HC Deb 24 November 1992 vol 214 cc640-1W
Ms. Janet Anderson

To ask the Secretary of State (1) for Employment what are the staff to customer ratios at(a) the Haslingden (Rossendale) jobcentre and (b) the Rawtenstall (Rossendale) jobcentre;

(2) if she will list the number of clients passing through (a) the Haslingden (Rossendale) jobcentre and (b) the Rawtenstall (Rossendale) jobcentre for each month since January;

(3) what studies have been undertaken, to assess the viability of the Haslingden (Rossendale) jobcentre as an integrated jobcentre/benefits office.

Mr. McLoughlin

Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Ms. Janet Anderson, dated 24 November 1992:

As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions to her about Haslingden and Rawtenstall Jobcentres. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

My letter of 4 November explained that the decision to close the office at Haslingden was taken only after a full consultation process involving local interested parties. Prior to this, there had been a full review of the way services were being delivered in this part of Lancashire. A number of options were considered and it was concluded that we could make best use of our resources by transferring services to the new integrated office in Rawtenstall. Setting up an integrated office in Haslingden was not considered a feasible option because of the close proximity to the office in Rawtenstall; the lack of suitable premises and the relatively small number of clients involved.

You asked for information about the nunber of clients passing through the local offices at Haslingden and Rawtenstall. Unfortunately, we do not have this information since we do not count numbers of people who use certain enquiry aspect of our services. Even if figures were available, however, they would not provide a safe basis for comparison between the offices because of the very different nature of the services being provided at Haslingden and Rawtenstall.

At Haslingden clients attend for information about job vacancies and to declare continuing unemployment, but the full range of services is not available. At Rawtenstall there is a wide range of services and clients regularly attend to make claims for benefit; to declare their continuing unemployment; to receive advice on benefit queries; to be given help on jobsearch and for advisory interviews. Many people who use the Haslingden office need also to go to Rawtenstall for the wider range of help it provides.

There are three staff permanently based in Haslingden. They are primarily responsible for the delivery of services to aid jobsearch. At Rawtenstall there are 20.9 staff and two of them travel to Haslingden on one day per week to take evidence of unemployment. It is not possible to provide meaningful staff to customer ratios at either office.

Finally, let me reassure you that we monitor very closely the performance of our offices and keep our network closely under review.

I hope this is helpful.

As decided by the Administration Committees of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.