PCS PARLIAMENTARY BRIEFING: July 2006

July 2006

For more information contact PCS’s campaigns team:

Tel: 020 7801 2820, e-mail

Public and Commercial Services Union

160 Falcon Road, London, SW11 2LN

Bills:

Charities Bill

PCS members in the Charity Commission are concerned about how the Charities Bill (currently in standing committee A) will be implemented. Without any extra funding the Charity Commission will be tasked with new duties, such as licensing fundraising, maintaining a register of mergers and administering charity tribunals. PCS fears that this will inevitably lead to a reduction in regulatory and support work by the Charity Commission. We believe that an urgent review of the resources allocated to the Charity Commission is now needed to meet these new challenges.

The following individual clauses in the Bill are also of concern to PCS:

  • Clause 2 - definition of charitable purpose: While the Bill sets out a clearer definition of what does and does not constitute a charitable purpose, the relationship between charitable status and state provision remains unclear. This is particularly the case since the Commissioners relaxed their view that charities must not use charitable funds in relief of a statutory duty. Our concern is that this could be a green light for under funding of statutory authorities and propping them up with charitable funds – or moving statutory responsibilities onto charitable bodies who may not be as well equipped to carry them out efficiently. We believe the Bill should make it explicit that it is not acceptable to use charitable funds in relief of a statutory duty.
  • Clauses 3 and 4 - public benefit test: This is a new requirement of the Bill and if it remains unresolved with no adequate definition of the public benefit test, Charity Commission staff will receive widespread condemnation for the failure to remove charities who are cannot show what they provide for the public benefit. For instance this measure has been seen as trying to remove Eton and other public schools from the register of charities as their benefit to the public is sometimes unclear.

Furthermore, any attempt to remove a charity from the register is likely to lead to significant court action against the Charity Commission , including Judicial Review. Defending actions in court is expensive, must be paid for by the Charity Commission and has the potential to be a significant drain on the resources of the Charity Commission.

  • Clause 11 - removal of exemption to register: This clause will create up to 12 years of work to register charities that are currently exempt. Allowing for a statutory phasing whilst also leaving a voluntary right to registration will lead to larger numbers applying than previously envisaged. For example, Churches currently exempt have said that if any part of their membership must register they will require all parts to do so (as this simplifies their work for them).
  • Clause 41 - mergers register: The mergers register will be problematic to maintain and monitor as the definition of a merger is too wide. Currently all small charity mergers such as combining prize funds, which may have only a few pounds of endowment will need to be entered into this register. We would suggest a financial limit is suggested in the Bill or maybe a reference to permanent endowment as the defining factor regarding what should be entered into the register of mergers in order to remove inconsequential work.
  • Schedule 1 Status of Commission employees as civil servants: A previous amendment in the Lords in effect removed civil service status from all Charity Commission employees. This appears to have been reversed at the Standing Committee on July 4th 2006. However, we remain concerned that the original amendment may be reintroduced and our members’ status changed in an arbitrary way without adequate discussion with PCS about the implications of the change.

We would ask the parliamentary group to raise these concerns when the Bill returns to the floor of the House for report stage. For further information on these concerns please contact Laura Cockram on 020 7801 2820 or

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill

The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill is currently in Standing Committee B. PCS have already raised a number of concerns about the effectiveness of current and proposed future arrangements for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. We have highlighted the importance of adequately resourcing the proposed Independent Barring Board (IBB) while drawing attention to the staffing and work load crisis that currently threatens the effectiveness of the vetting and barring arrangements operated by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). PCS is now concerned that DfES is looking to ‘dumb down’ vetting and barring work in what appears to be an attempt to solve resourcing issues, through the introduction of ‘business rules’ that are based on a mechanistic six stage approach to vetting and barring case work.

PCS members are clear that vetting and barring decisions must be based on adequate consideration of individual cases; this not only minimises the risk of decisions that may be over-turned on appeal but also ensures that what may be minor or trivial cases are properly investigated. This is vital to the effectiveness of safeguarding children and vulnerable groups as DfES staff taking a considerative approach to cases have an excellent record in investigating relatively minor incidents or concerns that ultimately show barring is necessary. An untested, mechanistic approach to safeguarding work effectively means a significant dilution of DfES’ and the IBB’s capacity to safeguard children and vulnerable groups as it will eliminate the considerative work by properly trained and experienced staff that is needed to detect signs of abuse and take appropriate action.

A mechanistic approach may allow safeguarding work to be down-graded and reduce the cost of establishing the IBB but will result in compromising the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements. PCS is therefore asking MPs to raise the issue with the Secretary of State and DfES Ministers to gain assurances that safeguarding work will remain properly considerative, and that DfES’ search for efficiencies will not lead to unsuitable individuals continuing to work with children and vulnerable adults. We also ask that MPs raise this issue with the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee as the protection of children and vulnerable adults rests ultimately on considerative investigation of vetting and barring cases.

