HC Deb 21 April 2004 vol 420 cc133-42WH 4.12 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)

The Isle of Wight is a diamond-shaped offshore island with four major centres of population, each of which has a population of around 15,000 to 20,000. They are: Newport, in the centre of the island; Ryde, on the north-east coast; the Sandown and Shanklin area, which is called the bay area, on the south-east coast; and Cowes, which is 4 miles from Newport. The other towns are about 7 and a half miles apart. Shanklin jobcentre serves the Sandown bay area, plus the town of Ventnor, right on the south of the island, and places as far afield as Godshill, Newchurch and Chale.

We have been aware for some time of the Government's plans to roll out the Jobcentre Plus concept, a new way of providing back-to-work services in a one-stop way right across the island. It appears to have been very successful in Newport and Ryde. The Jobcentre Plus property agent wrote in a letter to the landlord of the Shanklin jobcentre on 22 May 2002: A significant number of properties are to be refurbished and converted as new Jobcentre Plus properties. The premises detailed above"— that is Shanklin jobcentre at I Steephill Road and the corner of the high street— have been identified as one of those offices that will be refurbished to present a more welcoming environment for the Jobcentre Plus customers. The refurbishment will involve internal alterations to provide a better reception area and more space for face to face interviews to be conducted. So, the landlord, like everyone else, believed that the centre would remain open.

Although I was told earlier this year that the district manager for Jobcentre Plus had, later in 2002, decided that the premises were unsuitable—a decision that was reversed—we heard nothing officially about closure until a letter from the district manager dated 23 January 2004. It really was a bombshell for Jobcentre Plus in Shanklin and for its customers. The district manager said: I had hoped to be able to secure new premises in Shanklin, as our current premises are unsuitable for future business requirements: most notably in respect of allowing access for Disabled customers. Unfortunately, no suitable premises can be found at an acceptable price and the existing office cannot be adapted at an acceptable cost. Consideration has been given to looking at building new premises … but the cost of these (in excess of £2 million) has proved prohibitive. I have now been advised that it is unlikely that suitable premises could be secured within an acceptable cost or timescale. As a result, we are forced to consider an alternative service delivery plan for the Isle of Wight. This will entail closing the existing office in Shanklin, and expanding the facilities at Ryde, whilst establishing (subject to discussion with partners) a Jobpoint terminal locally within the Shanklin area.

I met the district manager, with the Isle of Wight manager, at Shanklin jobcentre on 1 March, and later that day I visited Ryde jobcentre to see what had been implemented there. At the meeting on 1 March, the district manager told us that Shanklin was unsuitable for disabled people and costly to convert. We asked whether a disabled access audit had been undertaken and were told that it had. However, it has not been provided to us.

The landlord is an architect and said consideration would be given to making further alterations to establish compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Alterations could include reopening the door at high street level, which opens on to the corner of the front office. The building is like one of the few bank buildings that have not been converted into wine bars. He also suggested that a lift could be installed.

We have received no evidence that the office is unsuitable, although clearly it is not ideal. The agents of Jobcentre Plus clearly did not think it unsuitable in May 2002. If they had, the local community would have made an effort to find suitable premises. We requested information at the meeting on 1 March, and confirmed that request by email on 2 March. The information we requested included details of any legislative reason why the jobcentre service could not be continued from the current building: details of the perceived operational reasons for the decision; and details of any research undertaken on the cost to the user of travelling to alternative premises should the Shanklin branch close, and the time that it would take.

In a letter on 30 March, of which I believe the Minister has a copy, I also commented on the costs of relocating Jobcentre Plus to Ryde vis-à-vis refurbishment or relocation in Shanklin. Suffice to say that it is curious that in the case against the new build the cost is given as a capital sum, while the cost of relocation is given as a revenue sum, which does not make the figures easy to compare.

