§ 2.55 p.m.
§ Baroness JegerMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what staff difficulties they are experiencing in local DHSS offices, especially in London; and what steps they are taking to improve services and amenities.
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, a comprehensive review of the department's complement requirements is now under way under normal arrangements. The first results will be available about the middle of next year. This is the appropriate and agreed means of ensuring that staff provision and workload balance. London and other inner city areas face particular problems. But complementing arrangements allow a margin to meet the requirements of turnover. Special difficulties can be, and are, dealt with by the exercise of judgment in the allocation of posts to individual offices.
Some offices and staff do face very heavy pressure. The Government are committed to supplying the right number of staff. But the real answer is and must be a more simple, straightforward social security system, which will be provided as a result of the Government's social security review.
§ Baroness JegerMy Lords can the noble Baroness explain how claimants are to be treated fairly and justly when, during the last six years, there has been a loss of 10,000 jobs from her department and an increase from 2.5 million to 4.5 million in claims for supplementary benefit? Secondly, while the noble Baroness talks about a review coming out next year, can she tell the House what delay is taking place in the up-rating of benefits for this year? Thirdly, has the noble Baroness—I must ask her this question because it is very important—had time to read the review of her own department's chief adjudication officer in which he states that one in three of all supplementary benefit payments are wrong? He blames this situation on lack of training, on lack of staff and on the very great pressures that exist. I believe that the House deserves to have some response to that report.
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, the noble Baroness has asked a number of questions. Taking the last one first, in respect of the chief adjudication officer's report I would not wish to go much further than to say that I have noted it and am aware of it. My honourable friend in another place—I agree with him—has said that he welcomes the report, which confirms his view that the social security reviews are badly needed. As for what the Government have already done in relation to the difficulties over numbers and the endeavour to keep the workforce in line, I can mention 1190 that an extra 3,800 staff were introduced to offset the effects of the unnecessary Newcastle strike by computer staff. This led to a considerable backlog. An extra 1,900 staff have been introduced through the normal complement system mainly directed towards increased supplementary benefit work. An extra 733 staff have been introduced to match increased workload. This was done only a matter of weeks ago. It is important to remember that the streamlining of systems that has already taken place has introduced a considerable cut in the workload which therefore matches the reduction in the numbers of staff.
§ Lord KilmarnockMy Lords, are the Government not aware of the cri de coeur placed by a civil service union in the national press saying that the situation has reached breaking point, that staff are now two-and-a-half years behind in dealing with pensioners' queries in some parts of London, and that in some local offices turnover of staff is as high as 60 per cent.? Are the Government not at all concerned about the condition of people who are, after all, their own employees?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, we are indeed aware of this series of advertisements that have been placed to this effect. We are aware of the particular problems in certain offices and the Government have undertaken to review the position. They are conducting the normal review, as I have said. They are seeking through the complement system, which is after all a tried and agreed system, to meet the particular local requirements.
§ Baroness JegerMy Lords, while appreciating that, may I ask whether the Bloomsbury office has to close at 11 o'clock every morning, instead of at 3.30 p.m., because by 11 o'clock it is overflowing with a workload that cannot be met until early evening? Surely this shows that that office needs some help.
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that that office is one which has recently experienced considerable difficulties. Officials are urgently discussing with the Property Services Agency options to provide three or four integrated local offices in central London to take over the functions at present carried out in Bloomsbury area office, City and West End national insurance offices, and in Westminster ILO. When the necessary funding is available we look forward to our staff being much better accommodated and so able to offer an improved service to the public in the end.