Examination of witness (Questions 89-99)
TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 1999
MR JOHN
AVERY CB
Chairman
89. Can I reconvene the public session of evidence
and welcome Mr John Avery, who is the Deputy Parliamentary Commissioner
for Administration and has been such for a number of years—a
distinguished career of service and, no doubt, he has seen quite
a lot pass under his nose in one way or the other. Indeed, you
had a distinguished career before that, I think, in the Board
of Trade, or some other branch of executive government, so you
are very welcome and we are grateful to you for coming along.
We have had the benefit of your memorandum on the Child Support
Agency and I just wanted to ask you, really, by way of setting
the scene and opening the questioning, from the depth and extent
of your experience, what role do you think the Ombudsman can play
in certifying that the new system is working? You will have, perhaps,
detected from some of my colleagues a worry about the interface
between the old and the new, and indeed a lot of the statistics
that are available to policy makers and ministers take sometime
to come through and become robust to identify a trend. How long
will it take before the new system can be certified, if you like,
as being working to the extent that it can take on the existing
caseload? You have seen all sorts of sights, many and varied,
in your past experience and in your present position. Do you have
a view on that? What can you tell us to look out for? What would
the test be that you would set for the new system to pass before
you could be confident it could deal with existing cases?
(Mr Avery) The role the Ombudsman can play, Chairman,
I think, will be determined by the role that Members of this House
ask him to play, because we simply pick up the complaints which
Members of the House refer to the Ombudsman. However, to pick
up your particular point about the transitional arrangements,
could I just jog back in my memory to another transitional circumstance
which involved the Department of Social Security, and that was
a year before the Child Support Agency came into existence. That
was the time when the old allowances of Attendance Allowance and
Mobility Allowance were replaced by the Disability Living Allowance.
I have to say that the Department at the time did not handle those
transitional changes particularly well, as some here may remember,
because the Ombudsman of the day felt obliged to make a special
report to Parliament on that particular subject, which in fact
he referred to when the Child Support Agency came into existence,
saying that insufficient time had been given for staff in the
Department to operate two systems concurrently, and that part
and parcel of the problem was that the then DSS—which was
really just when agencies were being set up—took their best
people off the old arrangements and put them on to the new arrangements
because they were concerned about the way the new arrangements
were going to work. Frankly, that meant that for a period of nearly
two years the old arrangements went into even greater disarray.
One of the concerns I think the Ombudsman would have is that if
the CSA are not given the resources and, as well as the resources,
the time to make the transitional changes, then the transitional
period could actually turn out to be one of the more difficult
ones and one would see, temporarily no doubt, a deterioration
in performance, whereas I think the CSA's performance in this
last twelve months—and I would agree with what Mrs Parker
was saying there—has shown some signs of an upturn.
Mr Pond
90. Can I take that point a bit further, because
the Minister, earlier, was—while taking on board many of
these points about transition—saying she was fearful of
a big bang approach because of the possibility of a complete meltdown
of the system, and no amount of WD40 from yourself or other agencies
could unfreeze it. Is there a way through on this? Can you see
a way of achieving that transition from one system to another
without the possibility of meltdown, on the one hand, or the possibility
of trying to run two systems rather ineffectively side-by-side
on the other?
(Mr Avery) I listened to all the earlier evidence
given this afternoon with interest, and it seemed to me that there
will be—and this sounds a bit like a sibyl making predictions—complaints.
The issue is for those of you who determine the legislation; what
the new arrangements are and which complaints you are happier
to face and which you think you can most effectively deal with
afterwards. I agree completely that if you run the two systems
side-by-side you will get some of your constituents coming along
and saying "There is unfairness here because I came along
two months later and is my situation is so different". On
the other hand, if you try and compress the system then (and perhaps
"meltdown" is a bit too dramatic) there is likely to
be a stepchange in the number of complaints. I am afraid that
with this, as with so many of the issues with which the White
Paper details, there is not an easy answer; there is a trade-off
and a series of judgments to be made. Simplicity has been one
of the keynote features in the evidence given earlier this afternoon,
and certainly the Ombudsman would not dispute that unless there
is simplification of the system then all the problems that have
been experienced in the past will continue. The weighing that
has to be done is that the further down the path of simplicity
you go the more you move from the concept of absolute fairness.
I fear, certainly judged on the experience of the cases we have
investigated over the past 7 or 8 years, that is a trade-off which
has to be made.
91. I think you did mention the phrase "sufficient
resources" a few moments ago. Is it part of the solution,
as you see it, that if there were adequate resources given to
the Agency (and I assume from what you said that you think there
should be a considerable increase in resources) it might be possible
to ease that transition.
(Mr Avery) I do not believe that resources alone would
ever have been sufficient to solve the Agency's difficulties in
the past, given the problems that the Agency encountered—and,
let it be said, the nature of the task that they had. Unlike most
government departments, they are dealing with a balance between
two parties, whose interests probably do not lie in the same direction.
Where those interests lie in the same direction there would not
be a problem anyway. So there are going to be these difficult
cases, and the Agency are going to have problems. If they do not
have sufficient resources—and this has been a theme through
Ombudsmen's annual reports for as long as I have been in the Ombudsman's
office—there will be problems. I am afraid there is the
sort of sibyl again. However, if there are adequate resources,
and I have listened with interest to what Mrs Boardman had to
say about what the Agency will have to find for itself, there
is a necessary condition for problems to be overcome. Is it a
guarantee that problems will be overcome? Clearly not.
92. One final question, if I may. There has
been some anxiety expressed, not only this afternoon but throughout
this debate, about whether or not the technology will be up to
this transition. I think it would be wrong for me to ask whether
or not you are confident that it will be, as it is outside your
remit, but if it were found that there were problems with the
technology, and that that, therefore, led to situations where
people found that their particular cases were being compromised
in some way, is that something that the Ombudsman would be able
to make a judgment on?
(Mr Avery) I believe so, yes. This Committee will
be more familiar than most with the problems which have been taking
place with other computer systems in the Department of Social
Security, and there are other departments of government, again,
it will be widely known, which are having problems with computers
and that is having an effect on the service they are giving to
the citizen. We are looking at complaints which Members of Parliament
have referred relating to those. I would be jolly surprised, should
there be problems with the CSA computer in the year 2001, if the
Ombudsman was not asked to look into some of those problems as
well.
Mr Dismore
93. Can I just pick up on this resource issue
again? I am looking at the letter from the Ombudsman of 19 October
1998 to Dame Ann Bowtell,[8]
and particularly the last paragraph. There seems to be some inconsistencies,
or I am not understanding what you are saying. The last but one
paragraph reads: "Secondly, I think it would be a mistake
to conclude that the complexity of the current formula has been
the prime cause of all the Child Support Agency's difficulties
up to now. Even with a simpler formula, unless appropriate investment
is made in resourcing and training, I suspect that officials administering
a new system may find it hard to do better than their predecessors
in offering the level of service the public has a right to expect."
Is the logical conclusion of that this: that if there had been
the right level or a lot more resources the existing system could
be made to work?
(Mr Avery) I believe not. We might have
believed that in the early years of the CSA's existence because
the cases we initially investigated and the replies we were getting
from the then chief executives of the Agency suggested, in good
faith I am sure, that these were teething problems that the Agency
had, that there were technical developments that would resolve
the problems and that with more training the problem could be
resolved. For a time, not just the Ombudsman but, I think, most
of the people to whom those sorts of assurances were given, put
a lot of credence in those assurances. Time has proved that those
assurances, although well-meant, have turned out not to be the
case. My personal view, and I know that of colleagues in the office
and the Ombudsman, is that the system itself, unless there is
simplification, will continue to throw up large numbers of complaints
and the kind of problems that the White Paper identifies. It would
be feasible to say "Because we want to go down the route
of a complex system with absolute fairness these are problems
up with which we are prepared to put", but that does not
seem to be the accepted situation.
94. What you are saying seems to me to be somewhat
different to that letter because effectively if that is the case
presumably the root cause of the problem is the complexity of
the system.
(Mr Avery) I think what the Ombudsman was saying to
the then Permanent Secretary of the Department of Social Security
was that it would be a misconception to think it would be the
only problem in the system. The problems in the system have varied
over time. One comes back to the issue that you are not going
to resolve these difficulties by making any one change unless
you remove some of several common causes of which clearly the
complexity is one. There will continue to be difficulties because
of the complexity, the absolute welter of the maintenance assessments
that can come out at frequent intervals confusing everyone, the
catch-up which our investigations showed the Agency is constantly
within. One of the most basic problems that the Agency and people
who have dealings with the Agency face, delay, is always exacerbated.