I accept that the present building may not be acceptable, although I do not accept that it is not. Let us consider what Jobcentre Plus has done to find new premises. I asked the district manager what specification the agents of Jobcentre Plus had been provided with and what other premises they had looked at. In a letter to me on 12 March, the district manager provided an annexe, which said simply: Floor space 450 sq m Location Shanklin or Sandown (but prepared to look at others in the vicinity) Access requirements fully DDA compliant. I have asked for more details on the specification, but they have not been provided.

As I said, I also asked for a list of premises that had been considered and was given four, among them the old cinema site in the high street, which was described as unsuitable as refurbishment was not viable. I happen to know something about the old cinema site, because it belongs to Shanklin Conservative club. I declare an interest as a member of that club. The club was proposing an extension at ground and first floor levels, but over only one third of the footprint of the old cinema site. That would have left two thirds of the footprint plus the basement, which is accessible at high street level, for possible development. It is a pity that it was not pursued more vigorously by the Jobcentre Plus agent because it is only now that the site is being cleared for development and it looks as though the remaining two thirds, plus some floors above, will be used for housing. That would have made an excellent site.

On 30 March I reiterated a number of other requests for information, including the access audit and the list of the five alternative premises considered. I will not go through the other premises, but they did not include, for example. Spithead business park, Shanklin library, which the county council is considering relocating, and the huge and underused Shanklin railway station car park. I believe that that was because Jobcentre Plus retained only a mainland agent. Had it appointed an island agent—or if the mainland agent had appointed an island sub-agent—with a brief to find premises rather than merely find what premises were available, it would have got better value for money. For example, an agent on the island might have found that one convenient site that is available has outlying planning permission for 6,000 sq ft, which is in advance of what Jobcentre Plus needs.

The Library has supplied me with a memorandum on consultation undertaken, which was submitted by Jobcentre Plus to the Work and Pensions Committee on 9 July 2003. I will not read it in detail because it is extensive. However, having read section 2, under the heading "Consultation", I conclude that there was no adequate consultation. Let me give you some examples. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The people to be consulted include: Local MPs, MEPs, MSPs, Members of the National Assembly of Wales. Local authorities—both councillors and officials … Employers—a sample of key employment providers and their representative bodies, for example, the local chambers of commerce. Health authorities, primary care trusts, local GPs, landlords and joint tenants. The memorandum continues: Stakeholders are provided with a description of how it is proposed to deliver services, details of which sites are planned to be refurbished, a description of any planned acquisitions, and details of which sites are considered for closure.

Sadly, there was no consultation with the county council, the town council, the Isle of Wight economic partnership, the chamber of commerce, the primary care trust, or the Member of Parliament. I was sent a letter outlining the proposal and was asked for my views, but I was not asked to respond as I could have done had I been informed earlier of the Jobcentre Plus agent's conclusion that the current premises were unsatisfactory; a conclusion with which I, as well as the people working in those premises, disagree. One of those people, Diane Graham, wrote to me to point out: As a Disability Employment Adviser, based in Shanklin Jobcentre for the past six years, I can confirm that there has never been an access problem for my clients. Likewise should a disabled person be seeking help from other staff in the office, it has always been the policy for the staff to come to the ground floor, if necessary, to provide the full range of services to the caller, in line with the service they would give on any floor in the building.

I am not impressed with the intensity or meaningfulness of the consultation. Furthermore, I am not confident that the needs of the local community and of users have been properly considered. The town clerk of Ventnor town council writes: The Town Council have noted with great concern the report"— a report in the county press, not a letter that the town council received from Jobcentre Plus— that it is intended to close the Job Centre at Shanklin. Ventnor, as you will be aware, is amongst the top ten areas in the country designated as having social deprivation … Now it is being suggested that users would have to travel to Newport it beggars belief. Are those dealing with the closure aware of the difficulty of travel from Ventnor to Newport and the cost of public transport? As much as anywhere on the Island, Ventnor needs the service of a Job Centre. We cannot believe that any real understanding exists about the true position of our population.

