Scheme administration and the
DTI's oversight
24. The CSG identified longstanding and continuing
concerns about the planning and procedures for claims handling
and the organisation and deployment of both IT and human resources
by the DTI's contractors. The Group was also concerned about the
DTI's oversight and management of its contractors and its ability
to hold them to account.[37]
The CSG identified a number of problems common to both schemes
in the past. It claimed that there had been difficulties in obtaining
the training and employment records that were essential to demonstrate
a claimant's right to compensation.[38]
It criticised IRISC's inability to respond to claimants' solicitors'
correspondence and resolve inquiries and to match incoming documentation
from claimants' solicitors to files.[39]
It drew our attention to the high turnover rate among staff handling
claims at Capita-IRISC, which it claimed was as high as 25 percent
in 2004.[40] The CSG
also expressed concern about the effectiveness of the training
provided to IRISC staff and pointed out that much of it seemed
to be "on the job training".[41]
The CSG maintained that all of these factors had contributed to
unsatisfactory performance on the part of the contractor dealing
with the claims adjustment part of the settlement process and
a poor understanding of the Claims Handling Agreements themselves.[42]
While the Group acknowledged that Capita-IRISC had tried to address
many of these shortcomings, the company had failed to address
them all to the CSG's satisfaction.[43]
25. For Capita-IRISC, Kate Roy[44]
acknowledged that the number of claims had caused problems during
the early years of the schemes, However, she explained that IRISC
had increased the throughput of claims for both schemes for every
year since the Claims Handling Agreements had been agreed, as
was required in the company's contract with the DTI.[45]
As previously discussed, staffing had been increased to the point
where 1,400 staff were employed in four sites in former mining
areas across the country.[46]
Martin Trainer[47] told
us that since Capita took over the business less than 12 months
ago it had put in place a Business Improvement Programme designed
to increase productivity and the quality of implementation of
the schemes.[48]
26. Jeff Wilson[49]
defended his company's record on training. He pointed out that
Capita-IRISC had developed bespoke training for its staff, with
appropriate mentoring and coaching. He felt that the quality of
the company's training was reflected by the fact that its staff
were recruited by solicitors involved in the schemes.[50]
Ms Roy told us that 28 percent of staff who left Capita-IRISC
were subsequently employed by such solicitors. She acknowledged
that staff turnover was running at 25 percent, but did not feel
that this was too surprising in areas of high employment like
Sheffield.[51] The company
sought to address the problem through its Business Improvement
Programme.[52]
27. For its part, the DTI rejected the suggestion
that it exercised inadequate supervision over its contractors.
The Department acknowledged that the main risks to smooth delivery
of compensation had been operational problems and delays due to
changes in policy or process and operational risks between the
service providers and solicitors. However, the Coal Liabilities
Unit closely monitored the performance of its service providers
and had put in place a programme of regular auditing of the systems,
processes, and disaster recovery arrangements operated by its
contractors.[53] The
DTI's risk management processes had been commended by the National
Audit Office.[54]
28. With the benefit of hindsight it is clear
that the original underestimate of the scale of the problem meant
that the resources allocated to the compensation schemes were
inadequate from the outset and that mistakes were made. Since
then, however, the Government and its contractors have invested
heavily to address the original shortcoming and all of the stakeholders
in the process have made significant efforts to make the system
work better. In general, these efforts have borne fruit. There
are, however, a number of specific points of disagreement between
claimants' representatives and the Government and its contractors.
The most significant of these are discussed below.
24 
