HC Deb 28 March 1983 vol 40 cc155-62

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

1.40 am
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

I wish to draw to the attention of the House a report entitled "For whose benefit?", which is a report on the policies of the Department of Health and Social Security in the Merseyside region compiled by the Society of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association, and I have to declare an interest in that I am the parliamentary consultant for the CPSA.

This is a debate on how the poorest members of the community are treated by the Government, especially by the DHSS, and it is important that the House should realise that poverty does not fall arbitrarily on the population but singles out those who are most vulnerable. The Government have increased the number of poor by conscripting into the army of the unemployed large numbers of people in order to wage their fight against inflation.

I want to look at how the service in the Merseyside region to the poorest of our citizens has declined, why it will continue to decline and what this means to those at the bottom of the pile in our society. Then I shall make two requests of the Minister.

First, I ask hon. Members to consider the decline in the service. Since 1979 there has been a massive increase in the numbers of people dependent of drawing supplementary benefits. In the Merseyside region, there has been an increase of about 35 per cent. Yet, because much of that increase has been concentrated amongest those who are unemployed, the civil servants calculate that the increase in their work load is about 70 per cent. and that with an increase of 70 per cent. in the work load one has to record about a 4 per cent. fall in the number of staff dealing with those claims.

If there are more people coming through the doors and fewer people on the other side of the counter to deal with them, it is not surprising that there has been a deterioration in the ratio of staff to the number of claimants. The report calculates that that ratio has declined by about 35 per cent. But, taking the two offices which serve my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), one sees declines of 32 per cent. in the Birkenhead, north office and of about 41 per cent. in the Birkenhead, south office. So we have an increase in the work load and a deterioration in the ratio of staff to claimants.

The third way in which the service has declined is that there has been a considerable increase in the numbers of claimants awaiting visits. The report reveals that in the region as a whole there are well over 10,000 claimants awaiting visits and, taking the two offices which serve the Birkenhead area, there are well over 1,000 claimants awaiting visits. That is important, because often it cannot be judged whether people are eligible for single payments until visits have taken place. In addition, it is important because of the control mechanisms that the Department has over those who may be wrongly claiming. Any deterioration in the waiting time for visits is bad news for claimants and taxpayers. The deterioration in the number of claimants who are awaiting action on their benefit claims is just as important as the number of those who are awaiting visits. The report records that when the records were compiled more than 92,000 claimants were waiting for the Department to come to a decision on their claims. In Birkenhead, the figure is well over 9,000. I shall repeat those figures because I was somewhat amazed when I read them in the report. There are more than 92,000 claimants awaiting decisions from the Department in the Merseyside region, and in Birkenhead alone there are more than 9,000.

There are several reasons why the position will get worse. First, the Government are intent on a policy of cutting the size of the staff, partly because that is their policy commitment—a reduction in the size of the Civil Service was in the Conservative party's manifesto—and partly because of the supposed simplification of benefits. The report records that in November there will be a further decline of 144 posts in the region and by April 1984 a further decline of more than 500 posts in the region. That decline in staff leads me to suspect that the service will deteriorate still further unless the Minister can argue that there will be other changes in the offices to counter that movement.

Even on the most optimistic predictions, unemployment in the next 12 months will continue to rise. As I hinted earlier, unemployed claimants' claims take longer to process than those of other claimants. As unemployment increases and as the number pushed into the dole queues increases, so will the work load in the DHSS offices. There will be a cut in staff but an increase in unemployment.

To add to that, the Merseyside county council is beginning a take-up campaign. The civil servants calculate that about £20 million is unclaimed in the region. In the Birkenhead area, the figure is more than £2 million. A campaign of this nature, even if it is well targeted, will increase the number of people who think that they may be entitled to benefit, even though some of them will not be entitled. Each claim will require processing. Throughout the next few months there will be further cuts in staff and a further increase in the numbers of people pushed into social security offices because of unemployment. In the take-up campaign, efforts will be made by the county council to draw the attention of the people of Merseyside to the extent of unclaimed benefits.

