Session 2007/2008

Ninth Report

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report on Northern Ireland Resource Accounts –
Northern Ireland Child Support Agency
Client Funds 2003-04 – 2006-07

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
RELATING TO THE REPORT AND THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Ordered by The Public Accounts Committee to be printed 14 February 2008
Report: 21/07/08R Public Accounts Committee

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Public Accounts Committee
Membership and Powers

The Public Accounts Committee is a Standing Committee established in accordance with Standing Orders under Section 60(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is the statutory function of the Public Accounts Committee to consider the accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General laid before the Assembly.

The Public Accounts Committee is appointed under Assembly Standing Order No. 51 of the Standing Orders for the Northern Ireland Assembly. It has the power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time. Neither the Chairperson nor Deputy Chairperson of the Committee shall be a member of the same political party as the Minister of Finance and Personnel or of any junior minister appointed to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The membership of the Committee since 9 May 2007 has been as follows:

Mr John O’Dowd (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)

Mr Jonathan Craig                   Mr Ian McCrea*
Mr John Dallat                         Mr Patsy McGlone
Mr Simon Hamilton                  Mr Mitchel McLaughlin
Mr David Hilditch                     Ms Dawn Purvis
Mr Trevor Lunn

* Mr Mickey Brady replaced Mr Willie Clarke on 1 October 2007
* Mr Ian McCrea replaced Mr Mickey Brady on 21 January 2008

Table of Contents

List of abbreviations used in the Report v

Report

Executive Summary

Summary of Recommendations

Introduction

Performance of the Agency

Managing Debt and Enforcing Payment

Looking to the Future

Appendix 1:

Minutes of Proceedings

Appendix 2:

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3:

Deputy Chairperson’s letter of 18 January 2008 to Mr Alan Shannon, Accounting Officer, Department for Social Development

Correspondence of 1 February 2008 from Mr Alan Shannon, Accounting Officer, Department for Social Development

Deputy Chairperson’s letter of 17 January 2008 to Mr David Thomson, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel

Correspondence of 4 February 2008 from Mr David Thomson, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel

Appendix 4:

List of Witnesses

List of Abbreviations used in the Report

The Agency          Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

GBCSA                 Great Britain Child Support Agency

NICSA                  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

IT                        Information Technology

The Department   Department for Social Development

C&AG                  Comptroller and Auditor General

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. The Northern Ireland Child Support Agency (the Agency) was established in April 1993 with the main purpose of ensuring that parents who live apart maintain their children whenever they can afford to do so, thus minimising the burden on the taxpayer. Since its establishment the Agency has mirrored its Great Britain (GBCSA) equivalent in terms of policies, schemes and systems.

2. The Agency carries out a significant amount of work on behalf of GBCSA. This work benefits the Agency in a number of ways not least the 1,200 local jobs it creates with revenue of £30million to the local economy. The Committee commends the Agency on retaining this work in Northern Ireland and supports the continuation of strong links with the GBCSA.

3. Whilst it is acknowledged that the provision of child support services is a very challenging area, the Child Support Agencies in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, have been widely criticised for failing to meet their targets since inception. The Agency has been through a series of extensive reforms and system changes over the years with the aim of rectifying previous difficulties. Unfortunately these reforms and system changes have not had the desired impact and the Agency, whilst performing better recently, is still underachieving.

4. The Agency has a significant role in helping tackle child poverty and the poor performance of the Agency impacts on one of the most vulnerable groups in society. More children would be lifted out of poverty if the Agency delivered an effective service to its customers. Failure to collect the maintenance due from non-resident parents can cause real hardship and have lasting consequences for parents with care and the children.

Performance of the Agency

5. The Agency relies heavily upon the proper functioning of its IT systems but is dependent upon GBCSA for the development, testing, implementation and maintenance of these systems. It is important that the forthcoming major upgrade to the computer systems should put right many of the problems that have plagued the Agency and impacted upon its performance since its inception.

6. Any consideration of the performance of the Agency needs to be underpinned by challenging and achievable targets. There are a number of areas within the Agency where the monitoring of performance is extremely important due to the nature and extent of the problems it is experiencing. In particular the Agency needs to set stretching targets to monitor and improve its performance on the levels of accuracy, debt recovery and customer satisfaction.

7. The service provided by the Agency’s staff to its customers is a key aspect of its performance. However, the Agency continues to have major problems with the recruitment, retention and absenteeism of staff which adversely affect productivity and service levels.

8. It is acknowledged that getting the money to children through the Agency is the most important part of its work. However, this cannot be at any cost and it is of concern that it costs the Agency more to do its job when compared to GBCSA albeit that variations in costs and income earned in Northern Ireland may explain some of this difference.

9. The Agency holds very sensitive data on behalf of parents and children and it is extremely important that this information is kept securely. In addition the Agency needs information from a wide variety of sources to enable it to do its job properly. Therefore, it is crucial that while maintaining strict security protocols, access to this very important information is not inhibited.

Managing Debt and Enforcing Payment

10. A key element for any business is good record keeping and therefore the Committee is very critical that the Agency is unable to produce a list of its customers who owe money. It is essential that a list is produced so that debtors can be pursued for the outstanding amounts due.

11. The Agency is unable to write off debt as this money does not belong to the public sector and therefore all debt remains on the books. At 31 March 2007 this debt totalled £71 million and was increasing at a significant rate each year. The Agency considers that about £41million of this debt is uncollectible. The Agency recognises that it is essential to at least stop the debt rising so it can tackle the existing debt and bring it down to a more manageable level.

12. The Committee was dismayed to learn that one in three non-resident parents fails to pay any money towards the upkeep of their children. The Agency has a wide variety of enforcement powers and it is important these are extensively exploited to maximise the flow of money. In addition the Committee believes that the publication of the outcome of successful prosecutions for the evasion of child maintenance responsibilities will assist in raising the profile of the Agency’s enforcement work. However, it is clear that there is a more fundamental need for a change in the attitude of society to cease evasion and avoidance of their responsibilities for child maintenance.

Looking to the Future

13. The Committee welcomes the planned changes from the Agency’s Operational Improvement Plan and hopes that lessons will have been learnt from past failings and that planned improvements will reduce the likelihood of any such failings reoccurring.

14. The Agency will shortly be dissolved and child maintenance activities will be transferred within the Department for Social Development (the Department). The Committee welcomes the fresh start for the Agency with its troubled past but is concerned that the reorganisation has not been adequately planned nor have the tangible benefits been considered. However, the Committee was assured by the Accounting Officer that at least the same level of transparency would remain after reorganisation. This will be essential as the Committee intends to revisit the performance issues raised in this report and expects to have available to it a clear series of performance indicators spanning the period before and after the structural change.

Summary of Recommendations

Performance of the Agency

1. The Committee acknowledges that many of the Agency’s problems have been due to the inadequate and poorly performing IT systems it has had to work with. The Committee shares the frustrations of the Department and the Agency in this matter. The Committee recommends that the Agency should continue to work closely with its GB counterparts to resolve these IT problems as soon as possible so it can deliver its business properly and efficiently.

2. To ensure a better focus on the levels of accuracy, customer satisfaction and debt recovery, the Committee recommends that the Department and the Agency set more challenging targets.

3. It is the Committee’s view that having sufficient, trained staff is an important factor in achieving an improvement in the performance of the Agency. The Committee recommends that the Agency analyses the reasons for its problems retaining staff and reflects any lessons from the analysis in its human resources planning.

4. The Committee recommends that the Agency’s and other public sector bodies’ Annual Reports should contain information on the number of staff recruited, through whatever route.

5. The Committee notes the progress that has been made in reducing absenteeism. Reducing absenteeism remains a challenge, however, there is still further work to be done. Therefore the Committee recommends that the management of absenteeism must remain a high priority.

6. The Committee is concerned that the level of costs to collect and arrange £1.00 of child maintenance continues to be significantly higher than GBCSA. The Committee accepts there are differences in the cost structure and the income earned by non-resident parents in NI but is not convinced that this fully explains the difference in the cost of collection here. The Committee therefore recommends that the Agency analyses the full costs of collection ratio with a view to benchmarking as effectively as possible against GBCSA and identifying the scope for improvement.

7. The Committee is concerned about the security of the computer systems given the many IT related problems. The Committee therefore recommends that the Accounting Officer satisfies himself that he has the highest level of assurance in relation to data security.

8. The Agency must target non-resident parents where there is evidence they are deliberately and fraudulently trying to evade their responsibilities to pay child maintenance. Data protection should not be an obstacle to sharing information and the Committee recommends that all available steps are taken to ensure that any data protection issues are addressed so that easier channels of communication may be established with other organisations.

9. The Committee recommends that the Agency takes every opportunity to work with organisations in the Republic of Ireland to minimise the scope for non-resident parents evading their responsibilities for the support of their children.

Managing Debt and Enforcing Payment

10. The Committee recommends that the Agency immediately pursues the delivery of a debt register so that debts and debtors can be correctly identified and the appropriate action taken.

11. The Agency needs to re-examine its processes for collecting debt and pursue all avenues to reduce the level of arrears to acceptable amounts. The Committee accepts that the debt recovery problem is very challenging but it is precisely because of this that the Agency needs to be at the leading edge of best practice in debt management. This is the standard against which the Committee recommends that the Agency should review its processes for collecting debt and ensures that it is pursuing all cost effective measures to reduce the level of arrears.

12. The Committee recommends that the Agency makes more extensive use of the enforcement powers it currently holds and seeks to pursue any additional powers which may help it reduce the escalating levels of debt. It is important that the Agency should identify any potential obstructions to the collection of debt at the earliest stage and bring the full enforcement actions to bear promptly.

13. The Committee was disappointed that the Agency did not publicise the details of its enforcement activity. The Committee recognises that there is a need to protect the children involved from such publicity but nevertheless would recommend that the Agency publicise successful prosecutions even in summary or anonymous form.

Looking to the Future

14. The Committee was surprised that the Department does not yet have a clear idea what the proposed structural change should achieve in terms of savings or efficiencies. An appraisal should have been conducted for a major change of this nature which would have identified the expected benefits. This lack of detail and uncertainty over the future also impacts on staff morale. The Committee recommends that the Department identifies and publishes the details of its proposals in this area as soon as possible.

15. The Committee welcomes the Accounting Officer’s assurance that there will be no loss of transparency when child support activities are absorbed within the Department, as different elements of this area will still be clearly identifiable within Departmental accounts. The Committee recommends that the Department at least matches the current level of reporting that is in the Agency’s Annual Report and that there is continuity in the measurement or reporting of performance indicators. This will be particularly important as the Committee intends to revisit the performance issues raised in this report and it expects to have available to it a clear time series of performance indicators spanning the period before and after the structural change.

Introduction

1. The Public Accounts Committee met on 17 January 2008 to consider the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07 (NIA 71/06-07). The Comptroller and Auditor General’s (C&AG’s) report on the Client Funds Account is included as an appendix to that report. The Committee also considered the C&AG’s reports on the Client Funds for earlier years 2003-04 to 2005-06 together with correspondence provided by the Department for Social Development to the Committee.

2. The witnesses were:

• Mr Alan Shannon, Accounting Officer, Department for Social Development;
• Ms Mary Quinn, Chief Executive, Northern Ireland Child Support Agency (NICSA);
• Ms Andrea Orr, Director of Corporate Services, Northern Ireland Child Support Agency;
• Mr John Dowdall CB, Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG); and
• Mr David Thomson, Treasury Officer of Accounts.

3. In taking evidence on the C&AG’s report, the Committee focussed on three main issues. These were:

• the unsatisfactory performance of the Agency;
• the rising levels of debt owed to parents and failure to collect money owed; and
• the proposed way forward under a new structure.

Performance of the Agency

Resolving the IT problems

4. The Committee recognises that the Agency is totally dependent on its GB counterpart for the development, testing, implementation and maintenance of the computer systems that it operates. It is well publicised that these computer systems have been continually failing for many years and indeed this has contributed significantly to the Agency not being able to carry out its functions properly and puts the entire Agency’s work at risk. The Committee welcomes the Accounting Officer’s acceptance that the situation is not acceptable, nor has it ever been acceptable, throughout its existence but questions whether the Agency has used the poor computer systems as an excuse for not tackling the performance matters that are under its remit.

5. The Committee was surprised to be told by the Accounting Officer that around 600 alternative manual procedures were required to overcome some of the computer system problems to ensure the flow of child maintenance when a new computer system was introduced in March 2003. The Committee recognises the need for parity with GB and thus accepts that the Agency is dependant upon Great Britain to provide these computer systems. The Committee appreciates that the problems faced by the GB Agency were enormous and agrees with the Accounting Officer that it would not make sense nor be practical for NI to go it alone. Nevertheless it is difficult to tell whether the amounts paid to GB for IT services represent value for money and it is the Committee’s view that the NICSA still has a vital role to play in finding a long term solution to the computer system problems.

6. The Committee takes assurance from the Accounting Officer’s view that the new IT system is better than it was and that the Department is not hiding behind the systems in terms of addressing the operational difficulties. The Committee acknowledges that a great deal of effort has gone into improving the systems over the past 15 years. The Committee notes that a major upgrade to the new computer system is planned soon and that the Agency expects this to correct many of the problems that have existed in the system since its inception.

Recommendation 1

7. The Committee acknowledges that many of the Agency’s problems have been due to the inadequate and poorly performing IT systems it has had to work with. The Committee shares the frustrations of the Department and the Agency in this matter. The Committee recommends that the Agency should continue to work closely with its GB counterparts to resolve these IT problems as soon as possible so that it can deliver its business properly and efficiently.

Setting targets

8. The Committee notes from the Agency’s Annual Report that targets have been set for many aspects of the business. The Committee questions whether some of the targets set were stretching enough and whether setting targets at levels below what has already been achieved is really encouraging staff to achieve better results.

9. The Agency explained that in setting targets past performance is a factor but that they also consider other factors, such as forthcoming challenges facing the Agency. For example, reducing the Cash Value Accuracy target from 97% achieved in 2005-06 to 92% for 2006-07 reflected an anticipation of the demands that major organisational change would have on the performance. The Committee notes, from the written evidence provided, that the target remains at 92% for 2007-08. It is of course important that targets are achievable as well as stretching but it is the Committee’s view that where an Agency has been generally under-achieving it is particularly important that targets should, at the very least, seek to hold on to previous levels of achievement rather than allow these to slip back in anticipation of other pressures.

10. The Committee is disappointed that the Agency expected such a low achievement of 60% in customer satisfaction in 2006-07. The Committee welcomes the Agency’s acceptance that this target is low and the realisation that much more needs to be done to improve customer satisfaction.

11. The Committee is very critical that the Agency has set a target to collect only £1.5million arrears in debt for 2007-08. It is the Committee’s view that this is an insignificant amount set against the £71million owed and is not sufficiently challenging. If the Agency’s intention to stop debt increasing is to be realised, significantly more will need to be collected in arrears. The Committee would like to see in the Memorandum of Response an Action Plan with more challenging targets for the collection of arrears if the Agency hopes to make that intention a reality.

Recommendation 2

12. To ensure a better focus on the levels of accuracy, customer satisfaction and debt recovery the Committee recommends that the Department and the Agency set more challenging targets.

Staffing Levels and Retention

13. The Committee is concerned that the Agency does not have enough staff to do its job properly and indeed this may well be impacting upon staff morale, absenteeism and customer satisfaction. The Agency told the Committee that approximately 360 people were recruited in 2006-07. However, almost 330 members of staff left the Agency. The Agency accepted that staff turnover is a drain on productivity and it is a constant challenge to retain staff when competing with other employers who pay staff similar amounts or more.

Recommendation 3

14. It is the Committee’s view that having sufficient, trained staff is an important factor in achieving an improvement in the performance of the Agency. The Committee recommends that the Agency analyses the reasons for its problems in retaining staff and reflects any lessons from the analysis in its human resources planning.

15. In reviewing the content of the Agency’s Annual Report the Committee noted that there were three pages of tables on recruitment which were blank. This does not assist the public in obtaining information. The Agency explained that it was only required to include details of direct recruitment and that during the year in question staff were recruited using the Department of Finance and Personnel’s Recruitment Service.

Recommendation 4

16. The Committee recommends that the Agency’s and other public sector bodies’ Annual Reports should contain information on the number of staff recruited through whatever route.

17. The Committee is concerned at the very high levels of absenteeism within the Agency. The Agency explained that significant work had been done on managing the attendance of staff by adopting a two-pronged approach. Firstly it applies rigorous managing attendance procedures and secondly it provides a variety of valuable support mechanisms to its staff including a workforce health improvement programme. The Agency accepted that an average of 21.8 days’ absence per member of staff in 2006-07 is a poor performance and that absenteeism is one of the key challenges for the Agency. It is encouraging to learn that the Agency is on target to reduce the level of average days’ absence per member of staff to 17.5 days or less for 2007-08. The Committee agrees that this is still far too high but recognises the improvement.

Recommendation 5

18. The Committee notes the progress that has been made in reducing absenteeism. Reducing absenteeism remains a challenge, however, there is still further work to be done. Therefore the Committee recommends that the management of absenteeism must remain a high priority.

Cost of Collection

19. The Committee notes that the Agency has calculated that every £1.00 collected and arranged in child maintenance costs the Agency £0.88 in administration costs (staff cost and overheads). The Committee is of the view that this is a worryingly poor figure. In comparison the Department believes that the GBCSA costs are much lower at £0.57 for every £1.00 collected and arranged. The Department’s explanation was that there is a higher proportion of parents on benefits in Northern Ireland compared to Great Britain and that average wage levels in Northern Ireland were 85% of those in Great Britain.

Recommendation 6

20. The Committee is concerned that the level of costs to collect and arrange £1.00 of child maintenance continues to be significantly higher than GBCSA. The Committee accepts that there are differences in the cost structure and the income earned by non-resident parents in NI but is not convinced that this fully explains the difference in the cost of collection here. The Committee therefore recommends that the Agency analyses the full costs of collection ratio with a view to benchmarking as effectively as possible against GBCSA and identifying the scope for improvement.

Data Security and Data Sharing

21. The Committee is worried that there have been instances where case papers were lost in the system and could not be located to allow examination by the C&AG. The Agency must properly safeguard the very sensitive and personal data that it holds. The Agency has introduced a new tracking system for files at the Agency’s store and told the Committee that it takes the security of information very seriously and has recently undertaken a thorough systems review. The Accounting Officer told the Committee that the systems for data protection are in good shape, but that the review has identified some weaknesses on which the Department is taking action. Nevertheless the Committee would urge that the Agency is careful about assuming that the security of the computer systems is adequate, given that in many other respects, its systems have failed to perform as expected.

Recommendation 7

22. The Committee is concerned about the security of the computer systems given the many IT related problems. The Committee therefore recommends that the Accounting Officer satisfies himself that he has the highest level of assurance in relation to data security.

23. The problem of non-resident parents providing false information or no information has been highlighted by the Agency as an issue of concern. In the Committee’s view this is not acceptable. The Agency explained that 620 cases were referred to the Benefit Investigation Service in 2006-07, 12 of which made their way to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and of those, there were 8 convictions. The Committee notes that the Agency has accepted the need to work through problems relating to data protection so that it will get better at sharing information with other relevant organisations.

Recommendation 8

24. The Agency must target non-resident parents where there is evidence they are deliberately and fraudulently trying to evade their responsibilities to pay child maintenance. Data protection should not be an obstacle to sharing information and therefore the Committee recommends that all available steps are taken to ensure that any data protection issues are addressed so that easier channels of communication may be established with other organisations.

25. The Committee recognises that Northern Ireland is in an unusual position because it has a land border with the Republic of Ireland. This may lead to people crossing the border to live or work to avoid paying the CSA. The Agency acknowledges that there is an issue around the border area and recognises that opportunities may arise from regular communication and discussions with the Department of Social and Family Affairs (DFSA) in the Republic of Ireland on this matter.

Recommendation 9

26. The Committee recommends that the Agency takes every opportunity to work with organisations in the Republic of Ireland to minimise the scope for non-resident parents evading their responsibilities for the support of their children.

Managing Debt and
Enforcing Payment

Managing debt

27. The Committee is very critical that the Agency’s system is not able to produce a register of debtors. It is difficult to see how the Agency can be assured that it is asking people to pay the correct amounts if no debt register exists. The C&AG’s qualification on the accounts is because of the significant uncertainty over the accuracy and completeness of the debt reported in the accounts. The Agency explained that there are deficiencies in the computer systems that prevent debt listings being available and that, even if the system problems are resolved, the legacy of errors made over the years in calculating child maintenance assessments will continue to impact upon the accuracy of any debt register that may be produced. Nevertheless it is encouraging that work is ongoing to bring about a system enhancement that will give the Agency the level of information that it requires.

Recommendation 10

28. The Committee recommends that the Agency immediately pursues the delivery of a debt register so that debts and debtors can be correctly identified and the appropriate action taken.

29. The Accounting Officer told the Committee that the level of debt is unacceptable and the growth in the level of debt is worrying. The Committee shares this concern. The Agency said in evidence that debt has increased significantly in the past two years because of the improved assessment performance where many more cases have been assessed, thus identifying more debt. To counteract this increasing debt the Agency has recently introduced a number of new initiatives aimed at improving debt collection and there has been some success in recovering debt. Whilst the improved assessment performance and new initiatives are welcome, it is the Committee’s view that the Agency needs to be faster and better at collecting the money owed.

Recommendation 11

30. The Agency needs to re-examine its processes for collecting debt and pursue all avenues to reduce the level of arrears to acceptable amounts. The Committee accepts that the debt recovery problem is very challenging but it is precisely because of this that the Agency needs to be at the leading edge of best practice in debt management. This is the standard against which the Committee recommends that the Agency should review its processes for collecting debt and ensure that it is pursuing all cost effective measures to reduce the level of arrears.

Enforcement Activity

31. One in three non-resident parents fails to pay any of the money owed to their children and the Committee is dismayed that the Agency considers that 58% of the total debt owed cannot be collected. It is the Committee’s view that this is sending out the message that if someone is assessed by the Agency for child maintenance they do not have to pay because it is unlikely that the Agency will collect it.

32. The Committee recognises that as part of the Operational Improvement Project the Agency is doing more to collect some of the outstanding debt. The Agency has a number of enforcement powers including the ability to impose Deduction from Earnings Orders, the granting of Liability Orders and prosecution. It is now using private debt collectors to recover outstanding payments and has introduced the facility for non-resident parents to pay by debit or credit card. The Agency said that it has devoted greater resources to enforcement as a means of getting money to more children and that the amount recovered through enforcement has been increasing. The Committee agrees with the Agency that there needs to be a change in society’s attitude and welcomes the advertising campaign that aims to encourage parents to pay whilst highlighting the enforcement action that can be taken.

33. The Committee acknowledges that the Agency has had a very troubled history and that some of this debt is 15 years old. Nevertheless pursuing debts is part and parcel of the Agency’s routine work and it is the Committee’s view that considering the culture of non-compliance that has developed over the years the Agency appears to be taking very little action against those who do not pay. The Committee welcomes the Agency’s recognition that it needs to prosecute more people if they will not pay willingly.

Recommendation 12

34. The Committee recommends that the Agency makes more extensive use of the enforcement powers it currently holds and seeks to pursue any additional powers which may help it reduce the escalating levels of debt. It is important that the Agency should identify any potential obstructions to the collection of debt at the earliest stage and bring the full enforcement actions to bear promptly.

35. The Agency is currently handling around 9,500 cases where the non-resident parent is failing to make full and regular payment and this is affecting approximately 12,600 children. The Committee is disappointed that from April to December 2007 the Agency had only secured 12 successful prosecutions. The Committee considers that this statistic underlines the lack of enforcement. The Committee agreed with the Agency’s view that some of the penalties imposed are not the deterrent they should be but welcomed the fact that the Agency is working with the judiciary on this matter. The Committee noted that within the Annual Report there was no direct reference to the numbers or results of prosecutions.

