Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Fourth Report


Other Issues

Budget

46. On reviewing the Agency's budget we were concerned to find that the allocation for the current year was more than double the forecast outturn across a range of headings leaving the Agency with a potential surplus of just over £40 million. In particular, the allocation for criminal injuries under the 2002 Order (the Tariff Scheme) was £51.84 million while the Agency is now forecasting a spend of just £15.556 million. Also, the allocation for payments under the Terrorism Act was £5.402 million and the anticipated spend is £1.054 million.[43]

47. The Agency explained that this was caused by a combination of factors.[44] In the past forecasts were made on the basis of the anticipated number of claims and the average award per claim. However, the Agency claimed that because of the change to resource accounting, the outturn for 2002-03 was based on the value of the new claims received during the year rather than the amount actually paid out during the year. The introduction of the Tariff Scheme with the subsequent reduction in the overall number of claims and the very successful measures introduced by the Agency to tackle the abuse of the Terrorism Act claims also had a major impact. We were advised that the Northern Ireland Audit Office is now working closely with the Agency.

48. We have been assured that the Department had been alerted to the underspend and that this money is being used to meet funding pressures elsewhere. However, we believe that with more accurate forecasting by the Agency this additional money could have been available for allocation at the outset of the year to other vital priority programmes in Northern Ireland. We urge the Minister to take steps to ensure much more realistic forecasting in the future.

Customer satisfaction

49. Customer satisfaction is an important performance measure for any organisation providing a service to the public. We commend the Agency for carrying out regular surveys of applicants and their representatives, and we recognise that the attitudes of applicants towards the service they have received may be coloured by whether their claim for compensation has been successful or has been rejected.[45]

50. We note that the customer satisfaction level fell from 71% in 1999 to 65% in 2001. The Agency believes that this drop in satisfaction levels was probably due to the number of people who were unhappy in principle with the introduction of the new Tariff Scheme.[46] A further survey is currently underway and the Agency anticipates that the level of general unhappiness about the introduction of the Tariff Scheme may be further reflected in the outcome of that survey. For this reason the Agency appears to have omitted a user satisfaction target in its key performance targets for 2003-04.[47]

51. In the past the Agency has identified 'achieving an improvement in its level of user satisfaction' as one of its key performance targets but dropped the target in 2003-04. We would urge the Agency to restore that target accompanied, if necessary, by a more robust methodology for distinguishing between 'genuine' dissatisfaction and irritation at refusal of a claim.


43   Ev 26 Annex E (amended) Back

44   Q49 Back

45   Q44 Back

46   Q46 Back

47   QQ47-48 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 5 May 2004