Memorandum submitted on behalf of the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (CS 29)
BACKGROUND
1. The role of the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Administration (Ombudsman) is, and has been since his office
was created in 1967, to investigate and report on complaints referred
to him by Members of Parliament from members of the public that
maladministration on the part of bodies within the Ombudsman's
jurisdiction has caused them unremedied injustice.
2. The complaints the Ombudsman considers
are those which are about the way that departments have administered
their responsibilities. He does not consider complaints about
the content of legislation, that being for Parliament itself to
decide. Nor does he investigate the merits of particular policies.
Policy is a discretionary matter. The legislation under which
the Ombudsman operates, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967,
says that he is not to question the merits of discretionary decisions
taken in the absence of maladministration. (Where the Ombudsman
finds maladministration tainting the taking of a discretionary
decision his normal practice is to invite the Department concerned
to take the decision afresh, without such maladministration.)
3. Following the enactment of the Child
Support Act 1991 and the setting up of the Child Support Agency
in April 1993 the then Ombudsman, from September 1993 onwards,
began to receive increasing numbers of complaints referred to
him through Members of Parliament alleging maladministration on
the part of the Child Support Agency.
4. The numbers of complaints referred continued
to grow; and by the end of 1994, of the many public sector bodies
within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, it was the Agency against
whom complaints of maladministration were being made most frequently.
Because of the increases in the numbers of complaints from parents
with care and non-resident parents alike, the then Ombudsman took
the unusual step of writing to all Members of Parliament asking
them not to refer further Child Support Agency cases to him unless
the cases themselves possessed or appeared to possess novel features,
or the complainants were alleging that the Agency's shortcomings
were causing them some unremedied financial loss. Even so, by
the end of 1994 complaints against the Child Support Agency made
up over one-third of the total of all complaints against all departments
being referred to the Ombudsman.
5. As well as making reports on the individual
cases to those Members of Parliament who had referred constituents'
complaints to him the Ombudsman used his powers under section
10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 to lay two special
reports before Parliament, in January 1995 and again in March
1996, summarising what his investigations into individual complaints
against the Child Support Agency had found. Full details can be
obtained from the reports themselves. In summary, in his first
special report the Ombudsman gave examples, including examples
of mistaken identity, inadequate procedures, failures to answer
correspondence, misleading or inadequate advice and delays in
assessing and reviewing cases and in making payments to parents
with care, to illustrate the shortcomings his investigations were
finding. In the second special report he regretfully confirmed
that those shortcomings were continuing to occur and went on to
illustrate others - confusion over jurisdiction, breaches of confidentiality,
problems with interim maintenance assessments and failures to
take enforcement action promptly - that had also emerged. His
particular concern at the problems those who had had dealings
with the Agency were having in obtaining redress from the Agency,
even when shortcomings had been admitted, led him to continue
to urge the Agency themselves to consider appointing an independent
complaints adjudicator, a suggestion he had first made in May
1995.
6. Since Mrs Parker, the independent case
examiner, took up her post in April 1997 the number of complaints
against the Agency being referred to the Ombudsman has started
to fall back. The Ombudsman has not felt it necessary to lay a
third special report before Parliament. Even so, in each of his
last three annual reports to Parliament, the latest of which was
published in July 1999, he has continued to criticise aspects
of the Child Support Agency's performance. The shortcomings his
individual investigations continue to find mirror both the shortcomings
being reported by the independent case examiner and those he has
reported on in earlier years. The Ombudsman has felt able to say
that some of the adverse themes reported on in the past have been
less prominent in the past year: also, he has welcomed steps the
Child Support Agency are taking to improve their handling of complaints
and their greater readiness than in the past to offer compensation
for errors. However, the Ombudsman's individual investigations
show that the Child Support Agency continue to exhibit significant
shortcomings.
THE WHITE
PAPER
7. For the reasons identified in paragraph
2 above the Ombudsman has no official view on the policy points
addressed in the White Paper. His concern is that whichever policies
are adopted should be capable of being administered fairly and
effectively. Also, lessons need to be learned from the mistakes
of the past. Unless adequate resources, both staff resources and
other resources (IT resources in particular), are provided to
administer the policies which are adopted then, however well—intentioned
those policies and whatever the theoretical advantages they might
bring, there will continue to be problems. Simplifying the system
should make its administration more straightforward but, even
with a simplified system, unless there are enough staff and the
staff have the necessary support facilities, training and instruction
or guidance, and the time in which to absorb that training or
guidance, the problems which have characterised the Child Support
Agency's first six years will continue.
8. There is one other point. Almost uniquely
for a government agency, staff at the Child Support Agency find
themselves dealing with matters which affect not just the client's
position vis a vis themselves but also the client's position vis
a vis a third party (the "other" parent), with whom
the client may be at loggerheads. That increases the likelihood
of complaints about the Agency since they will not be able to
satisfy both parents in every case. Some of those complaints will
be justified, some will not be justified. It will remain important
that the Child Support Agency maintains good complaints handling
arrangements of its own to distinguish into which category complaints
about its handling of cases fall and, in the case of those complaints
which are justified, that they offer speedy and appropriate redress.
Office of the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Administration
September 1999
|
