| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 Apr 2003 : Column 779—continued
Jobcentre Plus (Hendon)
11.48 pm
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at such a late hour to start what I expect to be the last debate of this parliamentary term. I wish I had a fiver for every hon. Member who has mentioned to me, either with glee or commiseration, that I had the last debate tonight.
I support the concept of Jobcentre Plus, which provides major improvements, combining benefits and job-seeking help from the same office. From what I have seen of the pathfinder offices that I visited during my work on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I have been impressed. Staff appreciate the better working conditions. Clients are treated like human beings in pleasant, business-like surroundings.
My main concern is with implementation, both in general and in relation to my constituency. I am concerned that an office closure programme is being driven by the Treasury rather than for the benefit of the service. I understand from the Public and Commercial Services Union that a target of 1,000 jobcentre closures has become "a given" from the Treasury, and that for each round of the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus regional managers have been given the number of the offices to be closed as part of their job for the year. I am concerned about the lack of consultation and the breathtaking arrogance of management from the top down, as evidenced in letters that I have received from managers. They seem unable to apologise for errors in implementation that the Minister has apologised for. Nor do they seem to have the basic understanding that consultation means not just delaying a decision, but consulting openly to test, and if necessary to modify, their proposals. In my constituency, at least, that has resulted in a failure to give any proper explanations of the decisions taken.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and for raising this very important topic, which is of concern to his constituents and mine. Does he agree that the lack of consultation has been of particular concern to local people, because it is in exactly that part of both of our constituencies where the need is greatest among the local population?
Mr. Dismore: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall deal with the question of consultation in some detail in a minute. He is of course referring to the closure of Burnt Oak jobcentre, which is one—but not the only one—of the closures about which I am concerned.
In April 2002, Burnt Oak jobcentre was moved from the North London district, which serves my constituency, to the Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon district. The jobcentre stayed where it was, the boundary being down the middle of the Edgware road. This decision was taken by the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus. No reasons were given for the move, nor was there any consultation about the change in organisation. The jobcentre is on the other side of the road from my
constituency, but so is Edgware jobcentre, which was allowed to remain in the North London district. That decision, organisational though it may have been, is the root cause of many of the problems that we have experienced. Clients primarily from my constituency, in the London borough of Barnet, are now being served by a jobcentre situated in the borough of Brent—a factor that Jobcentre Plus conveniently overlooked in deciding to close Burnt Oak jobcentre.On 28 June and 17 September, I was asked to comment on a change in services to the Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon district. As I had not been told that my constituents had been moved out of my constituency for Jobcentre Plus purposes, I assumed that there was nothing to worry about. I knew that our roll-out of Jobcentre Plus was a long way off. The letter of 28 June said, in the context of my constituents not being affected, that the service was
- "looking at options for alternative ways of delivering services"
On 17 September, I was told that the intention was to
- "replace existing services with more flexible services from alternative locations",
In a letter from the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus dated April 2003—no day was given, just the month—I was told of the list of people who had been consulted. The facts should have been checked before that letter was written. I have consulted my parliamentary neighbours, both of whose constituencies are served by Jobcentre Plus, and neither has any recollection of being consulted—perhaps because of the rather elusive way in which the letters were worded. I was told that employers were consulted. Today, I spoke to the management of Brent Cross, the largest employer in my constituency, who did not even know that the jobcentre had closed until I told them.
On Friday, I visited the Shaw trust, a very important voluntary sector organisation in my constituency. It is operating a workstep programme in conjunction with Jobcentre Plus, helping a dozen disabled people—most of whom are from west Hendon, in my constituency—at the former council nursery with programmes relating to the growing of plants. I visited it on Friday, and was told that it had an excellent relationship with Jobcentre Plus in Burnt Oak. It was I who pointed out that the jobcentre had been closed, which came as a complete surprise. The users were not directly consulted at all, and it would seem that the North London district, which serves my constituency, was probably not consulted either, to judge by my meeting with representatives on 8 April. I asked various questions about the decision to close Jobcentre Plus, and in true "Fawlty Towers"
"Manuel" style, I was told, "I know nothing". However, later in our discussions, they did admit that they knew some six months beforehand that it was to close.North London district has been asked to pick up the pieces. It does not know how many constituents were served by Jobcentre Plus. I have been given various figures, ranging from 255 to 1,775. I have been told that Mill Hill jobcentre a couple of miles away, which is supposed to pick up the trade from Burnt Oak, now has 20 per cent. more business—it is much busier, say the staff—but it never had the passing trade it now has, consisting of jobseekers. There are women returning to work, people changing jobs, students and jobseekers not receiving benefits. I was told that the best estimate so far is an extra 100 clients a week. Where have all the others gone? One can only assume that they are no longer availing themselves of the opportunity provided by Jobcentre Plus.