Job Cuts – Update:

Regardless of whether its members are in the Civil Service, non-departmental public bodies or commercial sector organisations providing public services, PCS’s priority remains the defence of pay, pensions, jobs and services.

On job cuts there is no doubt that considerable pressure is building up on both jobs and services as a consequence of the Chancellor’s 2004 Spending Review. Fears are also growing that the next Spending Review scheduled for 2008-2011 will demand yet more so-called ‘efficiency’ leading to more job cuts and more cuts in services. PCS’s bottom line priority remains to ensure that compulsory redundancies for staff who want to continue their career are avoided at all costs and to this end detailed proposals for such an agreement to achieve this are being put to the Head of the Civil Service and Ministers.

Job Cuts Departmental issues

Department of Work and Pensions

Staffing

Jobs, rights and services campaign: PCS’s campaign to defend jobs, rights and services continues in the DWP. At present we are involved in on-going negotiations with the employer and have further meetings planned. Both sides hope to be able to reach a settlement, however, if there is no resolution to the dispute we will be organising more industrial action before the end of the summer.

DWP have already lost 17,770 staff between March 2004 (when there were 132,537) and March 2006. Their aim is to reduce the department’s staffing to 101,912 (Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)) by 2008.

The bulk of PCS members and DWP staff are in the grades AA (Administrative Assistant), AO (Administrative Officer), Executive Officer (EO) and Higher Executive Officer (HEO) – these account for over 90% of DWP staff. AA pay starts at £11,750, AO at £13,320, EO at £17,290 and HEO at 22,790.

A significant amount of current DWP work is threatened with outsourcing, partly to meet headcount projections. A notable example is Pathways to Work.

Despite the success of the Pathways to Work pilots, which were delivered by Jobcentre Plus, the government are planning to outsource 60% of the new Pathways to Work schemes to either the private or third sector. PCS believe that a lack of capacity and expertise to deliver employment related services in these sectors will undermine the rollout of the Pathways to Work programme.

Although the Welfare Reform Green Paper refers to there being 24 Action Teams, in fact there were 64 such teams, of which 40 are provided in-house by Jobcentre Plus. The latest evaluation evidence shows that the in-house teams are achieving 111% of their job entry targets against 78% managed by the private sector led teams. PCS believe, when considering such evidence, it is hard to see why outside providers are to be preferred, and that this decision is simply aimed at cutting costs and cutting staff.

DWP unions have established from discussions with management that the skills to fulfil the tasks envisaged in the Welfare Reform Bill do not exist in the private and voluntary sector, and that a key factor in the decision to follow this route is the Treasury demand for DWP headcount reduction.

Office closures

PCS recognises the need to avoid duplication of service and the benefits of a planned approach to local service delivery, reflecting changes in demography, local circumstances and other factors.

However, by 2008 over 600 DWP offices will have closed, many of them providing the only local outlet for services in their area. We also have the example of offices being closed because private sector suppliers are no longer prepared to keep the office open. Staff in DWP’s Peterlee office have been placed on the surplus list following the announcement that EDS were not prepared to continue with their lease on the building. PCS is concerned that these staff have become surplus due to a private company wanting their property back, rather than any planned staffing change, and we believe this highlights the danger of private sector involvement.

PCS are also concerned that

  • The department have failed to guarantee that they will provide private interview facilities at all the locations where DWP business will be conducted with the public, particularly where the service is delivered in local authority or other premises.
  • In many rural areas, benefit processing and front line delivery are increasingly divorced, with the result that cases can become entangled as different staff seek to resolve issues in different locations.
  • Social fund applicants are being discouraged from attending local offices in a bid to reduce the so-called ‘footfall’ figures, as this is a target to be reduced. In Glasgow, for example, Social Fund staff were told: “Glasgow District have raised an issue of customers calling in to LSOs [local offices] to hand in application/offers. This is unnecessarily adding to office footfall.”
  • Increasingly offices are suffering with backlogs and are pressured to find short cuts to ensure payments are ‘kept running’ and potentially problematic cases which might cause disputes are processed first.

PCS has examples of backlog figures such as where JSA claim forms are taking 2 weeks longer from date of claim to notification to jobseeker than they did 3 years ago (22.4 working days compared to 13 working days). Income support is taking 12 working days to process and Incapacity 19 days. This does not include the time from date of claim to when the claim is pushed from JCP to processing sites.

