§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Sainsbury.]
10.12 pm§ Mr. Terry Fields (Liverpool, Broadgreen)L: The topic of this Adjournment debate is the staffing in the Department of Health and Social Security offices in the north-west. However, the argument could equally apply throughout the country, although I shall confine my remarks to the north-west. I am sure that the workers and claimants at those offices wish me to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this debate, as opposed to the lottery that takes place in the Lobby.
The debate has been prompted by, first, workers in DHSS offices and members of the Civil and Public Services Association, both regional and national. I was fortunate to attend the CPSA conference a fortnight ago, when I was able to discuss the problems at the DHSS offices with some of its representatives. Secondly, and perhaps more tragically, it is prompted by the continuous and increasing pressure on my constituents and those of other hon. Members ——
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)Where are they?
§ Mr. FieldsExactly. It is opportune that we should discuss this matter, given the Fowler review that went through the House only last week, and which is now on its way to another place. However, the importance of the issue goes far beyond that piece of legislation. It involves recent history at DHSS offices and the seriousness of the crisis in them which demands immediate action by the Government. That may appear a vain hope, given the Government's record in other areas of legislation, but the issue must be aired and highlighted so that we can expose and warn of the calamity facing claimants and DHSS employees alike.
The DHSS offices in the north-west are living on borrowed time. While unemployment has tripled during the past five years and claims for social security benefit have mushroomed, the staff numbers have been ruthlessly cut. One in four — that is, 25 per cent. — of social security claimants are being paid too little. That was shown in a study done only 18 months ago. An even larger proportion of people face long delays in receiving payments. Members of the CPSA employed in the offices have suffered because of cuts in jobs and have been the victims of the Department's crisis management. Massive abuse of overtime has taken place to cover up staff deficiencies in those offices.
While the problem centres on the north-west it has implications nationally, to a greater or lesser degree. Statistics that hide the human misery that exists on both sides of the DHSS counter, but especially that of the customer, nevertheless underline the scale of the problem. I shall cite a few statistics. In the Breckfield road office of the DHSS, which is in my constituency, people must queue for an average of two and a half to three hours a week to receive attention at the supplementary benefit reception. The reception frequently remains open until 5.45 pm, which is well beyond its closing time. Overtime has been worked solidly in that office since October 1974. There is a high staff turnover — 32 per cent. — which causes problems. Staff are unable to tackle the demands for unemployment benefit and other benefits. There has 629 been a diminution in the service that can be provided to the public. Since July 1985, 1,600 supplementary benefit clerical visits have been abandoned.
One cannot even get through to the office on the telephone. As a Member of Parliament representing thousands of people in the area, I cannot even make contact with DHSS offices. I cannot make contact with the Breckfield road office because of the crisis there with problems in the working routine. Frequently, members of staff take a day s sick leave because of the pressure place on them. On average, there is a backlog of 400 cases for supplementary benefit.
Let us consider the number of hours of overtime worked in the Huyton office and in offices in other parts of Merseyside. In 1983–84, 2,235 hours of overtime were worked. In the six months April to September 1985, 12,950 hours of overtime were worked. That increased overtime kept the offices afloat. Without it, the offices would have gone under. The claims are piling up. One has only to visit some of those offices to see their needs and the amount of work outstanding.
A massive increase in supplementary benefit work load has been put on the backs of DHSS workers. The inadequacy of staffing arrangements has led to serious problems in the offices.
The nonsense of the Department's complementing system is clear. I shall compare offices in the Merseyside area with those in Cheshire — the St. Helens and Warrington offices. Since May 1980, the St. Helens office has had an increase of 9,098 supplementary benefit claims which has been accompanied by an inadequate increase of 15 staff. Warrington has had a greater increase—that is 9,237—of additional claims in the same period and has had a cut of four staff.
One might think that the problem is peculiar to the north-west; it is not. Even the offices which are on the doorstep of the House of Commons, such as Bloomsbury, Westminster, Chelsea, and Kensington, have a high staff turnover. I am told that Bloomsbury has an 80 per cent. staff turnover. Instead of trainees receiving the requisite 13 weeks' training. they are given only two weeks' training. They are then asked to shore up a crumbling system which is causing problems inside and outside the offices. When 50 people go inside the Bloomsbury office, the office closes and no further people are dealt with. People go along to that office at 7 o'clock in the morning and queue up outside, in all sorts of weather, to have their claims dealt with. A similar picture applies nationally.