There has been no handover of the "good employers", as they were described to me by Jobcentre Plus. It is trying to contact them. There are 35 major employers, and Jobcentre Plus has no idea how many small and medium-sized employers were served by Burnt Oak jobcentre.
We are told that various gimmicky alternatives will be offered, through libraries and so forth—I was told as much in answer to my question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions today—but I understand that none of those arrangements is in place yet. I am told of the wish to set up a jobshop at Brent Cross. That interests the Brent Cross management, who have heard nothing from Jobcentre Plus about the idea. Indeed, they have had no contact with Jobcentre Plus since before Christmas, when seasonal staff recruitment was being considered. There has clearly been no handover of the service to North London district.
Now the same thing is about to happen with Hendon and Edgware jobcentres. I learned that from the trade union, which itself was told only on 4 April. It was given two weeks to comment—until 18 April. I am told that I too am invited to comment, and my comment must be in by 1 May. That gives me two weeks as well, over the recess and the Easter holiday. My constituency contains a large Jewish community, and it will clearly not be possible to consult residents over Passover. I cannot believe that this is a serious attempt to consult anyone.
I am told that that the changes will shrink Hendon jobcentre. It will serve only social fund clients. There will be a leaflet and general inquiry point, where national insurance numbers will be issued on behalf of Hendon and Edgware jobcentres. When I asked how customers from Edgware would be able to visit Hendon to get their national insurance numbers, I was told, "The extra time is not a problem. The employers will pay the wages of the people who are having to spend all those hours coming to Hendon and hanging around, because the employers are keen for them to go on working". The cost is being transferred to the employers, with no consultation.
Everything else will now be dealt with from Edgware. I am told by the chief executive that there are good bus links, but she has clearly not tried them, and nor have any of the other Jobcentre Plus managers whom I asked. There is no direct bus route from Hendon to Edgware: at least one change is involved.
I am told that at Edgware there will be a reception service for quick advice; otherwise, the service will be by appointment only. I am also told that from September 2003 there will be a new client management system so that people can make their claims by telephone, but they will still need an appointment to go and fill in the forms. PCS has several worries. It is concerned about the risk of an incident if a client is not seen on the same day. It fears that the appointments system may overrun, causing staff either to have to work late against their wishes or to be sent away. It says that there is no easy way of separating simple and complex cases. Those concerns can very possibly be overcome, but why introduce such changes now rather than when the alternatives are up and running? Clearly no arrangement has been made for proper timing of the changes.
I am told that outreach services are to replace Burnt Oak, but none has been organised yet. I am told that there will be a new call centre for client management, which will probably not be sited in north London—that is typical of the way in which the department is being reorganised—but not until September 2003. The proper replacement for Jobcentre Plus, following the full roll-out, will not be there until 2005-06. Then, hopefully, we shall have a new office to combine the old Hendon office and the Hendon jobcentre in a new office in central Hendon. However, although the local authority and estate agents are involved, so far it has not been possible to find any premises. I very much approve of the idea of setting up an office in central Hendon, but I object to everywhere else being closed down unless and until the alternative location is found.
I support the concept of Jobcentre Plus, and I accept—as does the union—the need for reorganisation, but it has to be done properly, with meaningful consultation in which the views of users are taken into account. Users have been woefully ignored in the process so far. It must take into account people who represent organisations in the constituency and employers, who have been ignored throughout. Most importantly, the proper alternatives must be in place before change is implemented, and it must be done not to please the Treasury but to ensure that services are improved and not reduced.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |