Westminster Hall
Wednesday 18 July 2007
[John Cummings in the Chair]
HMRC Offices (East Midlands)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Tony Cunningham.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Janet Dean (Burton) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the concerns of my constituents about the proposed closure of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices in Burton-on-Trent as part of the review taking place in the east midlands. I understand the need to reassess the use of buildings that accommodate HMRC in the light of changes in working practices and in the operations of the service. However, I do not believe that centralising all work for the Nottingham-Derby area in Nottingham is the right way forward. Nor do I believe that the proposal will produce the most efficient and effective system for delivering the service in the future, or that it will be efficient or effective if long-serving, experienced staff are forced to leave because of the distance that they would be expected to travel to work.
I shall come to the likely effect on staff and on the services that they provide in some detail later, but first I want to question the inclusion of Burton-on-Trent in the review of the Nottingham, Derby and Leicester urban centres. The consultation document states:
“The offices selected for review were determined by examining all offices within a 25 km radius of Castle Meadow Nottingham and Northgate House Derby.”
Burton is 21 km from Derby—almost at the limit of the criterion—but it is 47 km from Nottingham. Since the current proposal is for all the sites in the area to close and move to Nottingham, I believe that it is wrong for the Burton-on-Trent office to be included.
In their response to the consultation, staff stated:
“The original proposal lumped Burton in with Nottingham/Derby, but as the current proposal means the closure of Derby, Burton is far outside the 25 km range of reasonable daily travel and should therefore be considered as a stand-alone office.”
Another reason why I believe that Burton should be treated as a stand-alone office is that the town is actually situated in Staffordshire, which is in the west midlands. The staff in Burton work with employers from throughout the whole of Staffordshire. If Burton closes, will the processing of all Staffordshire employers’ returns take place in Nottingham, rather than in Burton?
I am reassured by the correspondence that I have had with HMRC that the review will take into account the effect on staff. The Burton site is unusual, in that 17 per cent. of the staff have some form of disability. Some of the disabilities are visible, but others such as irritable bowel syndrome, repetitive strain injury, poor eyesight and vertigo may be invisible. People with certain disabilities would not be prevented from travelling to Nottingham, but others would find it impossible. Staff with conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome would be unable to travel using public transport because of the lack of
facilities, which would mean that they would have to make themselves redundant by refusing and being unable to relocate.
Those who need to attend medical appointments within work time would find it far more time-consuming and costly if they were to be redeployed in Nottingham. The time currently allowed for appointments that cannot take place outside working hours is up to one half the person’s working day. If Burton staff were to relocate to a different area, the allowed time would not cover the travelling, appointment and treatment time required, and more people would therefore have to take sick leave to attend such appointments. For staff attending medical appointments, there would be the added cost of travel, which would not be refunded because such travel would be outside the normal standard day. Whereas now, an appointment at Queen’s hospital in Burton may involve minimal time and little disruption to the work load of staff, travelling to appointments from Nottingham could reduce the office’s effectiveness.
One member of staff who is registered blind would find it impossible to travel as far as Nottingham and would therefore be forced to give up her job, even though she would have little prospect of finding other work. Another member of staff, who suffers from allergic rhinitis, which causes severe vertigo, said:
“There have been occasions where I’ve had to be taken home because I could not walk or drive due to my vertigo. What am I supposed to do if I’m working miles from home and have a bad attack? I can’t drive with a severe attack and wouldn’t be able to get myself home.”
Those are real concerns of valuable members of staff who are afraid for their future. HMRC in Burton is an excellent example of how an employer should accommodate staff with disabilities. It also offers flexible hours to help employees balance work and family life, which the Government strive to encourage all employers to do. It would be sad if the reorganisation resulted in a move in the opposite direction.
Around half the staff at Burton have children or elderly relatives to care for. Many have chosen to work part-time or during term time because it fits in with family commitments; indeed, 37 per cent. work part-time. In their response to the consultation, the staff said:
“The Government wants to encourage disabled people to work. We are a shining example of that in action. Closing the office and making it so much harder for us all, disabled or not, to even get to work, could see all that lost. The same goes for many of our part-time staff. Most have child-care issues, which is why they are part-time to begin with. The extra travelling time will lead to at best a reduction in the number of hours many will be able to work. The reduced working hours will lead to an increase in benefit claims which is again contrary to Government aims. The Government announced plans to assist single parents back to work. The closure of Crown House is in direct opposition to these aims.”
