West Tyrone Sinn Fein Sinn Féin -- Building an Ireland of Equals

Ritchie needs to provide clear reassurance about Strabane Social Security Agency

Published: 18 February, 2010

Sinn Fein West Tyrone MP MLA Pat Doherty has expressed concern at the response of Social Development Minister Margaret Ritchie to a question he submitted seeking re-assurance that there will be no reduction in the level of front line or back office services currently being provided at the Social Security Agency office at Urney Road in Strabane.

Mr Doherty said,

"The response I received from Margaret Ritchie on this issue this week has done nothing to alleviate fears that she is planning to downgrade services provided at the Urney Road Office and transfer the bulk of civil service staff from the office to other locations.

"It is completely contradictory for the Minister to say on the one hand that there will be "no reduction in services provided at the Social Security Office in Strabane" while then going on to say, "the consideration of any impact on the back office will be assessed in due course"

"This response has to be judged within the context of proposals emanating from the Social Security Agency Strategic Business Review which lays the ground for a major centralization of back office processing to 16 sites, each dealing with one benefit only, with the recommendation that Strabane becomes a front office service office only with the retention of a skeleton staff only. The Minister's response indicates that she is still very much wedded to the roll out of the centralization process

"Under this plan approximately 50 of the remaining staff at the Urney Road office would be forced to transfer to other SSO locations in the Western area that have been designated as centralized processing centres and under such circumstances how can the Minister seriously expect us to believe that there would be no reduction in services provided to clients.

"The only way the Minister can provide the reassurance required is for her to come out with an unambiguous statement stating that it is no longer her intention to pursue the downgrading of the Strabane Social Security Office as outlined in the SSA Strategic Business Review proposals which were originally launched for public consultation in November 2008. ENDS

Note to editors:

Below is copy of submission by Pat Doherty opposing SSA Strategic Business Review proposals:

15/01/08

Social Security Agency,

Strategic Business Review Team,

1st Floor,

Lighthouse Building

Gasworks Business Park

Ormeau Road ,

Belfast BT1 3JB

To whom it may concern,

Re: Submission to Strategic Business Review

I would like to take this opportunity to state my strong objections to proposals contained in SSA Strategic Business Review into how services are provided within our local office network of Jobs & Benefits/Social Security offices. My objections are not only based on what I believe to be the flawed nature of the proposals overall but are also based on what I believe to be the unworkable proposal to downgrade Strabane Social Security Office to a 'front office only service' given that the District tops the multi-deprivation league in the six counties.

Objections to proposals overall

In the first instance, I believe that entitling the Strategic Business Review proposals "Delivering a Better Service for Customers" to be a complete misnomer given the clear practical difficulties and hardship the proposed replacement systems would cause for benefit applicants and clients.

The proposal to move to a centralized telephony system and away from face to face contact interviews at local offices completely ignores the reality in terms of the needs and nature of the SSO client base:

  • Recent DEL NI statistics state that approx 24% of the adult population have learning and literacy difficulties with obviously a disproportionate number of this percentage operating within the benefits system. This group in particular require face to face assistance in negotiating the complexities of the benefits system a reality that is backed up by statistics from a PriceWaterhouseCooper survey (that was commissioned by the Agency management itself), which found the majority of customers surveyed stating that their problems could only be resolved through face to face contact. Given that the proposed new model is based on the assumption that there will be an 80% reduction in public office callers it is clear that the administrative 'safety net' for many SSA clients would be removed causing widespread hardship.

  • Under these proposals, clients would no longer be able to avail of a "walk-in service" and while they state that appointments for face-to-face contact would still be available it is clear from the thrust of the proposals that the intention would be to vastly reduce the number of these. Clients seeking face-to-face appointments would also be subject to longer delays in having their cases processed which would means a less efficient rather than more efficient service for customers and increase hardship on the most vulnerable within the community.