In Chester, where Income Support work has been transferred from South West, targets are not being met for Incapacity Benefit claims, Jobseeker's Allowance Claims, with 2,205 amounts of post outstanding, 933 Jobseeker's Allowance claims outstanding, 3,319 items of Jobseeker's Allowance post, 452 IB claims, 12,098 printed output outstanding (6 weeks arrears).

National Audit Office report and Child Support Agency changes

PCS note the recent NAO report on the CSA. We share their concern at the IT failures and the procurement issues which added to these IT failures. We particularly acknowledge the impact of the loss of IT expertise within DWP to guide the procurement processes.

We agree that the tight timescales and high risk implementation strategies, coupled with organisational design failings and wider strategic failures in DWP, have impacted badly on the ability of the agency to retain and recruit staff. It is clear CSA's staff have consistently done their best to deliver a good service to the public, despite facing significant attacks in the media and not having suitable IT with which to deliver the service.

We note the robust criticisms of EDS’s IT provision and the enormous amount of money they have received while not delivering acceptable systems. PCS remain concerned that government IT contracts seem to remain in the hands of a limited number of suppliers, who effectively seem to have a monopoly, with the penalties for altering contracts incurring vast penalties and systems having in-built factors reducing the potential for replacing one provider with another.

PCS believe the Child Support Reforms are slowly beginning to bear fruit. We welcome the increased investment of £120 million, although note this is significantly short of the £308 million identified as needed to turn the agency around. We believe this investment needs some time to realise its benefits, although understand why the government may not wish to be seen to be pursuing a ‘one more big push’ strategy.

PCS are concerned that the timetable for Sir David Henshaw’s review of the CSA is over ambitious, and we believe there should be a more structured approach to the redevelopment of the child support and lone parent welfare strategy.

HMRC: Workforce Change & LEAN

LEAN: On HMRC LEAN dispute 8,000 PCS members in HMRC Large Processing Offices (LPOs) across the country have been balloted on strike action and action short of strike. Of those who voted, 79.5% voted “yes” for strike action; and 90.8% for action short of strike.

PCS objectives are clear. We are seeking:

  • Safeguards for members, especially over the use of individual work measurement.
  • A joint evaluation of LEAN.
  • An agreed national implementation programme.

Members who have experienced HMRC’s version of LEAN are suffering a great deal of stress due to the repetitive nature and constant monitoring of their work. Management have said they expect to rollout LEAN across the Department by June 2007 to deliver a significant amount of its 12,500 job cuts. PCS believe this crude work method is being used to deliver arbitrary jobs cuts rather than improve the service provided to taxpayers.

We ask MPs to support the one day strike that is scheduled for Friday 14 July. The 10 LPOs involved in the dispute are as follows:

  • Cardiff
  • Centre One (Glasgow & East Kilbride)
  • ChapelWharf (Salford)
  • East Hants & Wight (Portsmouth)
  • Leicester & Northants
  • Lothians (Edinburgh)
  • NEMA (Newcastle and Northumberland)
  • Sefton (Liverpool)
  • West Yorks and Craven (Bradford)
  • Wrexham

Workforce change (for noting): In May HMRC announced that contact centres in Liverpool, Glasgow and St Austell would be expanded and that staff in the appropriate grades from Distributed Processing Offices (DPOs) would be collocated to them, while all other grades would become surplus. It was also announced that processing work from the North West would be moved into a number of Large Processing Offices (LPOs) across the country.

This announcement was met with great anger by PCS members, particularly those in the offices affected in the North West. This led to 1,400 members in Salford, Liverpool, West Lancashire and West Cheshire being balloted on industrial action over the relocation of work, the threat of job cuts and the effect on the tax service in the North West. Members working in these DPOs handle the affairs of 1,226,232 taxpayers and 67,653 employers.

Members voted overwhelmingly in favour for industrial action and a one day strike was due to take place on 3 July. This was avoided after PCS received an offer from the employer that was sufficient to postpone the industrial action while branches were consulted on the package. This process is now under way and a period of further detailed negotiations on a range of issues will follow between PCS and HMRC.

The key aspects of the agreement are as follows:

  • During the further period of consultation the current position of staff will remain unchanged.
  • No compulsion for staff to move into Contact Centre work in Liverpool or Glasgow
  • Processing work to be retained in the North West and Glasgow
  • Further talks covering future processing operations, and the position relating to St Austell, to follow at the earliest opportunity.
  • Parties committed to reaching agreement on flexible work patterns in the contact centre environment within 3 months of talks commencing.
  • Agreement on a range of important issues covering travel, health and safety, family friendly matters and training provision etc.
  • A commitment to produce a statement about the avoidance of redundancy (voluntary or compulsory).

PCS will keep the parliamentary group informed of any developments and thanks MPs for their support so far during this dispute.