Another service user writes: The Department keeps telling the staff in newsletters how we are customer focused. I cannot see how forcing the poorest people on the island to travel 8–10 miles extra by inadequate and expensive public transport is in the public interest or for their benefit … When a customer's giro doesn't arrive (or bank account is not credited) how are they supposed to find almost £4 to travel to Ryde or Newport to ask for an urgent payment?

A local mother-to-be, again from Ventnor, wrote on 27 February: I am extremely unhappy with the proposal to close Shanklin jobcentre as this would cause much inconvenience to me in my condition, especially in terms of time and cost which I can ill afford. Would you be kind enough to ask whoever is responsible for this decision-making to please reconsider?

It concerns me even more that I appear to be getting the blame. One constituent wrote: I went to sign on in Shanklin today and to my dismay I find that you are considering closing the jobcentre and dole office there. I think that you need a signing on office for Sandown, Shanklin, Ventnor and surrounding areas. Also to my dismay I am told that I will have to pay my own bus fares to sign on in Ryde or Newport. Please tell me that you're taking the something or other.

He went on to say: It costs £7 from Shanklin to Newport return. Am I getting more money to cover this extra cost on an already stingy amount of cash to live on!! You try and exist on £54 per week!!

Incidentally, I rang Southern Vectis and I found that not all buses on the service from Shanklin to Ventnor are disabled accessible. The young mum, to whom I referred, would find it a great deal easier to negotiate her way into the jobcentre at Shanklin than she would to get on to a bus, travel to Ryde, perhaps with a child in a buggy, and go to the jobcentre there.

This is something that concerns me more widely, but it is important because it illustrates what the staff of the jobcentre are doing, which is perhaps beyond their remit. Another member of the staff wrote: At the present time with Income Support claims being processed in Fareham and Social Fund in Cosham I consider the service to islanders wishing to claim these benefits is poor. Often we have customers coming to Shanklin job centre about these claims, sometimes in a distressed state and we are unable to help except to give these customers access to our phones. When I have phoned on behalf of customers to Income Support for instance, I have found them to be unsympathetic and unhelpful, easy for them at the end of the phone, not so pleasant for us with the customer sat in front of us.

That is a bit of a sorry tale. Most infuriating has been the difficulty of obtaining evidence from the district manager as to exactly what advice she has been given. That is illustrated by an email that was sent to my secretary and which I received on 15 April. It said that the district manager: has answered the issues Andrew has raised in his letter with all information that is available to her at this time. Well, how come it is not available to her at that time, but it was available to her when she made the decisions?

It seems to be a sorry tale of corners cut and solutions brought forward that work for the bureaucracy, but not for the community. I am grateful to Geoff Lumley of the PCS union for drawing the issue to my attention. Its members are unaffected by the proposal because their jobs are guaranteed, but they are concerned about the consequences for their clients. I am grateful to Val Urquhart and to other staff of the job centre in Shanklin for the good work that they do all of the time; to the many local residents who have put out petitions and to businesses who have made petitions available; and to David Pugh, the editor of the local "In Touch" newsletter, who has publicised the availability of the petition.

I understand that the district manager is about to move to a new district and that a new manager will be in place shortly. I ask that that new district manager undertakes a new and genuine consultation, perhaps with the assistance of Isle of Wight agents, and in particular that they consider whether a partnership approach could enable new build to take place.

4.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on what is clearly an important subject, not only for him, but for his constituents. He has made that quite clear in the way in which he set out his remarks.

I fully understand his concern to ensure that Jobcentre Plus provides a quality service to his constituents in Shanklin. I would hope that he would accept that it is also our concern that we are able to do that. Before I start dealing with the detail of the points that he raised, I must say that those issues arise only because of our determination to modernise the welfare state and provide an individualised service to a range of people who have not received that service in the past. They include those who are sick, disabled, on incapacity benefit, lone parents and those who have not been expected to look for work in the past.

Our active labour market policies have resulted in the highest employment figures on record, the lowest unemployment figures since 1975 and a reduction of 500,000 in the number of children living in relative low income. We have the highest employment rate and the lowest unemployment rate of the big seven industrialised nations. That has not happened accidentally: it is due in part to our active labour market policies and the transformation of old-fashioned services into much more individualised services. That is what Jobcentre Plus is about, and that is what we are trying to achieve in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

The people of the Isle of Wight are being well served by the established Jobcentre Plus offices, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Since 1997, unemployment there has fallen by 57 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 85 per cent. Both those figures are higher than the national average. The new deals on the island have helped nearly 3,000 people into work in his constituency. I am sure that he rejoices in that record of success as much as I do.

We know that there is more to do, and that is why we want to transform the rest of the services on the island. Jobcentre Plus is about providing a new type of service, as well as helping the traditional jobseeker's allowance clients. We are also helping lone parents and disabled people to think about finding work, sometimes for the first time.

Having reduced the numbers of unemployed people, we are now working to give employment opportunities to everyone. and in particular those groups that have traditionally been ignored by previous Governments. We are making our services more accessible to everyone, and it is absolutely key that we do that in a modern and sensible way that deals with the extra challenges that the agenda poses for staff and services.

We are opening new, modern offices. The hon. Gentleman has visited some in his constituency and he will have seen the vast difference that there is between the old-style social security office—even the old-style Employment Service office—and what we can offer with Jobcentre Plus. Customers can make inquiries about their benefits and employment opportunities in a joined-up way that makes sense to them. Telephone contact centres allow them to make the same inquiries from the comfort of their own home, which they were not always able to do in the past. New technology enables them and us to find the information that they need about jobs and training via the internet, job points and other such innovations, all of which are being placed in local sites such as libraries and supermarkets to make them more accessible.

During the national planning for the implementation of Jobcentre Plus, customer representatives and trade unions were consulted widely. At district level, managers consult the widest possible range of people about the service that they plan to provide. Local advice and welfare groups, local authorities and MPs are essential sources of guidance, and we seek to take advantage of their local knowledge and their insight into what is necessary.

Some 450 of the new-style offices have been successfully opened, but the change cannot be delivered nationally overnight. In specific instances, it presents us with specific problems, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted one that we face on the island. We find that once the changes have been introduced, however, eight out of 10 customers are satisfied with all elements of the service. That is quite a high percentage.

The hon. Gentleman knows that our original plans for the Isle of Wight involved the creation of three integrated offices in Newport, Ryde and Shanklin. Shanklin provided a particular dilemma, partly because the new office had to handle its existing client base of 700 unemployed people and about 3,500 more people claiming income support or incapacity benefits—the types of people whom we have not helped in the past but wish to draw into the service now. Any plans put in place had to ensure that all customers, including the new cohort whom we had not previously considered, could use the office.

We would like to have maintained the excellent service already provided to the unemployed in the Shanklin area, and extended it to lone parents and people claiming incapacity benefits, ideally from a site in Shanklin, thus improving the service we provide to those who have to travel to Newport. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at present only JSA claimants use the Shanklin service; the 3,500 lone parents and incapacity benefit claimants who want to access our services already have to travel because they cannot access the services in Shanklin. Many people from that area have to travel to Newport.

The existing jobcentre is too small; I have seen the correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I know there is more of it, with other contacts. Figures have been bandied about on square footage, size, what is needed, what is necessary and what it is possible to squeeze out of the existing premises, which are on three floors. As the hon. Gentleman said, a town house is not ideal, and there is a slope from front to back that presents difficulties. Proper disabled access in such a building is difficult, but not impossible, to achieve. However, it is an issue, and there is no doubt that for an integrated office—a Jobcentre Plus office—we would prefer to have the best possible standards of access that we can manage.