  • There is no indication in these proposals how the mechanics of such face-to face appointments would work. i.e. Would a client living in an area where a front-office service only is envisaged be expected to travel to meet an adviser at an office at the relevant processing centre location e.g. would JSA clients from throughout the "West District" be expected to travel to Enniskillen for a face-to-face meeting and if so how would clients be expected to overcome logistical problems if they have no access to private transport or given the inaccessibility of this location in relation to public transport. In such a scenario, would the cost of journeys to face-to-face meetings be subsidized by the Social Security Agency and if this is the case have these projected costs been factored into the economic appraisal of this model. If on the other hand it is envisaged that there will be an outreach service from the respective processing centres then have the additional travel costs for SSA personnel to carry out this service been factored into the economic appraisal of this alternative arrangement?

  • The proposed telephony system is untried and untested and the experience of constituents from other bodies, such as the Housing Executive, which have increasingly moved to such a system is not a good one-with most people complaining that there has been a vast deterioration in the service particularly in terms of trying to get in contact and/or response from the Housing Executive Officials who are trying to maintain the service at local offices with skeleton resources. Similarly, under these proposals the skeleton staff that would be expected to maintain the front office only service would bear the brunt of irate clients frustrated at the inevitable delays that would result from the new system.

  • The preferred option of these proposals is to centralize back office processing on 16 sites, each dealing with one benefit only, but this contradicts the recommendations contained in Bain Report to decentralize public sector jobs. These proposals represent a disjoint from the thrust of government policy in the six counties and represent a lack of joined up thinking at Departmental level.

  • The proposed centralization of services would force 850 staff to redeploy. This would cause major upheaval to the lives of these staff resulting in: substantial increases in journey times to and from work; increased work related stress and illness; increased travel expenses incurred by the Agency. Once again the conclusions of the Bain Report undermine the basis of centralization of this nature. These re-deployment proposals would also mean additional traffic volumes on our roads and as such run are environmentally unfriendly.

  • It would be foolhardy in the extreme to attempt to implement these proposals in the current economic climate i.e. when the number of benefits claimants is spiralling by the day and likely to do so for the foreseeable future. As I understand it, DWP has now taken account of the changing economic realities by not only suspending its efficiency drive in England, Scotland and Wales but have found it necessary to secure funding to employ an additional 6000 staff to meet the demands being put on the system. The Department and the SSA Management need to take due cognisance of the deteriorating economic situation by immediately shelving these flawed proposals.

Strabane SSA

Apart from my objections to these proposals overall, I would like to take specific issue with the proposals in regards to Strabane. In recent years, the local Social Security Office has already lost the Social Fund Grants Section to Omagh and the Pensions Section to Derry and the proposal to maintain a front office only service at Urney Road would have far reaching and detrimental consequences not only for the remaining staff at the Urney Road office, benefits claimants from throughout the District, but also the local economy.

Under these proposals approximately 50 of the remaining staff at the Urney Road office would be forced to transfer to other SSO locations in the Western area that have been designated as centralized processing centres not to mention the likelihood that some of these jobs could be lost altogether in this so-called Strategic Business Review process. The consultation must give weighting to the following important socio-economic considerations:

· Strabane District already has the lowest base of public sector jobs in the six counties.

· The most recent statistics once gain point to Strabane having the highest levels of unemployment in the six counties.

· The District has also the highest levels of long unemployed in the six counties.

· Strabane District tops the multi deprivation league in the 26 Council areas.

· Strabane District is amongst the lowest wage level economies on this island.

The transfer out of the District of an additional 50 public sector jobs would not only remove a key services from where they are needed most but would also further damage the local economy i.e. it would take spending power out of the District re-enforcing the negative socio-economic spiral.

It is clear that the equality implications of these proposals have not been thought through and I believe that if a vigorous EQIA were to be applied to these proposals in relation to Strabane it would find that their impact would have a disproportionate negative impact upon many vulnerable groups within this District.

To sum up therefore, I would call upon the Department and the SSA Management to withdraw these proposals, both overall and in relation to Strabane SSO Office.

Is mise le meas

Pat Doherty MP MLA