The unions have campaigned for more staff. They were told by management and the Department that the system for establishing the needs of their offices was unscientific and should not be considered with any seriousness. They have been told that on the complementing system 2,000 jobs are already in post, over and above the needs of the Department. How is that figure arrived at? Management says that the unscientific way in which these numbers are computerised is absolutely wrong, but two major disputes have created a backlog within the DHSS system, and these distort the statistics that management and the Department use. The major disputes referred to are in Newcastle and Washington in the north-east.
Secondly, there has been no updated complementary review since 1980 or 1981, or no firm base to commence the calculation. Therefore, if management and the Department are accusing the unions of wrong analysis, the same argument applies to them.
630 At local office level there is also inadequate validation of statistics because of pressure, fewer workers and the work load with which the reduced number of staff is expected to deal. Unrecorded work is carried out because of the pressure of the increased number of claimants, and there is lack of training in the offices to which I am referring because of stretched resources. A high turnover is adding to the problem.
A management report, which confirms what the workers are saying, underlines and adds to the confusion that is now occurring in the DHSS. The management report on the inadequacies of the system and the way in which the numbers are computed says that misrepresentation of, or lack of attention to, instructions is a major contributory factor in the inaccuracies of statistics; that instructions were contained in several different codes that were sometimes confused and contradictory; that codes were not widely available to all staff concerned:, that peripheral sections were often forgotten; and that staff were inadequately trained in statistics. Therefore, the fault lies with both management and the Department for not allowing the time or the manpower to deal with the problems affecting those in the DHSS offices.
Overtime worked in the Department is an absolute scandal. On the one hand the Government tell the Prison Officers Association that it must cut overtime because it is a restrictive practice, while in DHSS offices they are advocating overtime to cover up staff deficiencies. Such deficiencies are clearly shown by the use of casual workers in DHSS offices. In the north-west region, the number of casuals employed in the period ending 17 December 1985 amounted, on management's figures, to 16,062 man days in the red, and overtime amounted to 73,694 man days in the red. Massive overspending is taking place in respect of overtime and casual workers, as a result of which the lack of full-time workers is being masked. Thee should be more permanent jobs in those offices, not to put bottoms on seats but to deal with the backlog of work—current work and the increasing work brought about directly by the policies of this Government who are creating unemployment at every turn.
I am aware—and the Minister will no doubt point out—that nationally it has been agreed that 5,000 jobs should be introduced into the DHSS. But this is only an interim measure, and on analysis it is not the true figure. As I have already said, 2,000 of those jobs are already in post, although the Department claims that they are supposedly in addition to complement.
Of the remaining figure, 500 have already been designated — according to reports, with a ring fence around them — to deal with fraud in the DHSS. In reality, we are, therefore, talking about only 2,500 jobs nationally.
However, it has been calculated that the north-west needs 2,100 jobs. Therefore, the number proposed by the Department will in no way match up to the needs of the claimants and those already working in the industry. This is based on direct experience at the sharp end of things, not on fanciful, dreamt-up and inaccurate figures conditioned by Treasury restrictions on the DHSS. Workers and management have assessed the needs in the Department and feel that 15,000 jobs are required to cope with the situation, and they have proved the need for these people. The amount of overtime and casual work being done is outrageous.
631 The Fowler review will not be reported for another 18 months, and on current analysis that review, given the background that I have set out, will not match the needs of the DHSS and the claimants. A decent level of manpower in the Department can be arrived at only by a working out and analysing of the problem by the departmental managers and the trade unions representing the workers, not by anticipating or forecasting.
To date, there has been good will from the staff, but it has been undermined by the crisis of management. I am informed by those representing the workers that good will will cease soon if management continues to exercise discipline in a macho way, and to cut back on various practices.
The Fowler review has prompted the enrolment of 20,000 casual workers to deal with the interim arrangements, but as the situation becomes more critical because of the Government's policy, the 15,000 necessary extra jobs in the Department seem impossible to achieve. This has been exacerbated by two upratings in the recent past, and by the chaos and further pressure on the reduced numbers working in the offices. We are told that technology is coming in, but both workers and claimants in the offices feel that this removes the personal approach in dealing with what are often complex matters, about which the general public is not aware.
