Correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and the Minister of State for Work and Pensions (PS 01A)
DEAR IAN,
PENSION SERVICE EVIDENCE SESSION
I would like to clarify an issue relating to the availability of home visits for Pension Service customers, which arose in our recent one-off evidence session with Ms Alexis Cleveland and other officials.
The Committee noted that you had stated in the House on 20 May 2002, in reply to a question from Mr Frank Roy MP, that:
"Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres, such as the one at Motherwell, or receiving home visits and participating in other local activities. By providing that choice, we will make improvements for the older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time." (Hansard, 20 May 2002, column 4)
However, when this issue was raised with Ms Cleveland during her oral evidence on 12 June, she stated that:
"We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit." (transcript, Q 75)
When further questioned on the apparent difference between what she was telling the Committee and what you had indicated to the House, she stated:
"I need to go back and make sure I am delivering the brief which my Minister wants me to deliver." (Q 77)
We were pleased that Ms Cleveland offered to clarify this point, and a number of other issues that had arisen during the morning, and the Service's supplementary memorandum was received on 2 July, three weeks after the session. It dealt with many of our concerns, but on this particular issue it said:
"The local service is not designed to be a `visiting on demand' service and we would expect such occasions to be rare."
In the view of the Committee, this does not accord with what you told the House on 20 May—that customers would have an active choice in the type of service they received. The Committee have, therefore, asked me to seek clarification on this matter from you, before deciding whether the matter needs to be pursued further. In the circumstances, I would be grateful for a reply within seven days.
I have sent a copy of this letter to Ms Cleveland.
Andy Kirkwood
4 July 2002
DEAR ARCHY,
PENSION SERVICE EVIDENCE SESSION
Thank you for your letter of 4 July seeking further clarification of the local service The Pension Service will provide for customers.
I should like to explain that the latest customer research from the former Benefits Agency suggested that around 67 per cent of customers in the pensioner client group expressed a preference for contacting the organisation by telephone. We also know that over two thirds of Retirement Pension claims are made via the Pensions Direct telephone service. Historically pensioners have also expressed a marked reluctance to visit BA premises. From this evidence and research it is clear that most pensioners will choose to conduct their business through the telephone.
Naturally we recognise that there will be a minority of pensioners, particularly older pensioners, who are unable, or would prefer not to, use the telephone, post or internet and for those customers there will be a community based local service. The Pension Service is aiming to have a dedicated local service nation-wide. This will operate in the community to provide face-to-face contact for pensioners. This service will meet people in their own environment where they feel most comfortable and can access easily—for example, at the local library or post office. Home visits will form part of the local service, although, based on existing data from the Benefits Agency, we expect the number of pensioners requesting one to be low. However, the most efficient method of dealing with The Pension Service will clearly be by telephone and that is where the majority of our staff resources will be placed. It would not be desirable to design or staff a service to allow for a home visit to every pensioner when it is clear, from experience, that is not what pensioners want, from the service. We have planned for what we believe to be a more realistic demand for local service.
To support the setting up of The Pension Service and in particular the local service, we are negotiating partnership arrangements with a range of organisations including both Local Authorities and the voluntary sector. Whilst discussions are still ongoing our proposals have been positively received.
This will be the first time that pensioners will have had a dedicated team responding to their needs, in a proactive way. Working out in the community and in partnership with voluntary groups, local authorities and NGOs, the local service will revolutionise the service that pensioner's receive. For example, informing pensioners and those who work with them of entitlement to benefits, helping them to complete forms, training the voluntary sector in benefit awareness, as well as sign posting pensioners to other service providers.
Consequently, many more pensioners will feel the positive impact of the local service, not just those who may receive a home visit.
We are also keen to develop plans to maximise the number of Pension Credit claims from eligible pensioners and the local service will clearly have an important role to play in that process.
Our customers can continue to access our services via the existing social security network and the new improved local service arrangements, which will begin to take effect from October.
I hope this clarifies the position in relation to the local service. I intend hosting a series of presentations in the autumn, which I believe will provide colleagues with a useful update on progress in implementing The Pension Service, including local service, and I am more than happy to give the Committee advance sight of this presentation if that would be helpful.
Rt Hon Ian McCartner MP
10 July 2002
DEAR IAN,
PENSION SERVICE EVIDENCE SESSION
Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter of 4 July, requesting clarification of an issue raised in the oral evidence given by Ms Alexis Cleveland. It provided very useful, additional, information about the Service's local service provision and the Committee would definitely wish to take up the kind offer you made of advance sight of your autumn presentation on the subject.
However, your letter did not address the Committee's chief concern, which was related solely to the provision of home visits by the Pension Service. As I said in my earlier letter, you told the House on 20 May 2002:
"Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres, such as the one at Motherwell, or receiving home visits and participating in other local activities." (Hansard, 20 May 2002, column 4)
However, Ms Cleveland during her oral evidence on 12 June, stated that:
"We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit." (transcript, Q 75)
A view she reinforced in her supplementary memorandum to us:
"The local service is not designed to be a `visiting on demand' service and we would expect such occasions to be rare."
It is clear to the Committee that the two views cannot both be correct. Either, as you told the House, pensioners will be able to choose whether they wish to receive a home visit or use the telephone. Or, as seems more consistent with Government policy, Ms Cleveland was correct in saying that the Department will choose which customers receive a home visit, based on need.
The Committee has urged me to request that you state definitively which view is correct: yours or Ms Cleveland's. We look forward to your reply, preferably by the time of the House's sitting on Monday.
I have again sent a copy of this letter to Ms Cleveland.
Archy Kirkwood
17 July 2002
DEAR ARCHY KIRKWOOD
PENSION SERVICE EVIDENCE SESSION
Thank you for your letter, dated 17 July, seeking further clarification on the provision of home visits by the Pension Service.
Alexis Cleveland and I are agreed on the shape of the local delivery of the Pension Service, and there is no contradiction between our public statements if you look at what was said in full. During my statement to the House on 20 May, I went on to relate service access to need:
"By providing that choice, we will make improvements for older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time."
Moreover, this point has already been confirmed to the Committee in Alexis Cleveland's answers to the Committee's questions in her letter of 2 July:
"The type of circumstances that merit local service involvement will tend to relate to customer's physical or mental capabilities, as well as the needs of our increasing diverse ethnic pensioner base. Where a customer who does not meet these criteria requires a home visit, we would seek to meet that customer's needs. The local service is not designed to be a `visiting on demand' service and we would expect such occasions to be rare. A very successful visiting service was run in the Benefits Agency and we have learnt from best practise in designing the local service, which combines elements of the Visiting Officer job and District Information Officers with new partnership working tasks."
I hope that this is helpful to the Committee.
Rt Hon Ian McCartney MP
22 July 2002
| 
