| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chidgey: May I return to a previous point? We have looked at the Minister's proposals for regulation of the providers of pre-paid funeral plans and I am grateful for his answer on that. However, by purchasing a plan from a large organisation, one is inevitably locked into using one of its funeral directors. The issue is whether that limits competition and choice. Is it possible to separate investing in a pre-paid funeral plan from using a particular funeral provider? A national charity may be in a good position to consider whether a funeral director should have to subscribe to certain standards in order to be one of the recommended, preferred or accepted funeral directors able to access a pre-paid plan purchased from a separate or third party. I hope that the Minister can also address my problem in respect of the NHS bereavement services.
Mr. Griffiths: I will do so as soon as I have answered the hon. Gentleman's previous question. As part of the investigation by the Director General of Fair Trading into the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report and the subsequent dealings with one major provider that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind, the director general is responsible for monitoring any undertakings given and a review of the position is about to be undertaken by the director general's officials. There are concerns about transparency in respect of price and ownership. If such concerns persist in the industry, the Director General of Fair Trading will consider whether any other issues need further consideration or study.
The hon. Gentleman raised a valid point about the role of hospitals. A complaint has been lodged in respect of one hospital--the Central Middlesex Hospitals trust--because of its decision to provide mortuary and bereavement services. The Director General of Fair Trading has considered the arrangements under competition legislation,
but found no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, either on the part of the hospital or by the successful contractor, which would justify the use of the director general's competition powers.
As always, however, if further evidence is presented by any aggrieved party, hon. Members or anyone else, the director general will examine the matter afresh. In that respect, and in respect of advertising and marketing reports, it is important to put into perspective what has been done and the action that has been taken by the Government and organisations such as the Office of Fair Trading and to examine all the ramifications and aspects of the issue.
Mr. Chidgey:
I commend the Minister's openness in discussing the issue and, as the months go by, I hope to have the opportunity to consider the possibilities of regulation and legislation in more detail, and in a more consultative way, perhaps outside the House.
Mr. Griffiths:
Certainly our examination of the issue will not lack detail. I should summarise for the House the steps that we have already taken and where we will go from here.
We have been in touch with the Advertising Standards Authority in writing about alleged abuse by one provider and possible breach of the authority's code. I hope to have the opportunity to report its findings in due course. Likewise, we have been in touch with the Charity Commission about concerns that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere about a commercial arrangement between charities and funeral providers which may not be fully transparent. Of course such an arrangement must be fully transparent, as I am sure that all hon. Members would agree.
We have taken an important step in contacting all the major associations of funeral providers to ensure that they spell out to their members their legal obligations, which may be wider than some hon. Members had thought. As I have said previously, the way ahead is--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. We must move on to the next debate.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this important issue. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider the proposal to close Burnley valuation office. I first became concerned about the proposed closure in December 1995; the proposal was first made around May that year. I have become increasingly concerned about the matter this year, partly because the decision was becoming imminent. Indeed, the decision has now been taken and the Burnley office is set to close.
The Burnley valuation office is an important office, which has a staff of about 32 people. It serves my constituency, the borough of Burnley, Blackburn, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and Pendle--an area of 500,000 people. It serves that area very well and is well respected, but it is due to close in March 1999. Although I shall specifically speak about the Burnley office, I recognise that some of the issues may apply to other proposed closures. I do not know the details of those other cases; I am particularly concerned with the Burnley office.
This morning, I received a fax that informed me that Veronica Lowe, the chief executive officer of the Valuation Office agency, surprisingly announced her resignation on Friday. She had been very much involved in overseeing the proposed changes. That announcement followed another one last week. Mr. Mike Jordan, the director of business resources, announced that he is to take early retirement in March 1998. He has masterminded--if that is the right word--the changes. The name of the programme of changes is Newvos--new valuation offices. Veronica Lowe's resignation was surprising because, only a few months ago, we were dealing with an acting chief executive officer, Mr. Peter Upton, who has since retired. Veronica Lowe had not held the post for all that long before Mr. Upton became the acting chief executive while she was off.
Having dealt with the issue through a fair amount of correspondence--I shall refer to some of it--I do not believe that the case has yet been made for the closure. It is my view that the Minister has been ill advised. Indeed, some people think she may have been misinformed. I felt that it was only right to call this debate to force the issues into the open and allow them to be scrutinised.
In May 1997, Mr. Varley, the then district valuer and valuation officer in Burnley, wrote to Mr. Upton, who was at that time director of operations. Incidentally, Mr. Varley has also retired. He was succeeded for a short time by Mr. Speight and subsequently succeeded by Mr. Borland, who had been the district valuer in Burnley some time previously. All the national and local staff changes are quite puzzling. I mention that particularly, because the way in which the staff are being moved around like pawns must be most disturbing for them and must introduce a certain inconsistency.