Recommendation 13

36. The Committee was disappointed that the Agency did not publicise the details of its enforcement activity. The Committee recognises that there is a need to protect the children involved from such publicity but nevertheless would recommend that the Agency publicise successful prosecutions even in summary or anonymous form.

Looking to the Future

37. The Agency is undergoing major change through the implementation of the three-year Operational Improvement Project that was introduced 18 months ago. The Accounting Officer told the Committee that improvements have already been made but that the task is immense, yet there is no lack of commitment to further improve. Alongside this, a fresh start is planned. The Agency will be disbanded and the activities transferred within the Department. Legislation has been introduced in GB to implement a completely redesigned scheme and similar proposals will be brought before the Northern Ireland Assembly soon.

38. The Accounting Officer said that he believes that the new structure is a more cost effective option for Northern Ireland and will give Ministers more control. He recognised the importance of providing reassurance to the staff who are concerned about their future.

Recommendation 14

39. The Committee was surprised that the Department does not yet have a clear idea what the proposed structural change should achieve in terms of savings or efficiencies. An appraisal should have been conducted for a major change of this nature which would have identified the expected benefits. This lack of detail and uncertainty over the future also impacts on staff morale. The Committee recommends that the Department identifies and publishes the details of its proposals in this area as soon as possible.

40. The Committee found the arguments for a fresh start persuasive but, given the scale of the Agency’s problems, it is clear that there will be no quick solution. Indeed it is clear that structural change alone is not enough and it is vital that lessons are learnt from the past failings and poor performance to take the Agency forward.

Recommendation 15

41. The Committee welcomes the Accounting Officer’s assurance that there will be no loss of transparency when child support activities are absorbed within the Department, as different elements of this area will still be clearly identifiable within the Departmental accounts. The Committee recommends that the Department at least matches the current level of reporting that is in the Agency’s Annual Report and that there is continuity in the measurement or reporting of performance indicators. This will be particularly important as the Committee intends to revisit the performance issues raised in this report and it expects to have available to it a clear time series of performance indicators spanning the period before and after the structural change.

Minutes of Proceedings
of the Committee Relating
to the Report

Thursday, 17 January 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr John Dallat
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Gillian Lewis (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Nicola Shephard (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Gwyneth Deconink (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr John O’Dowd (Chairperson)
Mr Patsy McGlone
Ms Dawn Purvis

The meeting opened at 2.00pm in public session.

4. Evidence on the NIAO Reports Northern Ireland Resource Accounts – Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds Account 2003-04 – 2006-07.

The Committee took oral evidence on the NIAO reports Northern Ireland Resource Accounts – Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds Account 2003-04 – 2006-07 from Mr Alan Shannon, Accounting Officer, Department for Social Development, Mrs Mary Quinn, Chief Executive, Child Support Agency (CSA), and Ms Andrea Orr, Director of Resources, CSA. The witnesses answered a number of questions put by the Committee.

Members requested that the witnesses should provide additional information on some issues raised during the evidence session to the Clerk.

3.10pm Mr McLaughlin left the meeting.

3.14pm Mr Lunn left the meeting.

3.47pm The evidence session finished and the witnesses left the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 14 February 2008
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr John O’Dowd (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr John Dallat
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin

In Attendance: Mrs Debbie Pritchard (Principal Clerk)
Mr Jim Beatty (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Gillian Lewis (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Nicola Shephard (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Ricky Shek (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Patsy McGlone
Ms Dawn Purvis

The meeting opened at 2.03pm in public session.

2.19pm The meeting went into closed session.

6. Consideration of the Committee’s Draft Report on Northern Ireland Resource Accounts – Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds Account 2003-04 – 2006-07.

Members considered the draft report paragraph by paragraph. The witnesses attending were Mr John Dowdall CB, C&AG, Ms Colette Kane, Director of Value for Money, Ms Kathy Doey, Audit Manager, and Mr Joe Campbell, Audit Manager, NIAO.

The Committee considered the main body of the report.

Paragraphs 1 – 4 read and agreed.

Paragraph 5 read, amended and agreed.

3.10pm Mr McCrea joined the meeting.

Paragraphs 6 – 10 read and agreed.

Paragraphs 11 and 12 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 13 – 16 read and agreed.

Paragraphs 17 and 18 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 19 read and agreed.

Paragraph 20 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 21 and 22 read and agreed.

Paragraph 23 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 24 read and agreed.

Paragraph 25 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 26 read and agreed.

Paragraph 27 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 28 read and agreed.

3.29pm Mr Hamilton left the meeting.

Paragraph 29 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 30 read and agreed.

3.33pm Mr Hamilton rejoined the meeting.

Paragraphs 31 and 32 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 33 – 39 read and agreed.

Paragraphs 40 and 41 read, amended and agreed.

The Committee considered the Executive Summary of the report.

Paragraphs 1 – 3 read and agreed.

Paragraph 4 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 5 – 9 read and agreed.

Paragraph 10 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 11 read and agreed.

Paragraph 12 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraph 13 read and agreed.

Paragraph 14 read, amended and agreed.

Agreed: Members ordered the report to be printed.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Chairperson’s letters requesting additional information and the responses from the Accounting Officer, Department for Social Development, and Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel, would be included in the Committee’s report.

Agreed: Members agreed to embargo the report until 00.01am on 13 March 2008, when the report would be officially released.

Agreed: Members agreed that they would not hold a press conference.

[EXTRACT]

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

17 January 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr John Dallat
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin

Witnesses:

Mr Alan Shannon Department for Social Development

Ms Mary Quinn
Ms Andrea Orr Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

Also in attendance:

Mr John Dowdall CB Comptroller and Auditor General

Mr David Thomson

Treasury Officer of Accounts

1. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Beggs): I remind members and guests to turn off their mobile telephones; they interfere with the recording process.

2. Apologies have been received from Dawn Purvis, Patsy McGlone and the Committee Chairperson, John O’Dowd.

3. We are taking evidence today on the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on the Northern Ireland resource accounts of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency client funds account during the period 2003-04 to 2006-07. We welcome Alan Shannon, accounting officer for the Department for Social Development (DSD), Ms Mary Quinn, chief executive of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, and Ms Andrea Orr, director of resources of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency.

4. Mitchel McLaughlin has indicated that he wishes to say something before we begin.

5. Mr McLaughlin: This may not need to be declared, but to play it safe, I will put on record that I have a close relative working for the Child Support Agency (CSA) in Liverpool.

6. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you.

7. I will begin proceedings by asking Mr Shannon a question. Although the agency plays a role in helping to tackle child poverty, its poor performance has an impact on one of the most vulnerable groups in society — children who live in poverty. Levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland are particularly high, so the role of the agency takes on particular significance.

8. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on the 2006-07 CSA’s client funds account can be found at appendix 1 of the report ‘Annual Report and Accounts: Northern Ireland Child Support Agency 2006/2007’. Paragraph 7 of that appendix indicates that the agency client funds account has been qualified for several years. Although we understand that child support is a very challenging area, many of the problems seem to have been getting worse, year after year. Do you think that it is acceptable that the accounts have been qualified since the inception of the agency? Do you see any solution to the qualification issue?

9. Mr Alan Shannon (Department for Social Development): Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the introductions. I will begin with an unusual opening statement: we do not consider the performance of the agency to be acceptable, nor have we considered it to be acceptable throughout its existence. That is an unusual position to be in. By “we”, I mean the Ministers, the Department, the agency’s management team, and its staff, who feel deeply frustrated that they are not doing the job that they would like to do.

10. As you rightly say, the agency carries out important work. Its work involves getting money to children, it helps to reduce child poverty, which is at significant levels in this part of the world, it requires non-resident parents to accept responsibility for their children, and it also reduces the burden on the public purse. A great deal of effort has gone into trying to make the system work over the past 15 years. It is also worth bearing in mind that that effort has been made because the previous system — the court-based system — was not working. There was a wide inconsistency in the manner in which cases were treated around the country, and there was a serious problem in its ability to deal with the volume of work. Therefore, Government stepped in to address that problem.

11. We have been through three phases. The scheme that we call the old scheme was introduced in 1993. It was excessively complicated and difficult, and a decision was made to implement a simpler scheme. That was meant to be introduced in 2001, but the pilot scheme that preceded it was seriously problematic. It was eventually introduced in 2003, but our hopes for the new system turned out to be somewhat false.

12. Some 18 months ago, a new operational-improvement project was launched in an attempt to breathe new life into the old scheme. I hope that this afternoon you will hear about some of the improvements that came from that project. However, I would be misleading you if I did not say that we are not there yet. The task is immense, yet there is no lack of commitment, and there are plans for improvement. Ultimately, however, Ministers have reached the point where they believe that a completely fresh start is required.

13. Hence, as the Committee will be aware, legislation has been introduced in Westminster to implement a redesigned scheme. My Minister, Margaret Ritchie, will bring similar proposals to the Assembly in the next few weeks.

14. My opening remarks have been a little long-winded, but I hope that I have conveyed the message that the situation is not acceptable. A lot of work has been done, and a lot more remains to be done.

15. The Deputy Chairperson: We look forward both to that work being delivered and to improved performance.

16. I have been asked to remind visitors who have just arrived to turn off their mobile phones.

17. Annex 1 of the report on the Child Support Agency shows that the level of customer satisfaction was 65% against a target of 60%. If the Child Support Agency were a private organisation or enterprise, that result would be considered an abject failure. The target that was set was very low. What is the agency doing to improve that result and to fulfil its responsibilities to customers?

18. Ms Mary Quinn (Northern Ireland Child Support Agency): I absolutely accept that that target was low, and I will give the Committee a little bit of background information to explain the reason why that was the case. The previous survey, which was carried out in 2005-06, showed customer satisfaction levels to be at 50%. Again, that was not to the agency’s credit — it urgently needed to improve in that area. However, based on that figure, the organisation set itself a stretching target of 60%. Despite that, there was never any belief that a target of 60% was good enough — it is just not good enough. We want the target to be increased so that it is much closer to 100%, which is the only acceptable figure.

19. One year later, after implementing several measures to improve customer service and to address some of the backlog of work in the system, we were able to increase the attitude survey results from 50% to 65%. As a headline figure that represented a general outcome; 65% is not a good result, but it was a significant improvement. Work on that continues.

20. Another element of that survey demonstrated that 48% of customers were satisfied with their interaction with staff. Again, that is a very damning result for the organisation. Through the work and the efforts that we put in, we turned that figure around from 48% up to 80%, which is a significant improvement. The work continues; we are not at all complacent, and we recognise that much more must be done.

21. The Deputy Chairperson: Perhaps you could tell me your targets for the current year.

22. Ms Quinn: The target that we aspire to in the current year is 100%. A set of customer-service standards underpin the balanced scorecard targets in the annual report. There is a full set of targets, which covers factors and features of the service that we provide to our customers, such as the handling of complaints, telephony performance and the speed with which we answer correspondence and send payments back to clients. There are specific targets for each one of those areas, and, if it would be helpful, I am more than happy to share those with the Committee. Each of those combined is about the customer attitude and customer service.

23. The Deputy Chairperson: Perhaps you could provide that information in writing.

24. Ms Quinn: I will, of course.

25. The Deputy Chairperson: Targets must be achievable and realistic, otherwise they are pointless.

26. Ms Quinn: Absolutely.

27. The Deputy Chairperson: Mr Shannon, we have talked today about the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency, but this issue is really a matter of child poverty. Does the Department have a definition of child poverty? What proportion of children in Northern Ireland fall under that definition? What targets have you set to reduce child poverty, and what role does the Child Support Agency play in helping you to achieve those targets?

28. Mr A Shannon: The Executive as a whole have a definition of child poverty. It is set at a percentage of average family income — I think that it is defined as family income that is less than 60% of median income. Of course, child poverty does not exist in isolation. Most children are in families, and it is family income that tends to be measured. The Executive also have an anti-poverty strategy, which includes a wide range of actions that must be taken.

29. The Department for Social Development contributes in several ways to the plan to tackle child poverty, and child support is a significant part of that plan. The Department, therefore, fully recognises its responsibilities in that area.

30. The Deputy Chairperson: Paragraph 13 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report refers to the agency’s dependency on GB support for IT services and to the fact that there have been considerable difficulties with IT services. To some extent, the problems that the agency has encountered have resulted from the poor computer systems for which the GB Child Support Agency takes the lead. Has the agency used that as an excuse for not tackling the performance matters that are under its remit?

31. Mr A Shannon: Absolutely not. It is important to understand that, in this day and age, the computer system is central to the way in which everyone in the agency works. Therefore, if the system is not doing the business, the entire agency’s work is at serious risk.

32. Even before the computer system was up and running, it became apparent that there were problems with it. When it was launched in 2003, it turned out that approximately 600 workarounds had to be done manually in order to cope with certain difficulties. A huge effort has been made to put that right. From time to time, colleagues in London have asked themselves whether the system is actually fixable. However, they have persisted with the original supplier, who has gradually improved the system. Significant financial adjustments have been made, and further improvements are expected in 2008. The system is much better than it was, but it is still not perfect.

33. The Department is not hiding behind the IT system. If several of the improvement areas that have been identified for the agency are examined, it is clear that the Department is not simply leaving it to the fixing of the computer system to improve an entire range of performance measures. For example, the number of children who receive maintenance has increased from 16,000 in 2003-04 to 19,500 at the end of September 2007. Accuracy levels, which we may discuss later, have increased from 92% to 98%. The backlog of applications in the system has reduced from 9,000 to 3,500. Recently, the speed at which assessments are being carried out has increased dramatically: at the beginning of 2007, 39% of new applications were being processed from application to assessment within 12 weeks. The figure is now 80%.

34. I have given several examples of improvements, although I could continue. Improvements have been made in a series of areas despite the computer system, although it, too, is improving. Far from getting worse, the agency’s performance is steadily getting better.

35. Mr Hamilton: Paragraph 10 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report notes that it costs 88p to collect or arrange every £1. Given the honesty of your opening remarks, Mr Shannon, I am sure that you will agree that that is a worryingly poor statistic. Can you give a comparative figure for the CSA in Great Britain and, indeed, for other systems around the world? I understand that the Australian system is vaguely similar to that of Northern Ireland. What is being done to improve that situation?

36. Mr A Shannon: When the Comptroller and Auditor General raised that issue, the agency carried out a fairly detailed analysis to get to the bottom of it. The Department currently believes that the figure of 88p for the service compares to 57p for that in Great Britain. The reasons for that are quite interesting. There are two sides to the coin: costs and income.

37. Our salaries are slightly lower than those paid by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Office costs are certainly lower in Belfast than in London, and we use exactly the same complementing model in order to determine the number of staff that we use for each case. Our costs are certainly not higher — they are probably somewhat lower.

38. The big difference is in income. In 2004-05, the average income in each case in Northern Ireland was £196 a week, compared to £287 a week in Great Britain. In 2006-07, the average income in each case was £350 a week in Northern Ireland and £528 a week in Great Britain.

39. Those figures determine how much money is raised, and there are several reasons for the differential. If a non-resident parent is on benefits, his or her contribution is limited to between zero and £5 a week. In Northern Ireland, 35% of non-resident parents are on benefits, compared to 26% in Great Britain, and we have 18,000 cases on the books in which there is a nil assessment. That means that, although we must do all the work that is associated with carrying out assessments, including identifying people and chasing after them, almost half our workload brings in nothing.

40. Another reason for the difference is the widely acknowledged lower salary levels in Northern Ireland. Average wage levels here are approximately 85% of the national average.

41. We are also affected by the general take from new scheme cases, which is lower than that from old scheme cases. Therefore, as the proportion of our workload that is taken up by new scheme cases increases, we must take on more in order to maintain the same average level of income for each case.

42. Those are the main contributing factors that we have identified. In addition, included in the 88p is a significant amount of money in the accounts that is associated with the reform programme. That should be a temporary phase, and, if that were subtracted, our costs would fall to 65p for every £1 collected, whereas, in England, the costs would fall to 46p for every £1 collected. We would still be adrift, but closer to the situation in England. The Minister has set a target to reduce those costs by 5% within the next year.

43. Mr Hamilton: Are there any comparators elsewhere with similar systems?

44. Mr A Shannon: The only comparator that I can speak about is the Australian system, which is the one that is most often cited. My colleagues in London went to examine it, and they found that the cost-and-collection ratio there is very different. In Australia, £8 is collected for every £1 in administration. That is a very different picture. It is important to know why they are so successful. There are several reasons for that. The first reason, which is quite important, is that they have had a stable system for many years, whereas our system has not been performing so has been changed and reformed constantly.

45. Secondly, 50% of parents in Australia make their own arrangements, so obviously that results in significantly lower collection costs. That may be one of the objectives of the new scheme that we are considering.

46. Thirdly, the Australian Child Support Agency was born out of the Australian Taxation Office, and it has complete access to that office’s computers and records. In Australia, everyone who has responsibility for children must fill in a tax return, which is not the case here. Therefore, information is available in a form that lends itself to the process of child-support assessment. That has turned out to be an effective means of collection. Undoubtedly, there are lessons in that for us, but the Australian agency is a very different model.

47. Mr Hamilton: It certainly is. Before this inquiry began, I had taken an interest in the costs of collection, and I was informed of the costs of accessing both private and public information. That led me to think that if public information that is related to benefits is available in the system, surely the costs should be somewhat lower for such cases. As you said, a high proportion of caseloads are of that type. Are you considering the establishment of easier channels of communication with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in order to get the information that will lower the cost of collection?

48. Mr A Shannon: DSD has close relationships with other Government agencies, particularly the Social Security Agency, which is part of the Department, and HM Revenue and Customs. However, there are practical difficulties on which Mary will elaborate.

49. Ms Quinn: The CSA shares information with several Departments and aims, over time, to increase the extent to which that happens. Initially, we faced some difficulties in exchanging information with HMRC. However, those problems that relate to data protection are being worked through, and it is anticipated that we will get better at sharing information.

50. Mr Hamilton: Mr Shannon, the first paragraph of your letter to the Chairperson states that the cost of calculation in 2003-04 was 85p for every £1 collected. That figure has now increased to 88p. Why has the situation worsened? If staff are becoming more used to the systems and processes, the figure should show some improvement over that period. Why is that not the case?

51. Mr A Shannon: The costs simply reflect the typical levels of inflation over that period. In fact, if we take into account improved productivity, our cost base for each case is slightly below the rate of inflation.

52. Ms Quinn: That is absolutely correct. Our costs increase by 3% per annum, which is lower than the increases in pay or prices. One of the main factors in the increased cost is the extremely troubled period from 2003 to 2005 when we experienced systems difficulties and processed fewer cases than we should, with the result that our income reduced.

53. As Mr Shannon explained, on average, the new scheme attracts a lower maintenance level than the old scheme, and the results are beginning to reflect that. Effectively, we have to run a bit faster to bring in the same amount of money. Furthermore, we have had to deal with the continuing and unrelenting changes that have been introduced to address the inadequacies of the system and the difficulties that we faced.

54. Mr Hamilton: Mr Shannon, paragraph 2 of your letter states that at 31 March 2007 only 52% of the active caseload is based on new scheme calculations that were introduced as part of the reforms that have just been mentioned. Why are the benefits that should result from those reforms taking so long to deliver? When do you anticipate that all cases will be calculated using the new and simpler calculation system?

55. Mr A Shannon: About 57% of the caseload is on the new system; 21,000 cases have been moved over to it. Ministers have committed themselves to the migration of all cases when they are satisfied that the new scheme is sufficiently robust. However, they have not yet reached the point of authorising us to implement that migration. We are ready to contemplate it, despite the substantial workload.

56. There are winners and losers in this process. We have been under considerable pressure occasionally to move as many cases as possible to the new scheme. However, under the new scheme, some people will either pay or receive less. Therefore, it is by no means a one-way street. However, given that Ministers have now opted for a complete redesign, under the proposed new scheme, the waiver of benefit of £10 a week will be applied to both the old and new scheme cases. Therefore, that difference between the two schemes will disappear.

57. As to when we will be able eventually to move all cases across onto one scheme, we really cannot predict that. Much depends on how the new scheme emerges. We are not enthusiastic about the prospect of running three different schemes, so we will be keen to do what we can to rationalise them at an early stage. However, much depends on how the new system works out.

58. Mr Hamilton: You mentioned a £10 waiver. Is that the £10 a week of child maintenance that those who are on income support are allowed to keep?

59. Mr A Shannon: Yes.

60. Mr Hamilton: That was one of the benefits of the new system and the reforms. The slow movement of cases acts to the detriment of some people in that respect. Do you have any indication of the number of cases affected, and are there any plans to compensate in any way those who have lost out as a result of the failure to move promptly to the new scheme?

61. Mr A Shannon: There are no plans to compensate. That would require legislation. In any event, one would have to go through each case to work out whether there had been any detriment. The amount of work involved in doing that suggests that one might as well do the migration rather than that.

62. Ms Quinn: There is an important point here. At present, the caseload on the old scheme is about 18,500, of which 11,271 are cases with a nil assessment, because of the circumstances of the non-resident parent. It is very likely that the non-resident parent is receiving benefit or disability living allowance or has a low income. There are a number of conditions that determine their maintenance calculation. Those people cannot benefit from child maintenance premium, or disregard, because what that means is that they keep up to £10 of the maintenance that they receive each week. If they are getting nothing, there is no scope for them to receive child maintenance premium.

63. There is another important point in that the premium is up to £10 a week. If it transpires that a parent with care responsibilities is in receipt of £2, £3 or £4 a week, then that is the maximum amount of child maintenance premium that that person could get.

64. Mr Hilditch: According to paragraph 8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report, £71 million is due from parents who are not living with their children. Can you explain the full range of powers that the Child Support Agency has to pursue that debt from non-resident parents, and are there any powers that it would like to have?

65. Ms Quinn: A range of powers is available to the organisation to pursue the debt. Pursuing debt is part and parcel of our daily work. We have at our disposal the power to take enforcement action, to seek liability orders, to prosecute cases for failure to provide information or for providing false information, and ultimately we can take cases through the courts, which attracts criminal sanctions. In the past year, we have introduced the facility to refer cases to the debt collection agencies. That very welcome power came from recent legislation.

66. We have introduced the use of debit and credit cards as a means of paying benefit. Again, that has proved to be useful. In the short time since that facility was introduced, we have collected around £105,000, so it has been very welcome. We have undertaken some advertising campaigns to get across the messages of parental responsibility and the need for non-resident parents to pay for their children. Those are some of the tools that we use.

67. You asked, very helpfully, what powers we would like to have. The most important thing that I could ask for from politicians and from the public would be an acceptance of, and a raised profile for, the responsibility of non-resident parents to pay for their children. If everybody met their responsibilities, they would not cost the taxpayer any money at all. There is a real need for a change in society’s attitude of evading and avoiding responsibilities. I would really welcome that.

68. Mr Hilditch: I cannot see any information in your annual report on how many cases you actually prosecuted. Is it not good practice to publicise prosecutions?

69. Ms Quinn: That is a very valuable point. There is no direct reference to the numbers or results of prosecutions. There is a reference to the fact that we pursue cases through enforcement, but there is no detail on that. That is a rather difficult issue for us because, in publicising details — and there is a way that we can do it; it is something that we can consider having in future annual reports at headline level — we must protect family units. There is another party involved — the parent with care — and, more importantly, there are children involved. We have to consider the impact and effect of publicity on them and on their relationships within the family unit. That has to be balanced very sensitively. However, it is a very valuable piece of information that will help us in our advertising campaign, which already makes it very clear what we can do by way of enforcement and prosecution. That will be hiked up in the next campaign, which is planned for the early spring.

