Examination of Witnesses (Questions 79-85)
MR ALAN
CHURCHARD, MR
EDDIE SPENCE
AND MR
KEITH WYLIE
WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER 2001
Andrew Selous
79. May I probe you a little further on your
comments about transitional arrangements? I do not quite understand
the point you are making there. It would either seem to me that
there is a very small minority of one per cent of claimants out
there who are potentially violent and who do from time to time
harm your members in a way that none of us would want. I cannot
see why they are going to go away and not be a problem. Over time
I do not quite understand the point you are making that it is
all happening in one go, therefore it is not acceptable. Either
you are saying there is an ongoing risk and your members need
to be protected from this silent one per cent or you think that
problem is effectively dealt with and is not such a problem. I
do not quite understand the distinction you are making.
(Mr Churchard) I was trying to respond
in a positive way to the question from your colleague and to say
that it may well be, who knows because we have not got there yet,
that down the track the combined effect of the investment in the
local offices plus the variety of other security measures we are
seeing may mean that staff will feel much more comfortable about
delivering services in an environment which is less screened than
it was. The point I am trying to make is that we are moving very
quickly from a situation where people have an environment where
clients have to go through a screened reception at the beginning
and then, depending on the type of client and the type of transaction,
there may be a screened transaction between the member of staff
and member of the public. That is just happening like that. If
the trials were to be proper trials, is my point, then we would
have had a much wider variety of different types of screening
and different types of layout offered than are actually being
offered. The only exception to having totally unscreened reception
is one office where there was the prospect of trialing a pop-up
screen arrangement. It has been an area where Eddie has been specialising.
(Mr Spence) One of the difficulties we have in all
of this is that we have a dispute and the reason we have that
is because members feel very strongly about their concerns around
safety, otherwise we would not have a dispute. To some extent
we feel that the view is that the view of our members is one of
just wanting security screens to deal with every transaction undertaken
in Jobcentre Plus offices and that is far from the truth. The
reality is that we have tried to go in some detail to talk about
where we believed there was a need for security screening, the
different types of transactions where that would be sensible,
the different types of clients, because some people are known
to be potentially violent people, therefore they would tend to
be dealt with in a screened environment. It is also the case that
we believe, not everywhere but in some offices, particularly where
you have a significant amount of benefit related customer traffic,
there is a need for some form of screening, whether it be pop-up,
drop-down, or whatever, at the reception point. Our view is very
much that it is horses for courses. We want to have an environment
that our members feel safe in, depending on the clients they see,
whereas we seem to be faced with a one-size-fits-all approach
and that does not really work.
80. This is an important debate and if there
is anything we can do to prevent a strike by establishing what
your precise concerns are, it would be very helpful if you told
us now what the things are which would make this resolvable, the
precise demands you have which would make this resolvable which
are outstanding. I understand there was an agreement which went
to your National Disputes Committee which was acceptable, but
which was then rejected by the Executive. Can you tell us your
specific requirements?
(Mr Spence) A number of points but one of the key
ones is the one Alan raised with regard to screening at reception
points. Not every reception point in every Jobcentre Plus office
but certainly those offices where we believe that the customer
traffic and the nature of the customer traffic and the types of
transactions, particularly benefit related ones, where sanctions
may be imposed, are where a screened environment is necessary
at the reception point. That is an area where we actually identified
in our discussions—I do not want to go into too much detail—a
number of offices, more than the one on offer, round about a dozen,
where we believed that different types of screening options at
reception points could and should be tested in order to inform
where we went after this Pathfinder, which at the end of the day
is a pilot exercise into a roll-out nationally towards the end
of next year. That was one point. We also had concerns about the
fact that if it was accepted by the employer, which it is, that
certain transactions must be dealt with in a screened environment,
and it is also recognised that a number of the offices do not
have screened environments; how do you manage people from an unscreened
environment into a screened environment in another office when
the employer and ourselves both agree that transaction needs to
be dealt with in a screened environment? There were some customer
management arrangements to ensure staff safety which were not
dealt with. We made specific proposals on 13 November about them
and have not had a response to them yet. We also want more agreement
on what we do about risk assessment. We have some serious concerns
there. We have been trying to engage in a tripartite discussion
with HSE about the concerns we have with the generic risk assessment
on which all the local risk assessments are based and yet for
the last three weeks the employer has refused to discuss that
with us.