In his letter in May, Mr. Varley made a very detailed case for the Burnley office to remain open. He said:
On 25 September, I wrote to Mr. Upton and sent an almost identical letter to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I made a number of points in favour of the reconsideration of the case:
My letter continued:
Burnley borough council's local taxation officer, Michael Frazer, wrote to me to express his concern. The council has pursued the issue for some time. He made an additional point about the impact on local government in east Lancashire, because all the local boroughs felt that they had received excellent service because the office was based in east Lancashire. The council wrote to me again on 13 October to make a further point:
The latter question is important, because the union vote has been interpreted wrongly. I have received a letter from the Preston branch--the very office that will become a group office--which stated:
1.30 pm
"We were pleased to hear from Mike"--
that is Mike Jordan, to whom I referred--
"that no final decision to close the Burnley office has been taken, and that it is recognised that Burnley is an 'extremely efficient office'. Mike Jordan's express wish that this efficiency be replicated nationwide is an essential element of our own thinking."
17 Dec 1997 : Column 306
Mr. Varley detailed why the Burnley office should remain open under the headings of cost effectiveness, customer service and business development. He said that, due to the 23 miles between Burnley and Preston, travel costs would substantially increase, as would the amount of non- productive time spent on case work. He referred to items such as office rental, which in Burnley is only 50 to 60 per cent. of the cost in Preston. Rents in Preston are higher because it is on the InterCity network and at a major convergence of the motorway network. He also pointed out that car parking is significantly cheaper in Burnley.
Mr. Upton replied on 25 July to the representations that I had made in the interim:
"The proposals for streamlining the Agency network of local valuation offices were detailed . . . in a letter of 19 July 1995"
He said that, on 10 May 1996, the Valuation Office's former chief executive, John Langford--yet another name which has come into the picture--wrote to me in response to the concerns that I had expressed at that stage. Mr. Upton continued:
"No final decision on implementing will be made before the views of all concerned have been carefully considered."
Mr. Upton wrote to me again on 5 September:
"A consensus has been reached with the trades unions representing Valuation Office staff, and . . . will include the merger of the office that covers your constituency with adjoining offices."
That two-page letter does not say what will happen to the Burnley office until appendix B, which I think is a strange way of going about things. The Burnley office will be merged into the Preston office. Preston will become a group office with satellite offices in Lancaster, Carlisle and Ulverston. Those three satellite offices are all in west Lancashire. The Burnley office covers east Lancashire, which is very different. As I said, Burnley is effectively a city of 500,000 people, although it is covered by six different local authorities.
"I do not believe closure and moving the office into extra space at Preston will save money. Office space at Preston is dearer than in Burnley. I understand staff in Burnley did put forward proposals on how money could be saved. Have these proposals been considered? . . . The service level at present is excellent, I feel it will be worse at Preston. It will certainly be less local and that is contrary to policy aims of the new Government."
On coming into office, the Labour Government stressed the provision of services near the local people, wherever possible. I accept that that is not always possible, but we should aim for it.
"It will also mean in the long run less job opportunities here"--
in Burnley--
"as the job range is very narrow."
North-east Lancashire, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is in his place, is heavily dependent on manufacturing jobs. There is nothing wrong with that--indeed, I have worked in manufacturing myself--but we need a wider range of jobs. While the majority of employees of the valuation office will move to Preston, when they retire in future years the jobs will probably be filled by people from the west side of the county, not the east.
"Consultation is currently taking place about the possibility of a Council Tax revaluation and future revaluations . . . If such revaluation becomes a reality, it appears that the Burnley office would have a crucial role to play in the process."
I then consulted other Members of Parliament in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle had already expressed concern independently about the proposal and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have also raised issues arising from the proposed closure. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary wrote to me on 18 November:
"I am generally content with the thrust of the change proposals concerning improved service".
She continued:
"A ballot of the Agency's Trades Union membership has now been conducted and the structure, based on 24 Groups over the country with a total of 85 offices, has been accepted."
In the intervening period, I received several letters from Veronica Lowe and Michael Jordan, all of which I considered unsatisfactory. I wrote back on one occasion to say that I felt that they had responded inappropriately to issues raised by a Member of Parliament. Their letters had dodged questions about costs, which are crucial to the proposed closure of the Burnley office. They were also not prepared to answer questions about how much extra office space would be needed at Preston; what extra costs would be involved; or what the union vote really meant.
"the overwhelming number of the staff who work here"--
in Preston--
"are appalled that Burnley office is to close down, indeed at a recent ballot on the office closure programme 90 per cent. of staff voted against the proposals."
I then received a letter from a higher level in the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union, Inland Revenue Group, which stated:
"Firstly the trades unions have not accepted the restructuring proposals, the ballot question asked members to 'acknowledge that the new VOA"--
the Valuation Office--
"Group Structure will be implemented', and sought to allow national officials to continue negotiations on the many issues the restructuring has thrown up. That does not constitute acceptance."
The union's claim is that the ballot was about whether--if the restructuring was forced on members--the union should be involved in discussions about what should then happen. It is realistic for the union to say that it wants to be involved, but that does not mean that it can be claimed that the union approves the change that will take place.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |