6 Conclusion
73. We asked Stephen Geraghty whether he thought
he could call the Operational Improvement Plan (OIP) a success.
He replied that the OIP had set out to improve the levels of performance
of the old and current schemes while the Government came up with
a longer-term strategy to replace them. He added that
We did get more money than we said we would get
over the period, we got benefit for more families than we said
we would get, we improved the service, the telephony and throughput
of applications to the extent, in fact more than the extent, we
said and we stuck within the budget. So the Operational Improvement
Plan was not designed to get us to a perfect system. It was designed
to give us a stable platform on which we could build the future
long-term changes.[72]
74. We do not underestimate the challenge facing
the CSA at the outset of the OIP and we commend the CSA and the
Commission on substantial progress in a number of areas, particularly
in clearing the backlog of uncleared cases, in reducing time taken
to process new claims, and improving accuracy and levels of customer
service. In other areas, success has been more qualified. The
Commission missed its original case compliance target and whilst
it has met its new maintenance outcome target, 27% of non-resident
parents were still paying no maintenance at all in September 2009.
The Commission also failed to meet its target for collection of
arrears in 2008-09 and acknowledges the difficulty that it will
face in meeting this target for 2009-10. Furthermore, despite
all the efforts of the OIP to improve the functioning of the IT,
persistent problems with IT are leading to a rapid increase in
the number of clerically administered cases.
75. Our concerns for the future are two-fold. We
are concerned that the new statutory scheme, and its reliance
on private arrangements, will see a return to the pre-1993 situation
regarding child maintenance. Whilst we gave a cautious welcome
to the proposed new system in our report on the White Paper, we
repeat our concerns that a reliance on private arrangements may
recreate the problems associated with the child maintenance system
before the Child Support Act 1991 came into force.[73]
We urge our successor Committee to continue to examine carefully
the development of the new scheme.
76. More immediately, we are concerned that transition
to the new scheme will place an intolerable burden on the Commission.
The strain of managing a ballooning clerical caseload in the old
and current schemes in addition to running three different IT
systems in parallel, whilst also preparing for an increase in
caseload for the Options Service will be a very substantial challenge.
The success of the future scheme rests on the Commission's ability
to rise to this challenge. The successful and prompt progression
to the single future scheme is essential for the future of the
child maintenance system.
77. We have asked the Commission to provide our successor
Committee with a series of regular reports on the functioning
of the current IT system; development of the IT system for the
future scheme; the management of clerical cases; the management
of the transition process to the future scheme; and progress in
reducing arrears. These areas are all fundamental to ensuring
that a "stable platform" is established from which to
launch the future scheme. We hope that our successor Committee
will keep a close eye on developments and help to ensure that
the future scheme is able to establish a system of child maintenance
in which non-resident parents and parents with care alike can
have confidence.
72 Q5 Back
73
Fourth Report, Session 2006-07, HC 219, paragraph 23. Back
|