81. What I find mystifying is that these are
fairly small things which it seems to me could be worked out through
the Pathfinder process; they are mostly process issues and issues
about specific offices. You said in your evidence that these may
be transitional problems, that you did not have any evidence that
there were greater problems in ONE offices than in other areas
nor in Employment Service offices than in other areas, there is
little difference between you and the management and in the end
this may be a safer environment through the injection of the other
measures. What I do not understand is how such a small difference
can be leading to something which can potentially be a widespread
national strike, other than perhaps the fact that it is a politically
motivated strike in the sense that the General Secretary, in his
election literature said that he did not believe the Union should
enter partnership agreements; the employer is not their partner.
He also said that there was a mood to fight if a clear lead was
given. I should be grateful if you could assure me that it is
not a politically motivated strike.
Mrs Joan Humble
82. In a new area which has been proposed here,
why go back a step to the old system and have a screen? Is there
not a danger that once a screen goes into the new system it will
never go back down again? Secondly, I am a little concerned with
one or two of the remarks Eddie made about horses for courses.
I remember many, many years ago working for DSS when it was the
DHSS and working on the contributory side and the office was divided:
supplementary benefit/contributory benefit. It was deserving and
undeserving poor. It was the good guys who might have had accidents,
pensioners and NI contributions and people who were scroungers.
Surely what this whole pilot is about, and what this whole new
system, the ONE service and Jobcentre Plus, is about is treating
people as individuals and treating them all with dignity regardless
of what benefit they are coming in to claim, or whether they are
seeking advice on employment. Surely they should all be treated
the same. I do not want to see separate arrangements for one group
of people, who can then be stigmatised by another group of people.
How can we accommodate the underlying principles of the ONE service
and indeed the new Jobcentre Plus, whilst at the same time reassure
you and your staff who have genuine concerns? Although it was
20-odd years ago, I remember people coming in and shouting at
me over the counter, so we do need to reassure staff, but how
can we maintain that new philosophy?
(Mr Spence) We must have been in the
DHSS around the same time. There was a mind set, and indeed the
training probably contributed to it, which did look on people
as scroungers and was about denying people benefit rather than
giving them benefit. As a trade union we have put a lot of time
and effort into things like benefit take-up campaigns with local
authorities to try to make sure we do provide a service. At the
heart of it—and I make this point quite a lot—is that
the vast majority of them do the job they do because they do want
to provide a service to the public; that is why they do it. They
want to feel safe while they are doing it and they recognise that
there are some risks and the evidence is that there are risks
and there are assaults and so on. It is about us being able to
merge those two things together. We do support the concept of
Jobcentre Plus and bringing it together, the issue of people being
able to go to one place, that people can be talked to. We do not
want the vast majority of people to be seen in a screened environment
where there is no recognised potential safety issue— you
are talking about some of the most junior civil service staff
dealing with many of these issues. We want to ensure that where
there are those potential safety problems, people are safeguarded
against them. The vast majority of transactions and work would
be dealt with in an unscreened environment. We have no difficulty
with that. There is no article of faith on our side which says
we must have screens and there must be that many of them. The
way through it is by agreement and testing out something which
is not exactly what the BA has now, but something different which
looks perhaps at some reception screening options in areas where
we have identified concerns. For example, the Harlesden office,
which is a difficult area for our members to work in, is an area
where we believe there should be a screening option; Greenock
is another area. We were not saying that all 57 need to have these
options; we were offering a range of ideas which we felt would
allow us, once the Pathfinders are going through, to say what
works and what does not. We would still be there and still moving
to the idea of Jobcentre Plus dealing with the majority of people
and transactions in an unscreened environment, while providing
arrangements and safeguards to ensure our members felt, where
they believed it necessary, that they worked in a safe environment.
The reception point is an issue because the statistics the management
provided show that around 45 per cent of the incidents and assaults
occur at reception points. We have not said we want the whole
of the front of the office screened. Essentially what we have
said is that we believe there should be safety measures at a point
where we know there is a risk in certain offices where there is
high customer traffic. We should be the first to say, "You
have had that there for the last six months, nothing has happened,
staff do not think it is of much use". We have not developed
this dispute out of the blue: it is because members have concerns.