One member of staff described her situation:
“I have worked for the Revenue for 24 years. I have always chosen to stay in the Burton location as it works with my family/work balance. I am very committed to my work and although I have seen so many changes with the way we have to work over the years, I am still proud to say I work for the Government at the Inland Revenue (now Revenue and Customs).”
This member of staff had worked full-time for 17 years at Crown house and then reduced her working hours to 27 a week when she had her daughter. Working two
hours fewer per day enables her to collect her daughter from school each day. She said that any move to Derby—or, if that office closed, which is probable, to Nottingham—would throw her work and home life into chaos. She would have to consider working longer hours for four days and paying for breakfast and after-school clubs.
I accept that many people have to make such arrangements, and that the Government are encouraging the development of wraparound care to enable people to get into work. Many people have to travel some way to work, but my constituents who work at HMRC in Burton have chosen to work close to home, and to work hours that suit the needs of their families. They are loyal and dedicated staff who will find their lives totally disrupted by the closure of the Burton office.
It is not just those with children who will find their lives disrupted. Many staff have the responsibility of caring for elderly relatives. They would find their tasks much more difficult if they had to relocate to Nottingham.
Some employees will find it impossible to afford the extra costs of working further away from home. Although travelling costs would be paid, there are fears that the extra costs would not be fully covered. The payments would be for a limited time only, and would be taxable. They would not cover the possible introduction of congestion charges or increased parking charges. The payment of travel expenses would also have a detrimental effect on those staff who claim tax credits due to low pay or short hours, and there would be no financial compensation for additional child care costs. Those who are able to travel will, of course, add to the problems on our roads, particularly in cities such as Nottingham, by adding to the congestion and pollution.
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the effects on staff at Burton. Does she agree that similar considerations apply to Mansfield? People will have to move from Mansfield to Nottingham and then deal with the consequences for their families. More importantly, should we not be focusing on customers—people who want tax advice—and is there not a real case to keep local offices open, so that people can have direct access to public services?
Mrs. Dean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously, I am concentrating on Burton-on-Trent because it is the area that I represent, but the same could be said for the other offices that face closure. It is important—I shall come to this issue later—to have experienced staff who can both deal with customers and businesses on site and visit them. People’s experience of the local community is important in that regard.
Any closure of the Burton office would undoubtedly lead to the loss of experienced staff, be they those with disabilities who cannot travel, those with caring responsibilities who are unable to balance work and family life, or those who cannot afford to travel. That loss of experience would result in a poorer service for the taxpayer. Employees describe how, having devoted all their working lives to the organisation, they have gained a breadth of knowledge that is irreplaceable. That knowledge has helped staff to adapt quickly to the
changes happening in HMRC. Staff are concerned that the job losses caused by closures will mean that a valuable resource is lost, and that the public will suffer because there will be a vastly inferior service.
Nearly all the staff in Burton have worked there for more than 10 years, and the majority have worked there for more than 20 years. Customers of HMRC—local employers—are also concerned about the loss of experienced and skilled staff that the closure of Crown house in Burton would result in. As I said, the employers’ section for the whole of Staffordshire is in Burton. That specialist and local knowledge is of huge importance to the employers with which HMRC deals, and the loss of expert knowledge cannot be replaced by basic re-training in other locations. The loss of a quality service would directly impact not just on employers, but on their employees.
In their response to the consultation, the staff said:
“The compartmentalisation of work into narrow processes such as the LEAN procedures has a detrimental effect on many of our customers. Post is filtered and quick work is prioritised at the expense of more complex work. In the Staffordshire area much of that more difficult work is regularly sent to us here in the Burton office due to the breadth of experience in handling PAYE and SA work.”
They went on to say that there would be a loss of knowledge if staff were forced to leave because of the closures, and added:
“Those that may be able to travel will be fed into LEAN teams, where, over time the expert knowledge they possess will be diluted by the production line style of work that caused the difficult work to be sent to us to deal with in the first place.”
I am also concerned about the impact that closure would have on the compliance team at Burton, which currently goes out to business in the local area. Its knowledge of local employers will be diluted and its visits will, again, entail more travel costs.
Any closure of the Burton office would result in a worsening service for the public who need to visit the inquiry centre. I understand that there is a commitment to keep an inquiry facility in Burton. However, either it would be more costly to provide the equivalent of current services in such a stand-alone facility, or the hours that it could operate would be severely restricted.
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire) (Lab): I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She has focused on the effect on employees and is now turning to some of the business issues, but does she agree that it is concerning that HMRC has not yet produced any detailed business plan regarding the savings that might be generated from this wholesale reorganisation? It will be prepared only after the consultation has been concluded and a decision has been made, which seems to be the wrong way round.