70. Mr Hilditch: Can you tell us how many cases you actually prosecute, and what proportion of debtors that equates to?

71. Ms Quinn: I do not have all of that detail with me, but I can let the Committee have a note on it.

72. We have had 12 successful prosecutions this year, and there are 36 more cases in the pipeline. Four cases are with the Crown solicitor for the sale of property. That is a fairly extreme measure, but it is the road that we are going down. There are three other cases with the Crown solicitor for consideration of committal to prison, and again that is a judicial decision that we can seek. Effectively, we would prefer to get the money flowing, because that is what is going to help the child ultimately, not a committal to prison — although that does send out a strong message, we would prefer to get the money flowing.

73. Mr Hilditch: Are the cases that are brought to court generally successful?

74. Ms Quinn: Fairly successful, although some of the penalties are perhaps not the deterrent that we would like. There have been fines ranging from £75 up to £1,000, and some suspended sentences, but we would like that to be a little bit tougher, and we are working with the judiciary to try to promote understanding of the messages and what we are trying to do. In the last year we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Enforcement of Judgments Office in a bid to help our process. Over the past year we have been very successful in the number of cases that we have brought for liability orders. That is the first step in getting money by enforcement. In 2005-06 we had 192 liability orders, last year we had 276, and this year we have almost 200 to date, with more to do. So there is a sharp increase in enforcement and in the money collected by it. In 2004-05 we brought in £106,000, and this year to date we have almost £400,000, so we are very serious about getting that money. It is not happening as fast as we would like, and the most vulnerable in society are still being failed.

75. Mr Hilditch: How effective is prosecution as a mechanism in recovery of that debt?

76. Ms Quinn: It will become more effective as time goes on and as people become more aware that the facility exists. It is turning out that referral to the debt collection agencies in the first instance, and the work that we are doing internally to prepare the cases to go to the debt collection agencies, is having a successful impact in collecting money, but that process is in an embryonic stage. In the few months that it has been running, through the work that is done internally in advising parents that their cases will be handed over to the debt collection agency, we have secured almost £80,000. Those people were not paying previously, but once threatened with the debt collection agency they pay up more willingly. That tendency is growing.

77. Mr Hilditch: What is the cost of enforcement? Do your current enforcement activities recover enough to demonstrate value for money?

78. Ms Quinn: I should like to give the Committee a note on that, because there are multiple factors involved in calculating the cost of enforcement. However, there are benefits that are not so tangible: the message that is sent out and the change in attitudes. Those are worthwhile investments.

79. Mr Hilditch: Finally, I acknowledge the improvements that the agency has made recently.

80. Mr Lunn: You have said that £105,000 has been collected through the introduction of credit- and debit-card payments. Have you any idea of the cost of introducing and maintaining that system?

81. Ms Quinn: I do not have the figures to hand, but I can provide them.

82. Mr Lunn: You will provide a written answer?

83. Ms Quinn: I will.

84. Mr Lunn: The agency’s other main initiative has been the use of debt collection agencies. That seems to have been successful. Do you receive any complaints about the conduct of private debt collection agencies?

85. Ms Quinn: No complaints have been received thus far. I wish to assure the Committee that there are strict controls and contract management procedures in place to monitor and manage the use of debt collection agencies and — importantly — the behavioural aspects. That is all carefully monitored and managed as we go.

86. Mr Lunn: My questions are overlapping slightly with those you have just answered. To return to the issue of credit and debit cards, why did you introduce that system only in 2007? For a long time now, it has been possible for the world and his wife to pay by credit card. Why has it taken so long to bring in such a simple system?

87. Ms Quinn: That is a good question. It took some time to put the mechanisms in place. I think legislation was needed to help us do that, though I will have to check that. It took some time to establish the contracts with the banking fraternity before those measures could be put in place. This is part and parcel of the operational improvement plan, which is another method of getting money flowing.

88. Mr Lunn: I will have to take your word with respect to the legislation. However, generally the setting up of a credit-card facility is a matter of days for small businesses; I do not see why it should be that much different on a larger scale.

89. Mr A Shannon: Very few public services accept credit cards. I speak without authority here, but I think that the costs of collecting through credit cards are much higher than the costs of direct debits, standing orders or even cheques. Therefore, the likelihood of collection and the simplification of the system have to be balanced against the additional costs associated with it. Ms Quinn will write to the Committee on the issue, and it will be interesting to see what the costs are.

90. Mr Lunn: I will not dwell on that; at least you have the system in now. However, the financial cost of making a transaction is between 1∙5% and 3%. I am sure that you would happily collect the whole debt on that basis, if you could. It would be very good value.

91. Ms Quinn: Yes.

92. Mr Lunn: Mr Shannon, paragraph 5 of your October letter says that:

“The recovery of debt … is an integral part of the Agency’s Operational Improvement Project.”

How long do you think it will take to bring the debt balances down to acceptable levels?

93. Mr A Shannon: That question gives me the opportunity to talk about debt more generally. I have to agree that the level of debt is unacceptable and the growth in the level of debt is worrying. However, the characteristics of that debt are interesting.

94. First, we cannot write the debt off. It is not public money; it is money that is owed to other people. It has been accumulating for 15 years. In a system such as ours, where we assess a liability and then collect approximately half of it, half of that balance goes into the debt pool every year. When that accumulates over 15 years, it inevitably rises up to a substantial amount of money. As soon as we receive a claim and identify and contact the non-resident parent, the debt is logged instantly, and the clock starts ticking. Even if everything were perfect, we would still have some debt on the books because of the normal processing delays.

95. There is a little bit of good news. The level of debt has increased significantly in the past two years because of our improved assessment performance. We are handling more cases more quickly and eating into the backlog of claims. As soon as we start to do that, the amount of money owed is brought into the books and starts to appear in the debt book. I have described it as like being in the bath: if you want to get the water out of the bath, there is no point in pulling the plug out until you have turned off the taps.

96. Our initial strategy for tackling the backlog is to try to slow the increase in the debt. That is why the Comptroller and Auditor General has been pressing us to set a target for debt collection. We have set a financial target of £1·5 million in the current year, which will work up to a higher figure next year. I readily accept that that is a relatively small part of the whole, but it is, we hope, the beginning of the process of at least stopping the increase in the debt. Once we have got to that point we can start to tackle the backlog seriously.

97. We hope that the new scheme will provide us with new opportunities that we do not presently have. Those will include better enforcement, but there will also be scope for negotiated settlements of a kind that are not open to us at the moment.

98. Mr Lunn: You have pre-empted my next question with that target for the collection of arrears of £1·5 million; the Comptroller and Auditor General criticised you in his report for not having a debt reduction target. It seems to me that what could be called the “collectable debt” has risen by just over £3 million in the past year, while the target for the collection of arrears is £1·5 million. That only seems to lead to one conclusion, which is that the situation will inevitably get worse unless your processes and your success rate improve dramatically. I take your point that once a case is taken on, the debt arises immediately, but you seem to have set a negative target. Would it not, at least, be a realistic ambition to try to stop that debt from increasing?

99. Mr A Shannon: That is the ambition. You are quite right; it is going to get worse before it gets better. That is why we want to get the £1·5 million up to the next target of £2·3 million. To some extent, we are a victim of success. The reason for the increase in the collectable debt is because we have carried out so many assessments in the past couple of years. If we slowed down, we could present a different picture which might look more favourable. In fact, it is the Agency’s determination to get the assessments done and get the money flowing that has made the figures look a bit worse.

100. Mr Lunn: That is a fair point.

101. I see that the Agency has been using the Enforcement of Judgments Office all along in respect of prosecutions. Now you are using debt collection agencies and you are taking people to court and seizing property. However, I was dismayed to hear that there had only been 12 prosecutions in one year and 36 in the next, four of which might result in the sale of houses. Is that out of 21,000 cases? Is that the total that was mentioned earlier?

102. Ms Quinn: That is not necessarily just out of the 21,000 cases. The ongoing action in other cases means that we start getting some money before it goes to those levels. However, you are absolutely right. It would be ideal to get the money before going to the Enforcement of Judgments Office. The focus now is on getting cases: if people are not prepared to pay, we will push more and more. We need to do better, there is no doubt about that, and we need to prosecute more people if they will not pay willingly.

103. Mr Lunn: Out of that number of cases, I am surprised that you have identified so few hard cases where the only option is full court action. You have about 50 that are being dealt with by the full rigour of the law.

104. Ms Quinn: Absolutely. In some cases, people almost play a game with the Child Support Agency. They pay a little and stop paying — it is sporadic. That continual activity can get in the way of a case’s making its way swiftly to court. The people who pay a couple of pounds now and again are probably the most difficult cases to tackle, but they are under our focus. As many cases as possible will face the full rigour of prosecution.

105. Mr A Shannon: Prosecution is not the only way of getting people into court. We are establishing hundreds of liability orders through the courts each year. Under the new proposals that have still to come before the Assembly, there will be an administrative process to enable us to establish liability without going to the courts. The prosecution figure is very much the tip of the iceberg.

106. Mr McLaughlin: Ms Quinn, paragraph 8 of appendix 1 of your annual report and accounts for 2006-2007 shows a level of debt totalling £71 million, and that has already been discussed. We have already had some information about debt recovery. However, the notes to the accounts show an increase of £13 million over the previous year. That is worrying. Why is that happening and what is being done about it?

107. Ms Quinn: To go back to what Mr Shannon said earlier, in a perverse sort of way that is a demonstration that the CSA is getting through work. We are getting cases cleared and we are working on the backlog. The reduction of our backlog from 9,000 applications to 3,500 is manifested in that figure. When we get to the point where those cases are assessed, the schedule is set up. In 2006-07, we scheduled £25 million for collection from the caseload. Regrettably, against that figure, only £13·3 million was received as actual money; another £5·4 million was paid direct. That created a bigger gap, and we are working on closing that gap. We know the amount of money that people owe — the assessment is out there, and everyone is aware of it — and our challenge is to get that money.

108. Mr McLaughlin: Mr Shannon gave us the analogy of turning off the taps. Do you think that they are turned off fully?

109. Ms Quinn: No, not at all, because we are dealing with 15 years of very troubled history, and some of the debt is very old. It is important to recognise that there are outstanding amounts of money that stretch well beyond the six-year legal time bar, and which is probably — and possibly — uncollectable. Some clients are prepared to pay their debt beyond that period, but those are the constraints that we are up against. The older the debt, the more problematic it becomes. Hence, our focus, initially, is on clearing the applications, and we have been quite successful in doing that, moving from 39% cleared in 12 weeks to 80% cleared in 12 weeks just last month.

110. Our rationale is that if we strike while cases are fairly fresh, there is a better chance of getting money flowing. That is the objective, because if people are facing a huge debt mountain, they sometimes feel conquered before they start paying.

111. Mr McLaughlin: There has been a £13 million increase from the previous year — and I know that there is a historic element. There is an accumulated figure of £71 million, but a £13 million differential between one year and the next means that something has gone wrong, and I have not heard an explanation for that.

112. Ms Quinn: We assessed cases and brought them up to date, and we tabled £25 million for collection through the work of processing through the backlog. That meant that we needed to have that amount of money coming in. We were not successful in collecting that amount; we collected only £13·3 million, and the differential goes into the amount of debt. We need to improve our methods of collection; the debt collection agencies, the increased enforcement and the constant pressure on getting the money flowing will help us to achieve that. We must clear the backlog of work and schedule the money that is to be collected, because that is the honest thing to do. The objective is to get the money to children. We could present a different case if we did not eat into that backlog of work and did not bring everything up to date.

113. Mr McLaughlin: According to the report, the CSA estimates that £41·1 million — or 58% — of the debt due to it is considered uncollectable. That is another alarming statistic. The unavoidable message from those figures is that if a person is assessed by the CSA for maintenance for his or her children, they will not have to pay it, because the agency will not be able to collect it. Can you understand why people think that and why your problems multiply year on year?

114. Ms Quinn: I appreciate that, and it is a concern for all of us. It is not a figure that we are proud of. I will repeat what I said in response to Mr Hilditch: we need people to pick up their personal responsibilities. That is the crux of the matter. Subsequently, the CSA needs to be faster and better at collecting the money owed by parents.

115. Mr McLaughlin: How does that translate in human terms? What is the percentage of people who fail to meet their responsibilities? How many children are affected?

116. Ms Quinn: We have a caseload of 60,000 children. Some 44% of those are in the nil assessment figures. There are compliance levels of about 61%. It is not as good as it needs to be; it should be better. I can do a calculation from the caseload figures and send it to the Committee.

117. Mr McLaughlin: That would be helpful. I would like to know how many children are affected and how many parents are failing to meet the responsibilities.

118. Throughout this afternoon’s discussion, there has been reference to the historic aspect of the current situation, and on reading the report one gets a clear flavour of the complexity and difficulties of the challenges faced. Paragraph 2.8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s appendix to your 2004-05 annual report states that the Audit Office was unable to examine some cases because the agency had lost the case papers. That emerged from a representative sample of the overall cases. Departments and agencies are expected to keep good records and audit trails. Can you explain why the records went missing?

119. Ms Quinn: Cases were not presented on time to the Audit Office because they were lost in our filing system, but they were subsequently presented. In the last year, we have implemented a new tracking system in which each file is bar coded. As a result, files can be more easily tracked — in the organisation, or at our secure holding at the Mallusk file store.

120. Mr McLaughlin: There have been recent scandals in respect of significant losses of data. Are you confident that the Child Support Agency has not lost any important files or personal information?

121. Ms Quinn: The agency takes the security of information very seriously and pays great attention to it. Numerous controls and procedures are in place to prevent or detect any security breaches or unauthorised disclosure of information. We work on a network system that has anti-virus software and firewalls installed. There is no facility that allows anyone to download information on to other media devices: it simply cannot be done. Any transfer of information is limited to debt collection agencies only. That is done via an encrypted email, which was set up specifically for that purpose.

122. Therefore, a great deal of attention is paid to security, and I trust that we will not fall foul of any data breaches. However, it is a very high-risk area, which we manage as part of our risk-management process.

123. Mr A Shannon: We also have very satisfactory perimeter protections. However, our staff must have access to certain information in order to do their jobs. That information can be open to misuse. As Mary said, we have systems in place that protect against the electronic movement of data, but they do not stop individual members of staff misusing that data. Indeed, a former member of staff will be in court tomorrow as a result of a prosecution for the misuse of data. We will take rigorous action if we find that our systems cannot protect the data.

124. Mr McLaughlin: We cannot talk about particular individuals, especially if they are to appear before the courts, but a high-level audit is taking place as a result of the recent scandals. Have your systems been given the all-clear, or do we expect to hear that there is a problem with them?

125. Mr A Shannon: In common with all other Departments, we reviewed thoroughly our systems before Christmas. We have reported our findings to the Finance Minister, who is compiling a cross-governmental report on the matter. As with any review, we were asked to assess the reliability of a wide range of our systems, and, as is the case with all self-assessments, we identified some strong and some weak points. In those areas in which we identified our weak points, we are taking rigorous action. Although we are a vulnerable Department, in the sense that the Social Security and Child Support Agencies hold an enormous amount of data — and their staff have access to the English database — we are in good shape. However, we probably have more work to do to be even more satisfied with our systems.

126. Mr McLaughlin: I do not want to make a cheap point, but if many of the difficulties that have been described in the reports can be attributed to problems with your IT systems, perhaps we should be careful about assuming that the security of those systems is up to scratch.

127. Mr A Shannon: I do not wish to make any assumptions, because you never know in this business, but we must ensure that we have the appropriate IT expertise to build in the necessary firewalls and protections. We must also ensure that we check and update those protections regularly. One of the advantages of being plugged into the English system means that we have that critical mass of expertise to call on.

128. Mr McLaughlin: They keep losing information as well.

129. Mr A Shannon: If we were not plugged into the English system, we would probably not have such expertise to call on.

130. Mr Brady: Ms Quinn will be pleased to hear that my questions are for her. Paragraph 7 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report states that one of the main reasons that he — once again — qualified the accounts of the agency’s client funds was due to the errors that were found in maintenance assessments. The NIAO analysed a sample of 30 cases and found that 11 had errors. That indicates that the CSA gets it wrong 37% of the time. Do you have an explanation for that poor result?

131. Ms Quinn: I will explain the background to the statistics on accuracy. You are absolutely right to say that the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General are based on a sample of 30 cases, which have come from an assessed caseload of around 40,000. The majority of the cases that have been re-examined relate to the history of what has gone before. There are two measures of accuracy; that which the Comptroller and Auditor General uses is different to the measure of accuracy to which we work each day. We test cases on what we refer to as “cash value accuracy”. That is the last decision made, and on that basis people are assessed in order that they might pay their child maintenance regular payments. That change was made in around 2001 or 2002 to make that distinction, because if we kept carrying the history forward we would never have seen whether the improvements that were put in place would prove to be effective.

132. The history of error relates to the debt balances. That is not to say that the inaccuracy is acceptable; it is not. However, the figure of £71 million relates to the debt balance. We check the cash value accuracy, which goes before a standards committee for scrutiny. That committee, which has an independent chairperson, produces an annual report that is laid before the Assembly. That process showed that our liabilities for 2006-07 were 98% accurate. In 2005-06, they were 97% accurate, and in 2004-05 they were 92% accurate. Therefore, the accuracy has been improving progressively, but that does not mean that all is well in the caseload because the inaccuracies are to be found in the debt balances. I am comforted by the fact that the payments that we ask for through regular maintenance — the money that people owe each week or each month — are 98% accurate.

133. Mr Brady: On a positive note, paragraph 7 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report says that the CSA improved its achievement in cash value accuracy from 91% in 2004-05 to 97% in 2005-06 and then further to 98% in 2006-07. That is commendable, but the target that was set for 2006-07 was 92%, which is below what you achieved the previous year. Does the fact that you set a target that is below what was already achieved not send a signal to staff about your expectations of their performance?

134. Ms Quinn: The target is set by the Minister, and it is informed by many factors, including past performance. However, it is also based on the challenges that the organisation anticipates for the coming year. In 2006-07, the agency anticipated major challenges as a result of the organisational changes that would facilitate the operational improvement project. All that was factored in to the equation. However, I assure the Committee that our focus is not on achieving the target and then taking our eye off the ball. We strive for 100% accuracy, which is a pretty challenging aspiration. Referring back to 2005-06, a target was set for 91% accuracy, against which we achieved 97% accuracy. I hope that that demonstrates that setting a realistic and stretching target in the environment in which we work does not mean that we stop when we reach it. It means that we want to get as close to 100% accuracy as possible. I hope that that is of some assurance to the Committee.

135. Mr Brady: That is fine, as long as the staff are aware of it.

136. Ms Quinn: Staff are well aware of it. To complement that, accuracy is a key element of our performance monitoring. Our board receives monthly figures, and, as I said before, there are quarterly meetings with a standards assurance committee. Furthermore, quarterly reports are produced that are scrutinised by that committee and its independent chairperson, and an annual report is also produced. Therefore, accuracy is firmly on the radar, and the staff’s attention is focused on it.

137. Mr Brady: Thank you. Paragraph 6 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report tells us that one of the reasons for his qualification of the CSA’s client funds account is that the debt due to children cannot be verified. If the agency is unable to produce from its systems a list of total debt on a case-by-case basis, can it chase up those debts? Will it be in a position to produce such a list in the future?

138. Ms Quinn: That is a good question. A system deficiency has prevented a case-by-case record of the debt that was owed in each case reconciling itself to the general ledger. Work is ongoing to bring about a system enhancement that will enable us to have that level of information.

139. I assure the Committee that in preparing cases to be referred to debt collection agencies or for enforcement procedures, one action that we take is to go back over the history of the case, update it, and correct any errors. At that point, it is not then a matter of pursuing someone or taking someone to court over an incorrect amount of money.

140. Ideally, in order to remove that qualification once and for all, we would love to be in a position to go over the history of all cases. We have examined that possibility, but it would literally cost millions of pounds and would require the work of hundreds of members of staff. Furthermore, it would require a level of expertise that we currently do not have, and it would take our eye off the ball regarding the day-to-day work. Therefore, although it would be worthwhile, I am not sure of the overall economic value of it.

141. Mr Brady: That reinforces the point that, given that the CSA has existed for about 14 years, it is not unreasonable to expect it to now have that expertise.

142. Ms Quinn: What expertise, Mr Brady?

143. Mr Brady: I mean the expertise to produce that kind of accuracy.

144. Ms Quinn: It is not that we do not have the expertise; I refer you back to the cash value accuracy. I commend the Child Support Agency staff; they handle extremely complex work in challenging circumstances, and they do so having achieved current accuracy of 98%. Given the challenges that they face, that is commendable.

145. Mr Brady: Thank you. Paragraph 8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report notes that the total debt outstanding as of 31 March 2007 was £71 million. Paragraph 7 of the report tells us that ongoing errors in maintenance assessments continue to have an impact on the accumulated debt. Is it correct that the agency may be pursuing non-resident parents to pay incorrect amounts? If so, is that a satisfactory situation? Can you assure clients that the agency is pursuing them for the correct amounts of debt that are due?

146. Ms Quinn: That is a valid question. Again, I assure the Committee and our clients that before cases are referred for liability orders, enforcement procedures or to debt collection agencies, we ensure that the debt that we are pursuing is correct. That is part and parcel of what we do.

147. At any time, clients can challenge our figures. When cases are assessed, there is an opportunity for clients to appeal their assessment, and the agency will examine the account.

148. Mr Craig: Mr Shannon, what are the current arrangements for the delivery of IT services? Do you have any idea how much those services currently cost? In your opinion, is value for money being achieved, considering some of the IT issues that have arisen?

149. Mr A Shannon: In 2006-07, we paid £2·6 million for IT services. That figure is based on a Barnett formula calculation of the total payment to the computer contract. It is simply a pro rata figure — our fair share of the entire UK effort, if you like.

150. The computer system cost hundreds of millions of pounds. For us to have gone our own way and created our own system would have put us at risk of encountering exactly the same kind of difficulties that arose in England. The agency there faced enormous problems with contract resolution, technical resolution, negotiations with major international companies, and so on. We have been spared all that angst. If we are trying to maintain a parity system, it would not make sense for us to draw up our own specifications and go our own way — that might not result in a parity output at the end of the day. Therefore, despite all the difficulties, it makes sense for us to be part of the national system. It would be much more expensive to do otherwise.

151. Mr Craig: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in order to maintain parity with the rest of the UK, we had to buy in to that IT system and the unfortunate complications that went with it.

152. Mr A Shannon: Yes, that is right.

153. Mr Craig: I note that on page 4 of the annual report, the chief executive says that there will be major improvements in 2007 and 2008. Can you give the Committee an update on that? Have those improvements happened already, or do you feel that they will happen?

154. Ms Quinn: Yes, they will. The major upgrade to the system is designed to put right many of the problems that have existed in the system since its inception. It will also improve the system in general. At the moment, the planning assumption is that it will be implemented around Easter. However, that is a planning assumption, and controls are in place and rigorous testing is being carried out to ensure delivery of the contract.

155. Mr Craig: Is that system unique to Northern Ireland, and do you have any idea of the costs that are involved?

156. Ms Quinn: No, it is not unique to Northern Ireland. Again, the IT system is that which is used in Great Britain, and we contribute towards the payment of the contract. We share the system.

157. Mr Craig: Do you have any idea of what the pro rata payment for Northern Ireland would be?

158. Ms Quinn: We pay a share of the overall annual running costs of that system. For 2006-07, our share, which is based on the Barnett formula, was £2·6 million.

159. Mr A Shannon: The cost of the upgrade is quite a complicated issue. As part of the ongoing negotiations between DWP and the supplier, a significant rebate was negotiated last year that I believe was around £100 million. Therefore, rebates are available, and corrective work is being carried out that does not necessarily cost the public purse any money.

160. Mr Craig: Ms Quinn, I see from the accounts that the agency is responsible for handling child support casework for a large part of GB. That should enable you to give us a benchmark of Northern Ireland’s performance relative to the rest of the UK. Do you have any idea how we compare to the rest of the UK?

161. Ms Quinn: Absolutely. In most areas, the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency performs marginally better than the agency in Great Britain. During 2006-07, there was a significant difference in performance areas, for example, in accuracy. Northern Ireland’s agency performed significantly better than Great Britain’s with regard to maintenance outcomes, which is a new measure for the collection of money.

162. Therefore, the agencies are running pretty much on a par. There is about 1% of a difference, with Northern Ireland being slightly lower overall. That refers back to our earlier conversation about some of the difficulties that exist and the difference in caseloads between the Great Britain and Northern Ireland agencies. However, they run pretty much on a par, with Northern Ireland doing better in some areas.

163. Mr Craig: It came as a bit of a surprise to the Committee for Social Development to hear how much work is being done in Northern Ireland for the rest of GB. What are the benefits for the agency in undertaking that work?

164. Ms Quinn: You mentioned the first benefit in your previous question. The facility to benchmark at first hand and see exactly what goes on is a huge benefit to the agency in Northern Ireland. We also have the benefit of close working on a daily basis, which means that we can keep abreast of what is going on and can benefit from what Mr Shannon described as a pool of expertise in Great Britain. We can draw down and benefit from its ongoing development work. However, the most important and significant benefit is to Northern Ireland plc, which gains £30 million each year from the contract.

165. Mr A Shannon: Northern Ireland also benefits in that 1,200 jobs were created. The contract was negotiated back in the early 1990s, at a time when Northern Ireland was actively chasing jobs. I am glad that the contract has been mentioned because it is extremely valuable. In order to retain it, the agency must perform as well as regions in England. That puts the agency in a competitive position and keeps us on our toes.

166. Ms Quinn: I am pleased to report that the Belfast operation for England performs very well. Of the six areas, it brings in the second highest amount of money. Those are significant performance factors in its favour.

167. Mr Craig: That leads neatly to the next question in my train of thought. We are all aware that the agency is being disbanded, for whatever legacy reasons. In Northern Ireland, the agency’s functions are being transferred internally to the Department. Why are they being transferred to the Department, given that that will not happen in the rest of the UK?

168. Mr A Shannon: Ministers in both London and Belfast felt that it was important — symbolically at least — to make a fresh start and that, therefore, some kind of new organisation was appropriate. In London, they decided to go for a non-departmental public body (NDPB) to which they would give a certain arm’s-length distance from the policy-making machine and Ministers. That NDPB would have its own chairperson, board and chief executive. However, I understand that the staff of the organisation will remain civil servants: the arm’s-length arrangement is, therefore, not quite as distant as we originally thought that it would be.

169. That option was considered for Northern Ireland. However, when it was being considered, Minsters were actively pursuing the review of public administration. The Committee will recall that one of the motivating factors of the review was a reduction in the number of NDPBs. Therefore, we were not sure whether proposing a new NDPB would have commended itself to Ministers at that time.

170. Furthermore, Northern Ireland’s agency is considerably smaller than that of England. It has around 500 staff, and the contract with Great Britain adds another 1,200. However, compared to the 10,000 staff in England, our agency is relatively small. For reasons of scale, we were not sure about a new NDPB because new personnel and finance divisions would have to be established. The English are going for quite an expensive operation that will have a board and a chairperson and so on. Given that Ministers wanted a fresh start, we went for the slightly different proposition of bringing the agency back within the remit of the Department. That option gives considerable reassurance to the staff who are concerned about their future. It also gives Ministers more hands-on control, and they decided that it was a more cost-effective option.

171. Mr Craig: You have made some very interesting comments, and I would not disagree with some of your arguments. Over the next three years, we will be forced to examine the issue of cost savings, which is being driven by central Government. Where can savings be made over the next two or three years? Will they come from staffing and overheads or from elsewhere?

172. Mr A Shannon: When the agency becomes a division or directorate of the Department — the terminology has not been finalised yet — it will be subject to the same comprehensive spending review (CSR) disciplines as the rest of the Department. The Department of Finance and Personnel is seeking 3% year-on-year savings. So far, that Department has not translated that into head-count reductions, and I hope that it will not do so. I would prefer as much flexibility as possible on such matters. Therefore, where the savings come from depends on where we choose to economise and on what efficiencies we can make in different areas.

173. If there must be a reduction in the headcount, we will probably see a reduction of around 40 posts. However, we have dropped about that many in the past three years, so that is not an insurmountable obstacle. What is more interesting is the fact that we must live within the parameters of those financial disciplines while we develop a new organisation. At present, it is impossible to predict the organisation’s workload. If Sir David Henshaw’s predictions are correct, up to half the agency’s customers might agree to make their own arrangements. That would reduce significantly the number of new claims. However, as we have heard today, there is a significant backlog of work in debt collection. Therefore, I do not imagine that there will be a great shortage of work for the next few years.

174. Mr Craig: Thank you very much.

175. Mr Dallat: The chief executive has spoken with great feeling about separated parents who scamper off and often leave their children to starve and with no opportunity to get a good start in life. I do not know of any other species on the planet that does that. It is therefore, extremely disturbing to know that the cost of that behaviour is now £71 million, £41 million of which is uncollectable. That is really bad news.

176. When the Child Support Agency receives word that, for example, a separated parent has given fraudulent information — sometimes, I am sad to say, in conjunction with a corrupt employer who furnishes false pay slips, for example — has it acted on it? Has the agency had success in the courts?

177. Ms Quinn: Yes, we have acted on such information. During 2006-07, we referred 620 cases to the investigation service in respect of parents with care responsibilities and non-resident parents who had given false information or who had failed to provide information. In 2006-07, 12 referrals made their way to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and of those, there were eight convictions.

178. Mr Dallat: That is not that many, is it?

179. Ms Quinn: No.

180. Mr Dallat: I am sure that you will want to assure the Committee that in future you will target those people who deliberately set out to cause the agency and, indeed, the taxpayer a lot more expense and inconvenience.

181. One of the most important assets that the agency has is its staff. I compliment your staff; they have a difficult job, and they do not get a lot of help from those separated parents who have run up the debts of approximately £70 million. However, I see from the report that you failed to achieve your target on staffing complement. That certainly does not help the morale of the staff. Will those targets be met in the future?

182. Ms Quinn: Thank you for recognising the work of the staff at the Child Support Agency. I entirely agree with your sentiments; they handle complex work at what is a difficult time in the clients’ lives as they are going through the break-up of their relationships.

183. The target that was set for 2006-07 regarding staff numbers was overambitious. It was well intentioned, and we wanted to get a complement of no less than 95%. However, the recruitment of Northern Ireland civil servants is not dealt with by the agency; it is dealt with by the Department of Finance and Personnel. I have been working closely with my counterpart in recruitment services to ensure that we achieve our target. However, we have not yet done so.

184. In 2006-07 we had a number of recruitment exercises, which resulted in the recruitment of approximately 360 people. That includes staff who work on cases for the eastern business unit, but they are all Northern Ireland civil servants. As I said, we recruited approximately 360 people; however, almost 330 members of staff left the agency. That includes people simply leaving and those getting promotions or transfers. Therefore, there is a constant churn.

185. We have difficulty in meeting our recruitment needs. We are in a different economic environment in Northern Ireland, with unemployment sitting at 3·5%. We are competing with a high number of employers who pay staff at clerical grades similar amounts or more than we do. It is a constant challenge to retain our staff. That sort of turnover is a drain on productivity and increases the costs of running the organisation.

186. Mr Dallat: Unfortunately, the separated parents do not seem to be in full-time employment.

187. Absenteeism is obviously a problem. I know of cases in which the absenteeism is a direct result of the stress experienced in the job. As I have said, it is an extremely difficult job. What are you doing to address absenteeism, and, perhaps more importantly, to address the needs of your staff who have become the victims of stress?

188. Ms Quinn: That is a good question. Absenteeism is one of the key challenges for us as an organisation. In 2006-07, the agency had a sick absence level of 21·8 days per member of staff. In anyone’s book, that is a poor performance. It is almost at an unmanageable level.

189. However, significant work has been done on managing the attendance of our staff. It is a two-pronged approach: on one hand, we apply the rigours of our managing attendance procedures in line with Northern Ireland Civil Service procedures; on the other hand, we provide support mechanisms to our staff in recognition that they are a relatively young workforce, they are at clerical grades, and there is a high percentage of female workers. Those are all the components that lead to high absence levels. Furthermore, the job that they do is complex, challenging and, at times, emotionally draining.

190. In recognition of that, we run a workforce health improvement programme. That includes health improvement days, where we bring in a range of experts from the medical profession to help people to manage their stress levels better. We have brought in financial advice services, because one of the main causes of stress in life is financial pressures. We have the facility of Carecall and we offer welfare services. We operate fairly flexible return-to-work arrangements in order to encourage staff to return to work and achieve good attendance. All of those mechanisms support staff who suffer from stress.

191. It is all starting to work; we are on target now for achieving an average of 17∙5 days’ absence per member of staff. It is still not good enough — it is still far too high — but it is a significant improvement from 21∙8 days the previous year.

192. Mr Dallat: Accommodation is often a factor in how staff perform. Are the problems of absenteeism related to poor accommodation?

193. Ms Quinn: I do not think so. We have had a programme of refurbishment over the past year. Our buildings are relatively new: the Great Northern Tower was purpose-built in the early 1990s for the Child Support Agency. It has just been refurbished. We have secured additional accommodation in Oyster House this year. That allowed us to thin out the numbers, thereby giving staff members a little more space. All our working accommodation complies with health and safety regulations, and we pay great attention to that, both because of the large number of staff that we employ and because of legal requirements.

194. Mr Dallat: Sometimes this Committee has problems with absenteeism as well. I have a couple of additional questions on behalf of a member who is not here.

195. Does the agency receive many complaints? Discontent among the public can lead to an unfair assessment of the agency. How do you propose to minimise the level of complaints? Does it affect staff morale, recruitment, absenteeism and the other factors that I have asked about?

196. Ms Quinn: I intend to reduce the volume of complaints by getting the agency to do better at the day job — getting the money flowing, processing the cases, reducing the backlog of work. I have quoted some examples of how I am doing that. I have reduced the work in hand in terms of new applications from 9,000 to 3,500; I have increased the speed at which those are processed from 39% in twelve weeks to 80% in twelve weeks. All of that effort will eventually lead to a reduction in complaints.

197. To manage expectations, however, I must make the point that sometimes, as we work on backlogs, clearing work and processing it, an initial increase in complaints is created. That is because we have begun to revisit things that have been lying dormant for some time.

198. You are correct, however; our staff can become a little battle-weary, especially when unjustified criticism of them as individuals appears in the newspapers. That has an effect on morale. Morale in the organisation has dipped many times because we have come through unrelenting change. Yet the staff lift themselves up and deliver an improved service.

199. Mr Dallat: According to the tables on pages 25, 26 and 27 of your annual report, there has been no increase in recruitment. Is that part of the reason why you get complaints?

200. Ms Quinn: Those tables reflect the fact that the agency does not do its own recruitment. Recruitment is handled by the Department of Finance and Personnel.

201. Mr Dallat: The Committee will want to send a message to the Department of Finance and Personnel as well, because that is a serious problem.

202. Finally, as you know, MLAs do not like to have their salaries discussed. I must ask you, however, whether the salaries paid to senior management, as shown on page 16, include performance bonuses? If so, what bonuses were paid?