What does that mean? Had I not been slightly put off my stroke by the row going on earlier, I would probably have said that the debate involves the kind of service that is available to the poorer people in the community. The test of a public service, or any service, is whether it is good enough for me and my family and the Minister and his family. The public service offered by DHSS offices in Merseyside fails that test.

First, there is a lengthening of the queues, and that means not only difficulties for those who are trying to find out whether they are entitled to benefits, an increase in the time that people spend in offices and an increase in the length of time taken by people trying to make contact by telephone, but some form of rationing. I am talking about rationing to people who usually have little or no resources to fall back on and who need their pay cheques at a specific point in time, and not tomorrow, next week, or, as the report says, in the two weeks that is often taken to process a claim. Therefore the service will deteriorate still further.

In addition, the service is deteriorating in that the officials say that they are overworked. Perhaps one of the better aspects of the report is that officials comment on the amount of unpaid overtime that they are working in an attempt to improve the public service to those on the bottom of the pile. However, with lengthening queues and overworked officials, who have no doubt shortening tempers, one must expect an increase in the number of errors being made in processing claims. In addition, the lengthening queues, the effect of attitudes on the other side of the counter, and the increase in the number of errors made, will reinforce the second class status that many people feel that they inherit on walking into social security offices.

Would the Minister be happy if he was on the receiving end of DHSS services in the Merseyside region in general, and in the Birkenhead offices in particular? Would he be happy to go into those offices? Would he be happy for his family to go into those offices? If they are not good enough for him or for his family, are they good enough for any of those who live in that region? I ask for two things from the Minister. If the figures that I presented earlier about the numbers of claims, length of waiting time and so on are broken down for the Birkenhead area, they show that the Birkenhead offices come off worse than the region in general. Thus, cannot a case be made for special help to be given in terms of an increase in staff to the two social security offices that serve constituents in my area and that of the hon. Member for Wirral?

Given the decline in services, what proposals does the Minister have for the Merseyside region as a whole? I make no apology for emphasising once again that we are debating the sort of public service that we offer to those who are the most vulnerable in our society. They are at the bottom of the pile, are poor and often they find it difficult enough to cope with officials without the decline in service that I have described. I am making a plea for an immediate improvement in the service that can be offered in the Birkenhead offices and for a longer-term review of services that can be offered through DHSS offices throughout the Merseyside region.

1.52 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton)

It is customary to say that one is grateful to an hon. Member for raising an Adjournment debate, although it often occurs to me that only either a madman or a Member of Parliament could say that he was grateful to anybody for giving him an opportunity to make a speech at nearly 2 am.

Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), because he has enabled me to make several important points about the DHSS staffing system nationally, in Merseyside and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a testimony to the interest of others that my admirable hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) should also be present. I well remember that only a day or two ago he brought me a most impressive and high-powered delegation that was concerned about an aspect of DHSS services in part of his constituency. Indeed, my predecessor—now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), has also spoken to me tonight of her keen interest in the matter. I should like to pay tribute to her efforts when she held my job, not least—I understand—in launching an experiment to help to improve take-up by assigning a member of DHSS staff to a social services department in Wirral. That is just the sort of thing on which we are now seeking to build in improving our advice and information services in other parts of the country.

I should like to place the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead in a national context and to emphasise that the staffing of DHSS offices is not—as some people occasionally suggest—a random process. It is set squarely within a carefully worked-out system which is known in the trade as the DHSS complementing system. That system was devised in the time of the Labour Government after lengthy discussion with the trade union side. I say discussion rather than negotiation, because I understand that it was very much a co-operative effort. I shall briefly outline the main elements of that system.

There is constant measurement of all the activities in local offices, so that up-to-date information is always available about the volume of work being handled in each office, and its nature. There is a detailed examination of the work of the local office system at three to five-yearly intervals to check that the basic complement is correct. Work and staff activity are measured by staff inspectors in a large sample of offices. Each year forecasts of the work load in the following year are made, using the latest available information about changes in policies and procedures and current trends in work, and forecasts about demographic and economic changes. The forecasts are detailed ones, benefit by benefit.