So I do not think there is an inconsistency but certainly we do
not think that simplification without other actions being taken,
including the provision of necessary resources, will solve the
problems.
95. What do you think of the ambition perhaps,
to put it relatively neutrally, of the Minister that you will
be able to reverse the time spent on compliance as opposed to
calculation? Do you think that is a practical objective?
(Mr Avery) The Ombudsman is much stronger on hindsight
than foresight so if you will forgive me I will pass on that particular
question.
Dr Naysmith
96. I have got your report for 1998-99 here
and in the Child Support Agency section you talk about the reduction
in the number of complaints that you have had and you seem to
concede that there has been an improvement certainly in getting
compensation and part of that is obviously due to the Independent
Case Examiner being imposed but then you say at the end: "Despite
those welcome improvements, the Ombudsman's investigations still
show that the CSA continue to make significant errors."[9]
What kind of errors are you talking about? Significant in what
sense? Just important rather than trivial or significant saying
something about the organisation?
(Mr Avery) Significant in several senses. Significant
to the individual complainant's concern of course because it affects
their situation. Significant in the sense that despite the best
efforts of the management of the Child Support Agency it is unfortunately
the case that many of the basic administrative failings which
the Ombudsmen have had cause to criticise in the past do continue
to occur from time to time and I do not think the pattern of our
reports—and we reported on something like 114 investigations
last year—brings out any different lessons from those which
Mrs Parker has reported on and she has seen more of the game than
we do now and that is understandable and I think desirable, but
the pictures have not changed. The CSA have made some improvements
in some areas and certainly compared to four or five years ago
their redress practices when they have made mistakes are better
than they were then. Four or five years ago they took the stance
"If we made a mistake it hasn't really hurt anyone, has it,
because we can correct the mistake by saying to the non-resident
parent, `Well, now we have corrected things we discover you owe
an extra £10,000', and the good news for the parent with
care would be `If you are prepared to wait until the year 2015
you might get it'." Now they do at least make lump sum payments
to compensate, so things have improved in some ways and it would
be churlish not to acknowledge that.
97. Earlier on you said that the trade off between
simplicity and fairness is one that simply has to be made. Has
to be made why? Simply because you want to get away from the old
system? Made for what reason?
(Mr Avery) If you did not have to make the trade off
I think it would follow in logic that you believed that the current
system could be made to work. Experience suggests otherwise.
98. What I am getting at is is this the only
way to improve the system?
(Mr Avery) It is not the only way to improve the system.
There are many other improvements that will need to be made simultaneously,
the new IT system in itself because the current IT system is not
a very flexible one in my perception if you see some of the standard
letters that come out. But unless you bite the bullet of simplification
I think you must expect to continue to have some major problems.
Mr Leigh
99. I want to follow on from that. You have
just said and you said to us in your letter: "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"
and as has been said you say: "However, the Ombudsman's individual
investigations show that the Child Support Agency continue to
exhibit significant shortcomings." What worries me is that
do you not think it would have been wise to try to build on the
good work? Progress has now been made and clearly you would suggest
that in the last year considerable progress is being made. Should
we not have concentrated on dealing with those things which are
still wrong before we start changing the whole system?
(Mr Avery) I understand the point you are making.
It seems to me that rather than the Ombudsman it is the people
who actually run the Agency who are the best placed to take judgments
on what they are likely to be able to do or not to do. There is
going to be a period, as I understand it, of something like two
years from now and then longer for existing cases before everybody
moves over to the new system so in part the answer to your question
is yes, there is plenty of scope for improving the existing system
and whilst there have been improvements in some areas of the Agency's
performance, mistaken identity seems to occur much less than it
used to for example, there is a long way to go and one trusts
that the Agency will keep chipping away at that. But, and I am
sorry to be so repetitive on performance, one comes back to the
genuine belief that the system as it is has not worked and is
not going to be made to work with the resources that seem likely
to be made available to the Agency.
8 CS 8 not printed. Responses to the Green Paper are
available on request from the Department of Social Security. Back
9 HC 572 para 3.7. Back
|