Workers in the industry are on extremely low rates of pay and on average their take-home pay is between £80 and £85 a week. The annual salary starts at £2,898 and if one works for 20 years, one's salary can rise to about £7,000 a year. Such low pay, coupled with ill health because of the demands of the work, is putting pressure on the workers, who want action.
Claimants are feeling the effect as well. They are not getting that to which they are entitled, and are suffering because they are those least able to look after themselves. Nobody willingly goes along, cap in hand, to the DHSS asking for a handout, having to be means-tested before getting that to which he is entitled. The effect on claimants is catastrophic for families, particularly in my area. The Government and the system that they represent are creating the bad situation and punishing the people who fall into it for crimes of which they are not guilty. That is another factor that underlines my point.
Have the Government anticipated in their review of the DHSS system the fact that already staffing does not match up to the 4 million unemployed, and that that number will increase, with the expected loss of work in shipyards, British Rail and other industries? How do the Government think that the offices will cope with an increasingly bad situation, in which there is no hope for British industry, more and more redundancies, and more people coming into the offices?
On behalf of the people whom I represent I warn the Government of two things. First, there has been a build-up of opposition to the Fowler review, and the cuts in benefits that will result. Secondly, not only are the workers in the offices distressed about this, but pensions organisations, young persons, one-parent families, the unemployed, students and the trade unions in general are beginning to mount a campaign in opposition to the Government and the Fowler cuts, which will affect them, their families and lifestyles.
632 If this problem is not tackled, the trade unions that represent those who work in DHSS offices will respond on behalf of the overworked, underpaid and, in some cases, abused members, and will defend the health and well-being of those whom they represent by resorting to a call for industrial action. The workers have had more than enough. Their health is suffering because of an insufficient number of staff to deal with the increasing workload. That will force the Government to act in the interests of the claimants.
I am not precipitating this action. I am merely explaining the position. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visits many DHSS offices, but he ought to visit the Merseyside area and the north-west. He would see that piles of claims are not being dealt with, which means that those who rely upon DHSS finance just to exist are suffering extreme deprivation and poverty.
Last year there were 200 strikes in DHSS offices, but this year it will not be the so-called militant areas that will take industrial action. Moderate areas — Wales, the south-west—and places such as Woking will be taking industrial action. The call for industrial action is coming from people in Surrey, Hampshire and Lewes on the south coast. They are demanding that the unions should do something about the crisis. The CPSA has a 10:1 majority in favour of industrial action. It accepts the interim 5,000 jobs—or the 2,500 jobs, to be perfectly honest, given the fiddling that is already going on. However, it is prepared to struggle on behalf of its members.
I warn the Government that my constituents, those in other constituencies in the north-west, the claimants and the trade unions are demanding that the Government should act before a complete breakdown occurs within the system and in society in general. Unless the Government accept their responsibilities, industrial action will have a most damaging effect on those who rely upon social security benefit.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major)The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) has raised important matters in this Adjournment debate, and I am glad that he has done so.
During his speech he made some contentious remarks with which he would not expect me to agree, and I do not. However, I hope he will permit me to say that I congratulate him upon the moderate and reasonable way in which he put his case. He touched on many matters that are of concern to him, to my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and to me. He referred to his concern about staffing levels in local offices of the DHSS and, understandably, he concentrated his remarks on the offices in the north-west with which he is most familiar.
The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that I agree with some of his remarks. He and I agree that the Government must obtain and sustain a modern, effective and efficient social security system. That objective is at the root of many of the Government's policies. It was at the root of the social security reviews that resulted in the Social Security Bill which received its Third Reading earlier this week.
We regard the delivery to the public of an efficient, effective and, above all, modern social security system as a critical part of the Department's plans for the next few 633 years. That is why we have embarked on the largest computerisation programme that western Europe has ever seen. The reform of benefits must be matched by the modernisation of operations. We are making quick progress with our strategic plan to computerise social security operations. By doing so, we aim to increase efficiency, to reduce administrative costs and, above all. to provide a better service to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member. Better conditions for the staff and a better service for the public underlie the great structural changes that we are seeking to make in the operations of the systems.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman implied — although I am not sure that he said it directly—it is my experience, having spent a lot of time visiting local offices up and down the country, that by and large staff seemed to welcome increased computerisation because they see it as the door to a better service to the public, to which they as well as we are committed.