To some extent we are prepared to move in a direction some of
our members still would not be happy with, but the vast bulk would
be in terms of trying to get an agreed way forward.
(Mr Churchard) It is important we say, perhaps ironically
in view of the question, that one of the questions between ourselves
and Jobcentre Plus management is that we want a partnership agreement,
we asked for a partnership agreement and they will not give us
one. On your comment about the General Secretary Elect of the
PCS, he is not here to defend himself, so I shall do my best.
He, like myself and all the officers here, work to the policy
of the Union and the policy of the National Executive Committee
and our policy is that we want partnership agreements and specifically
we have asked for a partnership agreement with Jobcentre Plus
in the same way that we now have one with DSS and previous to
that we had one with BA. That is one of the issues between us.
Chairman
83. I am sitting here listening to this and
everyone has agreed with the concept and we have seen it in action
and it is brilliant when it works and is working well. The danger
is that the whole concept is going to be dragged down and prejudiced
by this, what I consider to be an important but a second order
issue which relates to staff safety and you have to be concerned
about that. Is there not a danger that the whole concept will
be prejudiced if we are not careful?
(Mr Churchard) I very much hope not because
we are very much supportive of the concept; I do not think I can
emphasise that too much. I have said and I believe that there
are not that many differences between us. They are not that great
and I hope they can be resolved. The problem we have at the moment
specifically is that we are not talking. We are asking for meetings
and not getting them. Out of that frustration is the situation
we are in.
84. That is an unfortunately negative note on
which to end. This is an important report for us and we have some
work to do on it yet and it is important we get it right because
the long-term future of the quality of service our claimants get
depends on the Government and us and everybody getting it right.
What would your closing advice be to us as a Committee in terms
of what you think we should concentrate on in drawing up this
report, to try to signpost some of the things in terms of implementation
that we think the Government should look again at? Would you choose
these safety issues or would it be some of the private sector
issues? What would be the key thing you would want to leave us
with as an idea we should concentrate on to get things better
for you in the course of this piece of work we are doing?
(Mr Churchard) May I mention three things? We have
covered the safety one. On the private sector one Keith has made
our position clear. The other thing is to focus on the frustrations
which staff feel in terms of things which are stopping them delivering
the service as it might be delivered, particularly IT but also
training and things like that, which are causing a lot of frustration
and leading to targets not being met.
Andrew Selous
85. We have figures in front of us which show
quite a significant increase in the number of assaults in BA and
ES between 1999 and 2000 and the notes seem to suggest that is
because of a campaign to encourage your staff to report incidents.
I should like your comments on that if you think that wholly accounts
for it. We did hear on our visit some comments that there was
sometimes pressure from management that incidents should not be
reported. So we have heard both sides of that one. Secondly, can
you give me your views, please, on the adequacy of floor walkers
and panic buttons and those sorts of measures to try to prevent
incidents in a non-screened environment? Are you satisfied with
the current proposals in that area?
(Mr Wylie) On the number of incidents,
we did have a campaign, initially in the DSS and latterly in the
Employment Service encouraging members to report incidents because
the anecdotal evidence we had from members and from representatives
was that there was a massive amount of under-reporting, particularly
of verbal abuse against Benefits Agency staff, through screens
but also what some people would describe as minor physical assaults
against Employment Service staff in Jobcentres. We had a poster
campaign to remind people to fill out the appropriate form IF1.
That may well have led to more people reporting more incidents,
but the core of the problem is the number of incidents, not the
number of reports. Our view is that the number of incidents is
significantly too high.
(Mr Spence) On the panic buttons, we see both panic
buttons and CCTV, and it has to be CCTV which has someone monitoring
it now and again, instead of being stuck in a back room, which
it tends to be in some places such as Harlesden when we looked
at the plans for that. There needs to be a range of measures.
Chairman: We shall stop there. May I say thank
you gentlemen, that has been very useful? You obviously put a
lot of work into the evidence and we shall give it very careful
consideration. It has been very useful and valuable having your
appearance here this afternoon. Thank you very much for your attendance.
The Committee stands adjourned.
|