The total complement is adjusted in the light of these forecasts so that each year the DHSS starts with an authorised complement of the size needed to cope with the work load forecast for that year. At quarterly intervals during the year, the actual work load is checked against the forecasts and the forecasts themselves are revised as necessary. If this check proves work loads to be running at a significantly higher or lower level than was forecast at the start of the year—that is, if it is more than 500 staff out either way—or about one per office, throughout the country—the total complement is adjusted accordingly. The hon. Member will be aware of all this, but l wanted to put it on the record.

The hon. Member will know, too, that we placed a yellow booklet—describing this system in a fair degree of detail—in the House Library in the late summer or autumn of last year. We did that—this is the second important point—because the existence and operation of the complementing system makes it rather meaningless to quote figures of the increase in claimants and of the number of local office staff, to compare the two in a rather crude way, and to think that it shows something to the discredit of the Government and the management of the Department. What counts is the work load, and the work load depends not only on the number of claims but on the way that they are dealt with. Work loads have been reduced, for example, by the introduction of the postal claim form for supplementary benefit by the unemployed, and the new housing benefit scheme. Other work loads have decreased because of reduced demand—for example, in sickness benefit claims.

Against that, of course, supplementary claims and claimants have risen quite substantially. All those changes, in their different ways, affecting the need for staff, are taken into account through the complementing system. The broad pattern is that the proportion of staff on supplementary benefit—on which the hon. Gentleman focused most of his remarks—has been rising, and the proportion engaged on other work, in particular on contributory benefits, has been falling.

There is a third matter of considerable importance, which illustrates in a specific way what I have just said. It is worth noting that between October of last year and next month, three major changes which have already come into effect, or will shortly come into full effect, have reduced or will reduce the estimated number of staff required for the DHSS system as a whole by over 6,000. The first is the partial start and the full start of housing benefit, which together are equivalent to a saving of about 2,000 staff. The second is the introduction of the postal claim form, with a net saving of about 1,000 staff. The third is the impending introduction of statutory sick pay, which is estimated to lead in due course to a saving of over 3,000 staff. That illustrates the extent to which one has to take account of changes in the system, not simply the rise in the number of supplementary benefit claimants—which is what the report that the hon. Gentleman quoted stressed in particular.

Having said all that I want to acknowledge clearly that neither I nor anyone else is suggesting that the DHSS complementing system, or indeed any system that could be devised to deal with this complex problem, is or could be perfect. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have embarked on a review of that complementing system in conjunction with the trades unions. The aim is urgently to produce a report by the beginning of June. Alongside that general review, and indeed feeding into it, is a study of the special problems that may exist in inner city offices. That study includes in its sample of local offices no fewer than 13 in the Merseyside region.

It is to the Merseyside region that I want to turn from the broader description of the national picture. The complementing system allocates staff to Merseyside, as to other regions, a share of the total staff required to handle the forecast work loads. That share is determined by the region's proportionate share of the past work load. Resources are allocated in the form of permanent staff and what are known as manpower substitutes—that is, casuals or overtime, the regions then issue those resources to local offices according to their shares of the region's work load, retaining some posts for central services and for issue on a judgment basis where local circumstances warrant additional staff. At any particular time a local office's staffing position can be affected by staff turnover, but if that happens the manpower substitutes can be used to tide them over until permanent replacements can be posted.

Merseyside has undoubtedly borne its share of the difficulties of the past year and of the staff reductions that have taken place. But it has to be said that its overall performance, which we regularly measure, has generally been good and on a par with other regions. Much of the critical information in the report "For Whose Benefit", from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, is somewhat selective and now to some extent out of date. The major pieces of work—the uprating and the introduction of housing benefit—have been and are being accomplished with a minimum of delay and there are no major pockets of arrears. Only six offices on Merseyside were late with the uprating and they had completed it by 4 December, not much more than a week or 10 days late. Only two offices will be slightly late in implementing the impending full housing benefit change, and that is a pretty good position.

