Of 114,734 appeals lodged 28,307–25 per cent.—led to revised decisions in the appellants' favour and were not heard by tribunals while 23,531–21 per cent.—were withdrawn or not admitted by the tribunal.