We considered a number of alternative local properties and the possibility of a bespoke new build, which would have cost in excess of £2 million. There has been a big investment of £2 billion across the country to deal with the roll out of Jobcentre Plus, but that does not absolve us from the obligation to secure proper value for money.

The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the existing sites; it would not be helpful for me to go through them now, but I shall be happy to send him a full list of those that we considered if he does not have one. There are at least two sites on that list where we considered a new build, but that would involve the extra consideration of cost. We have to be able to show value for money and an amount in excess of £2 million would be a big investment.

Mr. Turner

I accept that the whole point of developer building is that the developer puts in the capital and the Department pays the rent.

Maria Eagle

The hon. Gentleman knows that some consider the arrangements in respect of our estates and the private partners that we already deal with to be quite complicated. Things are not always as simple as he might think. However, I can assure him that we have considered a range of existing properties, sites and new build, not only in the Isle of Wight. We have been rolling out these offices throughout the country, and different sites and areas present us with different problems. Each one is unique, but there are common themes and our people are becoming skilled at tackling the issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done our best to find an alternative in Shanklin that is suitable all round. We did not want the outcome to be moving out of Shanklin, but to ensure that all our customers can access our services—that is what our proposed second-order solution will require.

Newport and Ryde already have Jobcentre Plus offices, which have been upgraded, as the hon. Gentleman, who has visited them, knows. They are providing the new services, are completely accessible to all clients and are already being used by the majority of the 3,500 additional customers from Shanklin to whom I referred. Although that alternative has required an extra expansion at Ryde to be able to cope with the capacity, it is a more cost-effective, value-for-money solution than the alternatives that we identified in Shanklin.

The district manager did consult, but he made some comments about the consultation, which he considered inadequate. I am sorry he thinks that, but we did consult 18 local stakeholders. We can bandy thoughts around about what constitutes a consultation, but I assure him that final decisions had not already been taken about what the solution should be when the letter, which he does not consider to have been a consultation, went out. Since then, we have spent time trying to find a Shanklin solution. To date, only the hon. Gentleman has responded negatively. I do not mean that unpleasantly, but he responded by saying that he does not agree with the way in which we have tackled the problem. That is not to say that no one else has concerns.

I also appreciate that the distance and cost of travel for existing customers of the Shanklin jobcentre is a matter of concern, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. More than 80 per cent. of our customers in Shanklin already travel to Newport because the services that they were accessing are not available at Shanklin. For the others, the local bus and rail links—he referred to a fare of £7, with which we do not disagree—compare favourably with similarly sized towns on the mainland, and even with those in the rest of his constituency, and the distances and the lengths of journeys are not out of line with those in other parts of the country. I acknowledge his point, but they are not unusual. The only alternative is to provide in Shanklin a service that is available only to the unemployed. We believe that that would be a two-tier service, which we do not want to consider.

The Department is a key employer on the Isle of Wight. It provides jobs for about 250 people. We recently announced that one of the two sites for the new national organisation for the checking of national insurance numbers will be in Newport and will guarantee a future for about 70 jobs there. I am pleased to be able to announce today that we will increase staffing on the Isle of Wight by almost 50 per cent. in that unit in the next two years as part of the national centralisation of the work.

Jobcentre Plus is managing the integration of more than 1,500 officers, handling more than 10,000 job vacancies and helping more than 100,000 callers every working day. In doing so, it is extending its services to everyone of working age who wants to access them, including people who have been ignored in the past, such as lone parents, disabled people and the unemployed, who will all be given increased opportunities to work and to contribute more to society. We can then begin to break the cycle of benefit dependency.

The Shanklin solution is not what we originally wanted, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have done our best and that the final outcome will produce a much better service to everyone on the island. Despite his continuing concerns, I assure him that we have done our best. I am more than willing to talk to him further if he so wishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Five o'clock.