Although overtime is being worked and was properly used to deal with the peak of work involved in the uprating, there is no evidence that its use on Merseyside is either excessive or masks serious staffing deficiencies. Over the past 12 months overtime in Merseyside represented only 2.23 per cent. of total time worked by permanent staff, compared with a national figure of 1.16 per cent. over the same 12 months. So the Merseyside figure was undoubtedly above the national average, but it cannot by any standards be regarded as excessive or unreasonable.

The hon. Gentleman made some points about the figures at the back of the report on the number of visits outstanding and the total number of cases awaiting action. I have to tell him that neither the regional office nor our headquarters staff have been able to identify what the figures for total cases awaiting action mean. If the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me I shall be happy to see whether I can provide him with further comment, but I regret that I cannot do so this evening. On the figures for cases awaiting visits I should make the point that although they sound quite large, when simply quoted as absolute numbers they in fact represent less than two weeks' work. When judged against the normal head of work in any administrative system that cannot be regarded as unreasonable.

Mr. Field

When the hon. Gentleman says that it amounts to two weeks' work, is he saying that on average a person would have to wait two weeks for a visit, or is he saying that if all the resources of an office were put to clearing the issue—that is, of visits—it would take two weeks to meet the backlog?

Mr. Newton

I am saying that if the normal effort devoted to visiting were applied it would represent two weeks' work. Since the report was written, as a result of savings arising from the postal claim form—the net saving was 1,000 staff, but the gross saving was higher—we have allocated back to the system a number of additional staff to improve the arrangements for visiting, in particular for families with children, from an automatic visit after one year on supplementary benefit to visiting families with children after three months. That may not go as far as the hon. Gentleman would like, but it is an improvement.

Mr. Field

The Minister said that he did not understand some of the figures at the back of the report. He said that we should not pay too much attention to them. On any one day I am aware of how many letters I have not answered. I assume that the DHSS is aware of the number of claims that have been lodged but not processed. Can we have that figure because I think that the report referred to it?

Mr. Newton

It is not clear exactly what figure the report referred to. I can only speculate because I am not in a position to give a definite and authoritative answer. The figures seem to relate mainly to April and May 1982. Considerable numbers of re-assessments of rent and rate increase cases could have taken place that spring and could have been included in the figures. They need not be simply new claims awaiting action. We are not clear what the figures are. I shall comment further if I have further information.

Mr. Field

I asked one question to which I should like a simple answer. The Minister said that things are not as bad as I painted them. Would he be happy to use the service? Would he be happy for his wife and children to use the service offered by DHSS offices in the Merseyside region?

Mr. Newton

Yes, I would be happy for my family to use the service. I hope to have an opportunity to visit the area soon. That does not mean that I am completely satisfied with the service. That would reveal a degree of complacency which the hon. Member and the House would not think justified. There is always room for improvement. We are seeking to bring improvement about, not just in processing claims but in improving take-up and our general service to the public. I hope that with the reforms that we are introducing we shall see further improvements in the coming year.

I have little time to deal with the take-up campaign. Although we regret the blanket way in which it is being conducted, because we think that it will cause unnecessary loading on officers in Merseyside, fortunately it comes at a time when, because of staffing factors, it will be easier for our officers to cope than it would be if it happened at another time. We shall do our best to ensure that it works as effectively as possible with the fewest possible unfair consequences for our staff and the claimants.

In some ways the most important thing that I 'want to do tonight is something that we do not do often enough. I want to thank our staff, not only on Merseyside, but throughout the country, for the work that they do. There have been many difficuties and pressures in the last year or two when the system has had to cope with the problems of high demand and considerable change. What our staff have achieved in that time is a genuine credit to them. We are grateful, as is Parliament and the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Two o' clock.