Mrs. Dean: I agree with my hon. Friend—that is obviously the wrong way round, and other issues also seem to involve putting the cart before the horse. Staff are unsure whether they should accept a move now, or wait to see whether a closure takes place—an issue that I will come to later. There are many concerns about the whole process, such as that raised by my hon. Friend.
There are five staff at the inquiry centre, including the manager, and they are backed up by staff in the main offices. For health and safety reasons, the back-office
staff will work in the inquiry centre when needed, doing their own work, not inquiry centre work. That enables the centre to remain open if, for example, someone is on holiday or sick leave, or has a day off. For health and safety reasons, there must always be two members of staff in the inquiry centre when the public are present. Crown house has its own security system that protects those who work in the inquiry centre and serves others in the building who do not work for HMRC. The danger is that if the inquiry service is to be managed with the current five staff, it would have to become part- time and reduce its hours. Alternatively, it would cost more to maintain a separate facility.
It is important that a full inquiry service be maintained in Burton, particularly because the town has a large number of people whose first language is not English. It is unusual for a town the size of Burton to have so many residents who are originally from other countries. We have a large, long-established community that originates from Pakistan. More recently, people have come to the town from Iraq and Afghanistan, and, more recently still, from Poland. Some of them have language difficulties and value face-to-face contact, rather than contact via the telephone. If we do not have a full service, those people will lose out, and as I said, maintaining the current inquiry service would cost more money.
The impact on the local economy of the proposed job losses in Burton is a further concern. Crown house is situated in the town centre, and the HMRC operates from two of the building’s six floors. A job centre operates from two floors, and one floor is commercially rented. Crown house is conveniently located next to local bus services and is adjacent to the two main shopping centres. Staff based in the town spend their money there, and local shops will lose out if jobs are transferred to Nottingham. People will not just go out at lunch time in Nottingham, but will do their general shopping there, which will be a loss to Burton and its local businesses.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the stress that has been placed on staff by the uncertainty that exists over the proposed closures. Although I appreciate that consultation and consideration of the proposals have been extended so that care can be taken to make the right decision, delay brings a longer period of uncertainty for staff. In the meantime, they feel pressured into making decisions about their future without knowing whether their place of employment will close. No alternative departments in Burton, or within reasonable daily travel, could take on surplus staff from HMRC. Staff are being told that if their office is to close, in the worse case scenario there will be compulsory moves, and that if someone refuses to move, they will be dismissed under the conduct and disciplinary procedures. Will the Minister say whether that is correct?
I am pleased to be able to draw the Minister’s attention to my constituents’ concerns. I ask her to look at the position of loyal and experienced staff who have given a lifetime of service to the Revenue. I also ask her to look at the response of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), of 5 July concerning the Kettering office, in which she stated:
“One aspect of the impact assessment that is made is the effect of travel”.
“All staff will have individual meetings with their managers to assess their travel requirements and to make sure that they do not affect their work-life balance.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1089.]
It is important that that happens before a decision to close an office is made. Reference has been made to the financial situation—the other side of the issue. It is no good saying that the offices are going to close and then looking at the staff’s needs, because in that case some staff could not continue to be employed.
I ask the Minister to consider the situation, given that Burton-on-Trent is 47 km from Nottingham—nearly twice the reasonable travel distance, according to the consultation—and to consider whether Burton should be regarded as a stand-alone office. Will she also consider the better use of technology to avoid centralisation and the reduction of accommodation at various locations, rather than the abandonment of whole buildings, or part of them, as in the case of Crown house? It should not be beyond the wit of man and woman to devise a system in which people can continue to work in offices, albeit on reduced floor space, and use technology to do the jobs that they would have to do if they were transferred to Nottingham.
I hope that, when the Minister has considered all the issues, my constituents will be able to continue to work close to home, which will help them to balance their employment with any disabilities or caring responsibilities that they have.
9.51 am
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this important debate. Some decisions for the London area have been announced already, but in the process of reviewing these HMRC mergers and closures around the country, we were told initially that a decision would be made for the east midlands—along with other areas—in the summer. However, it is now more likely to be after the summer—we think that that means in the autumn. So great doubt still hangs over the work forces in the affected areas.
In Derbyshire—one of the five counties in the east midlands—the proposal is to close every HMRC centre and to move them out of the county. We have heard examples already of some being moved to Nottingham. In Chesterfield, which has two offices, the proposal is to close both and to move them to Sheffield. There are a number of problems with that, which those who work in the two offices in Chesterfield have split into different categories.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |