Examination of witnesses (Questions 66-79)
TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 1999
MRS ANNE
PARKER, CBE and MRS
ELSPETH COOPER
Chairman
66. Ladies and gentlemen, can we declare the
public evidence session reconvened and welcome Mrs Anne Parker,
who is the Independent Case Examiner for the CSA, and her colleague
Elspeth Cooper. We are delighted that you are both able to join
us this afternoon to assist us with the inquiry. We are particularly
pleased that in addition to having access to annual reports, which
are very informative in terms of the experiences you have had
over the last few years since you were set up, we have also had
access to your comments on the White Paper, which are very helpful
and very clear. Perhaps, Mrs Parker, you would like to set out
a few of your own thoughts on where we are and bring us up-to-date
with your own consideration of the proposals for the White Paper
and what the potential problem areas are from your own perspective?
(Mrs Parker) Thank you very much, Chairman. My evidence
is based on the experiences of the people who complain to me and
it is focused on what I call the manageability of the system—will
these proposals lessen or increase the number of complaints that
I see, particularly the number of justifiable complaints? That
is how I approach my evidence. Essentially, a number of features
of the White Paper, as described by the previous contributors
to this discussion, address a number of features of the previous
system which led to very poor maladministration indeed. So anything
that means that the system is more able to be understood by the
people who are subjected to it, is less error-prone, is less likely
to lead to cumulative delay, is likely to reduce the number of
people who complain to me about it—it is those elements
of the White Paper, as set out in my evidence, that I am saying
looks to me as though they will have an impact on improving the
experience of people who receive the service from the Agency under
the new legislation. The other significant thing, which parts
of the legislation support, are the current moves within the Agency
to shift its culture from being the paper-driven, grinding exceedingly
small system into one where you can have access to somebody to
talk to and you can get through on the telephone. So the face-to-face
components, the culture change components, are equally important.
67. Presumably you will be concerned, because
of your own perspective in all of this, that while all the White
Paper proposals are at the stage of being legislated for or being
brought forward, there is still some time that must be used by
the CSA to try and improve on their current practice under the
existing system.
(Mrs Parker) Yes, indeed, Chairman. I think there
are two elements in my response to that. First of all, I have
been urging from the outset that the impending changes in legislation
do not in any way hinder some of the very necessary changes which
are needed for people in the system now. I continue to press that
point, particularly in relation to some of the computer changes
and improvements which could make significant improvements in
the next two or three years, rather than just wait for the brand
new system. The other way in which I think not waiting is important
is because there is an opportunity during the run-up periods to
address some of the issues which Members have already raised,
about trying to clean up some of the cases so they do not carry
forward a history of decisions which have adversely affected people
who are facing the Agency. Arrears has been mentioned on a number
of occasions. Linked to that, I think it will be important, and
I think it is one of the specific points which I make in my evidence,
to ensure both that a scheme to develop compensation for people
who suffer maladministration in the new system will need to be
developed, but one will also need to be preserved, which will
deal with the injustices which arose in the old parts of the cases.
Mr Dismore
68. Can I just pick up on that last point? Maladministration
is something, obviously, we all experience within the CSA. I was
reminded of a case by my assistant today where although theoretically
the arrangements are in place now, in this particular case they
applied for compensation over a year ago, the CSA have admitted
that it is all their fault, yet they are still not getting paid
because they are waiting for policy guidance. Is that a common
problem?
(Mrs Parker) There are different sorts of compensation.
In my first annual report we identified some situations where
the Agency was not able to pay compensation even though they have
generated the arrears as a result of their own maladministration.
That was dealt with last November, but there are still categories
of delay around review and mistakes which are discovered after
delay which cannot be compensated under the present scheme. I
have identified these in my present annual report, and they are
currently being considered by policy and ultimately, if necessary,
I assume, by the Treasury.
69. Presumably you have no indication of when
that is likely to be dealt with?
(Mrs Parker) All I can do for those cases is, when
people have complained to me and I have identified what the problem
is and that there is not an appropriate remedy but it seems to
me that, in justice, there should an appropriate remedy, I build
up what is called a list, and try to capture those people so that
when and if the policy changes it gets applied.
70. Do you envisage similar problems arising
under the new scheme?
(Mrs Parker) Certainly where I see less problems arising
in the new scheme should be that the unfinished work on cases,
because of the large numbers of pieces of information that have
had to be collected, will diminish. It should be much simpler.
So part of the reason why a fragmented service was offered was
that people kept picking it up and getting a new bit of information,
putting it down and then somebody else picked it up and got a
new bit of information. That should happen less, so it should
be less error-prone and there should be less delays arising out
of that. Also, the debates that go on between the customers and
the Agency about what was an impenetrable set of outcomes before,
those conversations should be much more evenly controlled between
the person who is on the receiving end and the person who is giving
the advice. You ought to be able to have a sensible conversation.
The area where I am a little less certain about how those problems
will be improved was touched on, again, by the two professors,
which is that the front end looks as though it is going to be
much cleaner and less error-prone, energy should be able to be
devoted, and the Agency is beginning to show how it can secure
compliance, so getting the maintenance flow should be more feasible,
more manageable. However, there is this bit in the middle, which
is about the changes of circumstances and the numbers of customers
and the volume of contacts. We are having, from 1 June, something
called decision making and appeals (D.M.A.) changed, and testing
how that works over the next two years should give one a better
feel for whether that is going to be manageable or not. That is
the area where I am a little uncertain at present.
Dr Naysmith
71. What you are saying is use the period in
the run-up to when they introduce the new system to clean up,
I think that was the phrase you used, some of the old cases, in
particular those that have been particularly troublesome. Are
you suggesting that there could be a category of cases that are
transferred to the new system earlier than they would have been
if they had to wait until it was their turn to be introduced when
the system is up running?
(Mrs Parker) No, I do not think I know enough about
the facts to be able to say that. What I am saying is that whenever
cases move, however quickly or slowly it is possible to move them,
it should be possible for some of them to be debugged ahead of
that. I think one of the concerns was why should people go on
living with the old system for a couple of years accruing arrears?
Some of those arrears should have been able to be got out of the
way with both the new-style approach of the Agency, its willingness
to address its mistakes, and the engine of DMA which can diminish
the number of people from carrying injustice forward.
Mr Swayne
72. In your submission in paragraph 4.2[5]
you welcome the ability that the Agency will have to access information
in the Inland Revenue and acknowledge the frustration that the
inability to do so has caused in the past. Are we being a little
reticent about this? My understanding is that this suggestion
would be as a last resort. If it is going to be of such value
why is it not the first recourse? My second question is with respect
to 4.1.[6]
Can you elaborate for us the circumstances in which a penalty
is "administratively coherent and workable"?
(Mrs Parker) The source of the comment about the Inland
Revenue comes from parents with care who have said to me (the
balance is usually parents with care, female, non-resident parents,
male, although in my complaints it is three per cent of the other
sex both ways) that they are aware of the circumstances of the
person when the Agency appears not to be able to be made aware
of their circumstances and we quite often will see that accounts
have been requested particularly from self-employed people, and
then they do not come in and it is not picked up again for another
couple of years and then there is a debate about which set of
accounts would be the appropriate accounts to have. At one stage
I was saying "Can't you ask the person concerned, the non-resident
parent, for their permission to approach the Inland Revenue to
get moving?" Whether in parallel with the changes that are
currently going on, the efforts to ensure compliance of the self-employed
and the self-employed projects, will mean—that they will
get that power used, it is a minority of cases in that sense but
that is really the circumstances where it would be very useful.
73. Should it be a first resort?
(Mrs Parker) I think the first resort is always to
try to engage and obtain compliance voluntarily in any set of
circumstances. The second point you raised is what would make
a penalty "administratively coherent" I think was the
phrase you used. I think it is a penalty that people are willing
to exercise. It is a question of whether it is felt to be draconian,
appropriate or otherwise and whether it is a reasonable penalty
to operate and it is one that is acted upon once the threat of
employing it has been made. The problem in the past has been the
Agency—I made reference to the Interim Maintenance Assessment—has
made threats and then not imposed and made threats and not imposed
and that encourages non-compliance. I think the keys are that
it feels reasonable and that it is done efficiently.
Mr Pond
74. In your conclusions you say that the new
legislation must be accompanied by amongst other things a sound
information technology infrastructure and you may have heard the
Minister earlier expressing her confidence that that will be in
place. Do you share that confidence?
(Mrs Parker) I do not know whether I could or I should.
It is not my area of expertise, I am sorry.
75. With those three other conditions that you
mention in the conclusions there, what is the balance in your
view? Are they as important as a change in the formula, the way
in which the payments will be calculated or could we actually
improve significantly the way in which the Agency works simply
by leaving the current calculations in place but improving all
these other factors?
(Mrs Parker) You certainly could improve performance
by better public information, better explanation, better training
and good IT, but fundamentally it is almost impossible to explain
the present system. The present system is rife with the potential
for error and delay around the formula itself. I do think that
is the fundamental shift and my feeling about the present system
without the changes to the formula is I ask myself is it manageable
when I look at some of the cases that I see. Could I do it? I
am expecting these child support officers to do it, could I do
it, and I am inclined to feel that it is not a manageable system.
76. Also in your evidence you talk about shared
care which is obviously a very difficult area and you express
the view that in fact daytime care allowances as an idea would
have been too difficult, too complex to pursue and might have
led to increased complaints. Can you talk us through that a bit
because without that it seems to me we could have cases of perceived
injustice, and therefore complaints from people for example working
shifts.
(Mrs Parker) You certainly could have complaints about
the proposed shared care arrangements. What I welcomed about the
proposed shared care arrangements was that they are clear and
can be explained so that the ground rules are understandable.
Whether people think they are fair or not is something else and
there is clearly room for some people to feel that they are less
than fair. It is a) whether they are able to be explained and
b) how evidence can be obtained to support the case when there
is a dispute between the two partners and whether it is easier
to obtain evidence around a clear set of statements. It might
well be possible for somebody to come up with a clear set of statements
about shared care in the day time which could also be supported
by the evidence but it seems to me from the experience of the
present system it is quite a difficult area to be both clear about
and to obtain sound evidence to support decisions.
Mr Pond: Thank you very much.
Mr Leigh
77. You say in paragraph 9.1[7]
that overall you support the proposals in the White Paper. "A
simplified system should be a great benefit in efforts to improve
the service" but of course you would say that, would you
not, because you are not able to comment on policy matters, you
are not able to comment on whether the system is fair or unfair
to individual parents, your aim is to try and simplify the system
so that fewer people complain to you, is it not?
(Mrs Parker) I made the introduction in that way but
what I mean by fewer people complaining to me is that fewer people
suffer injustices which mean that they make fewer complaints to
me. The present system has led to the processes of maladministration
which mean that people have had extremely poor service. So in
that sense I am not simply looking to reduce complaints. I am
looking to reduce the cause of complaints. It did seem to me that
the enormously creditable efforts in policy terms to get a system
that was absolutely financially fair drove out what I call human
justice, human fairness because the system could not deliver it
and the second case was worse than the first.
78. We all accept that the present system does
not work and there are enormous administrative shortcomings which
you are able to investigate. The problem with the new system is
that there will be less administrative shortcomings because it
will be so much simpler but you will not be able to investigate
whether it is fair that a quarter or a third of somebody's income
be taken away. That is true, is it not?
(Mrs Parker) That is true.
Chairman
79. You made some rather diplomatic comments
of criticism at page 73 of your annual report for 1998-99. You
say at the top: "More disappointing has been the lack of
evidence that the Agency has systemically analysed the information
contained in my reports to improve performance. This is illustrated
by the poor response from the Agency to some of my systemic recommendations
and by the lack of monitoring of the implementation of my recommendations."
You then go on in the next sentence to say that things are getting
better towards the end of the year. How coded a criticism is that?
(Mrs Parker) That was a real criticism of the performance
in that year. I am happy to say that on the evidence of the six
months since that year ended there has been the kind of sea change
which was referred to earlier. There is undoubtedly much more
energy going into engaging with the complainants, resolving complaints
and moving forward systemic recommendations but I am anxious to
keep the steam in the engine.
5 See Ev p 19. Back
6 See Ev p 19. Back
7 See Ev p 20. Back
|
