During a Westminster Hall debate on e-government yesterday, there were many mentions of the possibilities of CABx becoming intermediaries between benefit claimants and the DWP, as well as some other thoughts about the potential of e-advice delivery:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Jim Murphy) : All that aims for is the goal of personal service, which is tailored to an individual's needs and reflects a broader set of circumstances than the single dimension required by just one service provider. We may see new delivery chains being created through intermediaries and the citizens advice bureau. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) here today, because during the summer recess I had the opportunity to meet some of those intermediaries and voluntary organisations to discuss how they would like to see Government IT develop in the years to come. They provided a useful insight, which we might hear about from my hon. Friend, into how they would like to see Government IT focus on their needs and enable them to support the communities in which they work. 13 Oct 2005 : Column 147WH

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): My hon. Friend will recall that when he met people in my constituency, they did not simply draw boxes around and compartmentalise the lives of people whom they were seeking to assist. Whether it was the citizens advice bureaux, the Siroptomists or whoever else contributed to the discussion, people told us that they were considering the life chances and life events of people, and how they were addressed. They were unconcerned by the boundaries of Department A and Department B; they were looking for solutions. That must be the focus of the Government's activities. 13 Oct 2005 : Column 149WH

Anne Snelgrove (South Swindon) (Lab): I was pleased to visit the citizens advice bureau in Swindon during the summer recess. I was impressed with how it uses e-technology to help people quickly and efficiently. It can get everything, including all the briefings, online. Its staff use touch screens. I was most impressed by that and wish that I had such a system for my advice surgeries. We could all give a better response to our constituents in the short time that we have if we had such technology at our fingertips. I would love to access it. Getting broadband and getting into my e-mails was quite difficult during the summer. This place must make some advances if we are to access that technology. 13 Oct 2005 : Column 153WH

Margaret Moran (Luton, South) (Lab): I have referred to the departmental silos which still exist in central and local government. There is still too little joined-up service delivery. I had a vision about four years ago, which I presented to the then Minister, when I said, "This is your challenge. If you can deliver this"—we have not—"you will have cracked joined-up online services." It was an idea for survivors of domestic violence to be able to report and resolve their problems online. Why should a survivor of domestic violence have to visit their housing benefit office, housing office and social security, as well as trail their kids to the education service and, perhaps, Citizens Advice at a time of absolute crisis and homelessness? I will throw that challenge to the Minister again. Those who need our services most should benefit most from a joined-up online service provision. 13 Oct 2005 : Column 159WH

Andrew Miller : My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon made the observation that it would be nice if MPs had access to the super database that the citizens advice bureaux provide for their case workers. There is an opportunity there for the Government to look at establishing a partnership with CABs to empower caseworkers—maybe ours, or those in local government—and to have a bit of a two-way trade. There is a superb opportunity there.

Mr. Murphy : My hon. Friend is right: there is a phenomenal opportunity in the untapped resources of voluntary organisations—not just the citizens advice bureaux but organisations such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North and others spoke about. 13 Oct 2005 : Column 175WH

Mr. Murphy : On people from different economic backgrounds, during the summer I went to east Manchester, which is a relatively deprived community. I am shortly going to east London to see some projects in the community there. I also visited the Halton benefit express bus. As I travelled down from Glasgow, I thought that I was just going to see a bus with people who advise on benefits. It was parked outside a major supermarket in the morning and was welcoming. It was staffed by civil servants, but also by volunteers with good experience—the sort of people who were spoken of earlier—and provided real-time advice on benefits, welfare rights and almost anything imaginable. It was enabled by wireless broadband and linked into the local benefits service's databases. The Benefits Agency and other Government agencies came to the car park on the bus and met customers who had never been to the relevant Government office for information. That was the cutting edge, but it should not be the cutting edge. Such work comes about because driven, innovative and good people want to do things differently, but it should not be left to them. We must create a framework in which such excellent practices become normal practices. 13 Oct 2005 : Column 179WH

For a full record of the debate, see e-government debate from Hansard.

Sounds a bit like first day back at school

"what I did in my summer holidays"

I'm probably too old or thick but I cannot realy get into what MP's mean by service delivery.

They seem to think that advisers and advice centres are in a "service delivery chain".

Well I deliver a servce - but it's not delivering the service of a benefit authority. The service I deliver is interpreting/troubleshooting and representing claimants.

Do the MP's realise the distinction?

If they are thinking along the lines that "advice giving" is just delivering a benefit agency product to the public they are disconcertingly nieve. If such a service could simply be delivered there would not need to be advisers or acvice centres.

To me the difference is they have a concept of a public service system (of which benefits are just a part) which just needs a bit more organisation and marketing to be nearly perfect. My concept is of public services which are not only not co-ordinated but often in conflict. Benefits is a good example - legally based,under resourced, badly managed and get away with horible performance because their customer base do not have political clout.

Can see where high-tec backed delivery systems can work in a perfect world just cannot see how you get much progress in the one we've got.

hi derek,
i think i pretty much totally agree with you, apart from a question mark over who is 'disconcertingly naive'. : )

on concepts of a public service system, Simon Jenkins had an interesting article in last weeks Guardian in which he lambasted ' the verbal smokescreen that hides dangerous government'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1592164,00.html

there'll be plenty of people here who will find a lot of resonance in the points he makes about the use of language - i read the Secretary of State's 8 Core Wotsits to Welfare Reform and came close to losing the will to live...

Minister Yvette Cooper, bearing the brunt of the pointed critique, has responded bullishly, but i can only copy one link at a time, and I am on unpaid voluntary overtime, as befits a voluntary sector worker...suffice to say that she charges Mr. Jenkins with having gone bananas and then, attention grabbed, she goes on to say that she will explain her case, lest anyone think 'they' had descended to
a childish slanging match. She then says whatever it is she wants to say about house building policy, and then, here's the brilliant bit, she clinches her case by coining an anacronym 'BANANAS'!!! - which is like a NIMBY only much much more execrable, and Jenkins is one of them, thereby proving her case!!

it seems there is a lot to be said on deconstructing language...

bearing in mind the eightfold path to welfare reform, btw, and taking the points made on another thread about the Secretary of State's chosen advisory panel, i would say you have hit the nail right on the head where you identify the lack of political clout of the 'customer base'. : )

incidentally, the TUC has confirmed to me that it was not consulted about the panel advising on welfare reform, or asked to make nominations to it. so we have, for example, a Morgan Stanley Bank special adviser but no imput from organised labour into welfare reform...

social security claimants have even less political clout than organised labour and disorganised labour, and judging by the Secretary of State's report on fraud and error, social security claimants convicted of fraud have none whatsoever.

i admit, i found the illustration of a government report with newspaper cuttings of claimants convicted of fraud (see rightsnet news link) left an offensive taste in the mouth. it might have been the whiff of self-righteousness, or the hint of gloating triumphalism which wasn't to my taste, but the fact remains that there is a huge inequality in arms between the ministers and the wretches...and i don't imagine for one moment that they would dare name and shame tax-dodgy corporations who could afford to sue the government's ass - quite the contrary - they would 'bat' for them, reward them with a lucrative contracts, or allow them to sponsor prestige showcases... or am i being too harsh?...maybe i shouldn't have listened to those radio ads...

jj

freudian slip? acronym, i should have said.

Hi Folks

Intersting talk yesterday with our local Pension Service at Motherwell.

For years we have had no problems talking or getting information about clients from them, then out of the blue info refused.

Various reasons given data protection etc, long debate then took place and eventually got through to an office manager type.

His basic answer was if you want access for over 60's or anyone else once all the local offices are closed?

BECOME AN "ALTERNATIVE OFFICE"

I accept that CAB's will do anything for money and will eventually become the right hand of the DHSS, and hopefully volunteers will vanish in disgust and the public will stop using them as they will no longer be seen as independent.

On the other hand we will remain independent, but skint????

doncha just hate it when they give you 'you will be assimilated. resistence is futile' fait accomplis messages?

bill, it's looking like welfare rights advice is just the tip of the ice-borg.

the Home Secretary has revealed he intends to abolish local probation boards and create a 'mixed vibrant economy' in the management of 200,000 offenders in the community, taking over the statutory duty of the boards to provide a probatation service, for putting out to tender. The boards will be replaced with 'probation trusts' which will be packed with financial and business people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1597400,00.html

this stuff seems to happening across the whole spectrum of public services. you don't suppose there's an unstated dogma and ideology at work? a supporating and unmentionable hole in the public purse, perhaps? too many best practice exchange visits to Mississipi? dammit! i must have testable theories!

On thinking about it further, the trend for policymakers to think in the framework of public services and delivery networks is not irrational in itself - just blinkered.

MP's and national policy maker's seem to have far too narrow a view on "public services".

It's self evident that departmental administering a benefit is a public service and it's also self evident that advice providers do play a role in delivering (DWP, L.A. etc.) benefits by disseminating leaflets and guidance.

This activity can be impersonal and be automated. It's no surprise then that this activity is is ripe for computerisation. To put it in jargon - a signposting operation can easily be computerised.

To me however, the signposting activities that advice providers give is a minor role compared with other service provided directly to the public.

MP's and policymakers appear to recognise the signposting role but show no recognition that advice providers themselves provide a public service.

These services are to provide help up to advocacy level with all aspects of benefit claims and disputes. All advice provider's that I know can provide evidence that their "interventions" on behalf of their clients either generate or retain considerable monetary resources directly into local communities where the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people generally live.

I see no sign of the public service given by advice providers is even on the radar of most policymakers.

Current policies seem to lead to policymakers showing great enthusiasm to use advice provider's as go between and on "e-advice" systems. In contrast the services that advice providers give directly to the public are ignored and seem to be withering away.