In the general realm of providing a better service, we are currently examining the national and regional organisation staff complement and the means of distributing that complement to every local office. It involves an in-depth review of a large sample of local offices to study the manpower requirements. This is being done in about 20 per cent. of all our local offices.
I wish to make one point relating to the social security review at the outset. I understand that there are legitimate points of political controversy in the social security review about which the hon. Gentleman and I would not agree. However, there is one point on which we might agree. Whatever levels of benefits and other contentious matters may be attached to that review, the structure of the changes in the social security system that we propose has been broadly welcomed not only by both sides of the House but by trade unions and by the staff. That is a great advance if we are in the business of improving the service to the public and the conditions of service of the staff.
§ Mr. Terry FieldsThe Minister mentioned the review of 20 per cent. of offices. Does he not realise that the use of computers takes away the personal aspect in dealing with people's claims? Can he give the assurance that, when the review is undertaken, the CPSA and other representative bodies will be brought in to make an analysis, because they are at the sharp end? A thorough job must be done because the figures do not match the needs.
§ Mr. MajorWhen the hon. Gentleman talks of personal service, he overlooks one important point. The most important expectation of a man or woman arriving at the counter in a DHSS office is to receive a response to the request being made and the assistance that is needed. One of the great difficulties at present is that, without a modern computerised system, it is frequently not possible to track down the case papers and give an answer or deal with the client's needs and claims as swiftly as possible. Computerisation, far from being impersonal, it is the key to providing the standard of service that both the hon. Gentleman and I would wish to see become available to the public. I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that in my judgment that is the overwhelming view not only of the politicians and administrators but of the staff who work in the local offices, to whom I have spoken in recent months.
634 The hon. Gentleman spoke of the staffing level and rather disparagingly, if I may say so, of the increase in complement. He is correct that there is an increase in complement of 5,000 staff in the local officers. These were given recently in two stages. The first was in February and the second was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in early March. Of that complement, the north-western region has received 661 posts, which is a substantial share of the increase. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Breckfield in his constituency and some of the difficulties there. Before October 1985 the complement was 134. The October 1985 figure was 142. The proposed allocation for 1986–87 is 164 posts, an increase of 30 posts in a period of six months before we have completed the in-depth complement review that is in hand. We recognise the special circumstances that exist in some inner London and inner city areas. The hon. Gentleman's constituency may have similar pressures. We have sought to reflect that in the increase in staff complement by 5,000.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman may to a degree be reassured about the in-depth complement review that is under way and that we hope will produce results early next year. The 5,000 staff are "on account" of that complement review. Although the hon. Gentleman may not regard that as sufficient, I hope that he will at least acknowledge that it is a significant indication of the Government's determination to support the delivery of benefits through local offices.
The size of that substantial increase was not just plucked out of the air, nor has the distribution of the additional staff been accomplished without a recognition of the problems faced by particular types of local office in particular localities. Both decisions were based on firsthand assessment. They were not just guesses, although inevitably, pending the results of the complement review. there must be elements of judgment at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the fact that a great deal has often been made of the increased workloads with which local offices have had to deal. Of course the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that in some parts of the social security system there has been a substantial increase in workloads. I would not deny that for a second. But it is also true—and the hon. Gentleman did not mention this — that there have been reductions in workloads elsewhere, notably the equivalent of 3,342 posts following the introduction of statutory sick pay and 2,445 post following the introduction of the housing benefit scheme. To obtain a true picture of the work/staff ratio, the hon. Gentleman and everyone else who wishes to have a true bill in these matters must take into account those changes as well.
I and my colleagues remain absolutely committed to matching staff to workloads. We have put that on record before, and I am happy to reaffirm it to the hon. Gentleman this evening. The injection of 5,000 staff is only the culmination of several increases in recent months — an extra 3,800 staff to offset the effects of the Newcastle strike, an extra 1,900 staff through the normal operation of the complementing system mainly directed towards the increased supplementary benefit work that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and an extra 733 staff to match increased workloads.
I shall come to a premature conclusion because we are running out of time. Many of the problems were due in no small part to the extraordinary complexities of the present 635 social security system. Those complexities will be alleviated significantly by the changes to be brought about by the Social Security Bill which had its Third Reading in the House earlier this week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.