203. Mr A Shannon: Yes, the bonuses are included in the salary figures.

204. Mr Dallat: Would it not be sensible to show what they are?

205. Mr A Shannon: We prefer not to publish bonuses. They are very personal, and they vary from year to year. Salaries tend to be published in salary bands, so that one cannot identify down to the last penny what someone is paid. We prefer not to be specific about the bonuses. If the Committee particularly wants those details, I will let it have them in confidence. However, I would not be enthusiastic about your publishing them. You will find that only one of those staff is a senior civil servant. The bonuses below that level are very modest indeed.

206. Mr Dallat: I am sure that that will be perfectly acceptable. The Committee would like to assess the level of bonuses against the performance of the agency, without wishing to delve into anyone’s personal affairs. It seems rather strange that those figures were not shown.

207. Mr A Shannon: Would you prefer that the information was presented in terms of individual bonuses, or in some kind of collective form?

208. Mr Dallat: I will be guided by the Chairman. We are not engaged in a witch-hunt against individuals. Rather, it is a genuine effort to assess the performance of the agency. That is what we have been trying to do all afternoon. I do not understand why we have come up against a roadblock when asking about staff bonuses.

209. Mr A Shannon: It is not a roadblock. It is the Civil Service’s policy not to publish information on individuals’ bonuses. The sort of bonuses that we are talking about amount to £50 or £100.

210. Mr Dallat: I am getting information from you now. I am not going to hassle you about £50 or £100; until now, I had no idea about bonus amounts.

211. The Deputy Chairperson: I do not have a particular direction to give on the issue. However, any information would be welcome. Obviously, we have to respect a certain amount of confidentiality for individuals on personnel matters. It would be helpful if Mr Shannon would forward further information on that area.

212. The tables on recruitment in the report are full of zeroes. Can we get the actual figures? If the Department of Finance and Personnel has been doing the recruitment, is the information on recruitment, turnover, and so forth available elsewhere? It is pointless to have two tables —

213. Mr A Shannon: Frankly, I am at a loss to know why those tables were included. I have been told that it has been set down as a pro forma requirement.

214. The Deputy Chairperson: How long does it take, on average, for an application to be processed? Do you have a performance target for that process?

215. Mr Quinn: We are now at a point whereby we process 80% of new applications within 12 weeks. We do have performance targets for the clearance of new applications within 12 weeks, 18 weeks and 26 weeks. That is a significant improvement on where we were at the start of 2007, when only 39% of such applications were processed within 12 weeks. That is part of the recovery process.

216. Mr Hamilton: With regard to the cost of collection, would it be possible to provide the Committee with a breakdown of staff costs, and various overhead costs, for the past few years? I appreciate that that information may have to be sent at a later date.

217. Ms Quinn: Yes, absolutely.

218. The Deputy Chairperson: Northern Ireland is in an unusual position because it has a land border. That might lead to an increase in the number of people who live here but work outside the jurisdiction. When a family breakdown occurs, some people might decide to skip across the border and to work and live there. Is that a factor that affects your ability to collect money on behalf of families?

219. Ms Quinn: It most certainly is a factor. That is an issue for us in towns across the border area. People often go across the border, or work across the border, which inhibits our ability to impose deductions from earnings. Therefore, it does pose some challenges for us.

220. The Deputy Chairperson: Has the question of whether arrangements can be made to deal with that matter been raised at ministerial level? Is there a corresponding body to the CSA in the Republic of Ireland?

221. Ms Quinn: There is a body in the Republic of Ireland within the Department of Social and Family Affairs (DSFA), which I visited in recent months. Their scheme is very different to the scheme that is administered here. Their focus is on — and is confined to — getting money to offset any benefits that they pay to the parent with care. To them it does not matter if someone is a millionaire — if the DSFA has paid €40 per week to the parent with care then that is what they are seeking to recover. Therefore, it is a Treasury rather than a social matter, so it is very different. However, we keep in contact with our colleagues at DFSA and are expecting a visit from them very soon. It is always useful to keep the lines of communication open in order to facilitate learning and understanding.

222. At ministerial level, we have not yet entered into significant discussions about the opportunities which might arise from addressing that issue, but presumably that will happen.

223. The Deputy Chairperson: It strikes me that there might be mutual benefit if there were a degree of co-operation on the matter.

224. Finally, Mr Shannon, it is very important that the proposed structural change — absorbing the agency into the Department — does not obscure the agency’s performance. As the accounting officer for the Department, and given the fact that there have recently had to be qualifications in the accounts, how are you going to ensure that there is no loss in transparency?

225. Mr A Shannon: Sadly, the DSD accounts are not strangers to qualifications. While the agency will not be producing separate accounts, I imagine that the different elements of this particular area will still be clearly identifiable within the departmental accounts, so it will not be any less transparent.

226. The Deputy Chairperson: It is clear that over a number of years there have been promises of improvement from the Child Support Agency, but on many occasions those improvements have failed to materialise. I acknowledge that there have been some improvements in recent times, and I hope that that will continue.

227. I also acknowledge that the CSA staff have been in the unfortunate position of operating a complex system, with an inadequate computer system, so we have to be fair to those staff. It is a difficult area of work, and we must be thankful for the important work that they do in recovering money to assist children when a parent has left the family.

228. Significant change is afoot in terms of the potential restructuring, as well as changes to the legislation and the guidance. I hope that lessons will have been learnt from past failings, and that any new system is carefully thought out, well piloted and presented, and will be a working model which will reduce the likelihood of such failings reoccurring.

229. In the meantime, the Child Support Agency and the Department must continue to ensure their effectiveness, to operate within whatever structures are given, and to work as effectively as possible with the current equipment. As I said earlier, I acknowledge that some improvements have been made and I hope that that will continue, because there is scope for both management and staff to try to improve, and there is also a need for the proper IT system to be put in place.

230. The work of the CSA is important because of the very vulnerable nature of the young children affected. The Committee expects that you will provide a constructive response to our report, and we hope that lessons can be drawn from it, to the benefit of all. Thank you very much.

231. Mr A Shannon: Thank you.

Appendix 3

Correspondence

Deputy Chairperson’s letter
of 18 January 2008

Public Accounts Committee
Parliament Buildings
Room 371
Stormont Estate
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

Tel: (028) 9052 1208
Fax: (028) 9052 0366
Email: cathie.white@niassembly.gov.uk

Mr Alan Shannon
Accounting Officer
Department for Social Development
Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JB

Date: 18 January 2008

Dear Alan

Re: Public Accounts Committee Evidence Session 17 January 2008

Further to the evidence session at the Public Accounts Committee today, please provide the following additional information which members requested at the meeting:

1 Please provide details of the specific targets set for the current year.

2 Please detail the number of cases you actually prosecute and what proportion of debtors this is.

3 What is the cost to the Agency of enforcement and do your current enforcement activities recover enough to demonstrate value for money?

4 In paragraph 5 of Mr Shannon’s letter of 5th October details are provided of a number of initiatives which are designed to increase the debt collected by the Agency, including the introduction of credit/debit cards to make payments. Please provide information on how successful in monetary terms this has been and how much it has cost to introduce and maintain.

5 With regard to the figure of £71million debt in paragraph 8 of the C&AG’s report please forward information on what percentage of people on your records fail to make the full payment due for support of their children? How many children are affected by this?

6 You also agreed to provide details of the bonuses paid during the periods 2005/06 and 2006/07.

I would be obliged for a response by Friday, 1 February 2008.

Yours sincerely

Roy Beggs

Deputy Chairperson
Public Accounts Committee

Correspondence of 1 February 2008
from Mr Alan Shannon

From: The Permanent Secretary
Mr Alan Shannon

Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
BELFAST
BT7 2JB

Telephone: 028 90 829002
Facsimile: 028 90 829560
E-mail: perm.sec@dsdni.gov.uk

Mr Roy Beggs MLA
Deputy Chairperson
Public Accounts Committee
Room 371, Parliament Buildings
Stormont Estate
BELFAST
BT4 3XX 1st February 2008

Dear Mr Beggs

Public Accounts Committee Evidence Session 17 January 2008

Further to your letter dated 18th January 2008, I am pleased to provide the following additional information which members requested at the meeting.

1. Please provide details of the specific targets set for the current year.

I have attached a table of targets set for the current year.

2. Please detail the number of cases you actually prosecute and what proportion of debtors this is.

At October 2007, the Agency had 9,558 nil or partially compliant cases. Between April and December 2007, 12 Non-Resident Parents were prosecuted for failure to provide information under the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations (Northern Ireland). This compares to 10 Non-Resident Parents prosecuted in 2006/07 and 1 Non-Resident Parent prosecuted in 2005/06.

Prosecution is the final stage in the enforcement process which also includes measures such as the imposition of Deduction from Earnings Orders and the granting of liability orders by Magistrate’s Courts under Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations (Northern Ireland). Between April and December 2007, 211 liability orders had been secured, 276 were secured in 2006/07 and 192 in 2005/06.

The complete enforcement process is a key aspect of the Agency’s Operational Improvement Project.

3. What is the cost to the Agency of enforcement and do your current enforcement activities recover enough to demonstrate value for money?

Year	Amount Recovered	Enforcement Costs
2005/06	£105,655	£248,290
2006/07	£246,877	£328,305
April-Dec 2007	£409,542	£349,667

The Agency has devoted greater resources to enforcement as a means of getting money to more children. The amount recovered through enforcement has also increased over the period. The amount recovered through enforcement between April and December 2007 represents almost a 300% increase on 2005/06 levels.

4. In paragraph 5 of Mr Shannon’s letter of 5th October details are provided of a number of initiatives which are designed to increase the debt collected by the Agency, including the introduction of credit/debit cards to make payments. Please provide information on how successful in monetary terms this has been and how much it has cost to introduce and maintain.

There was no cost to us in setting up the credit/debit card system, as the NI Agency was included within the GB Agency contract. Between December 2006 and December 2007, the Agency collected more than £150k by this method, which cost just under £1.6k to maintain. This £1.6k consists of transaction costs of 55p per debit card and 1.96% plus 15p per credit card. The Agency also incurs a standard charge of £35 per month payable to the banking service provider. This is a fixed charge irrespective of the number/value of transactions.

5. With regard to the figure of £71million debt in paragraph 8 of the C&AG’s report please forward information on what percentage of people on your records fail to make the full payment due for support of their children? How many children are affected by this?

The percentage of Non-Resident Parents failing to make full payment was 24% (at October 2007). This equates to 9,558 cases out of a total caseload of 39,257. The 24% failing to make full payment is made up of 15.7% who were nil compliant and 8.6% who were partially compliant. The number of children affected is 12,601 (7,984 in nil compliant cases, and 4,617 in partially compliant cases).

I will write separately to the Committee with details of bonuses paid during the periods 2005/06 and 2006/07.

I look forward to receiving the report of the Committee in due course.

Yours sincerely

Alan Shannon

Accounting Officer

Child Support Agency

One Service
Arranging, Collecting and Paying Out Money for More Children

Northern Ireland Targets

Public Service Agreement target

By 31 March 2008, to increase the number of children receiving child maintenance in Northern Ireland by 150% compared to March 2003.

Ministerial Targets

Total Maintenance Collection

By 31 March 2008, to collect or arrange £18m in Child Maintenance for Northern Ireland clients, of which at least £1.5m maintenance will be arrears.

New Applications Backlog

By 31 March 2008 to have reduced the volume of uncleared new scheme applications by 11% of the amount outstanding at the end of March 2007.

Maintenance Outcome

By 31 March 2008, in 60% of cases in which a liability to pay maintenance exists, the non resident parent either has made a payment via the collection service or directly.

Client Service Standards

We have set minimum standards of service which we aim to meet in each of our main business areas. These standards are set out below.

Standard 1 – We aim to make an accurate decision on new applications within 18 weeks.

Standard 2 – We aim to make a first payment to the parent with care within 6 weeks of making the initial payment arrangements with the non-resident parent.

Standard 3 – We aim to answer 95% of telephone calls made to us. We will also aim to answer calls within one minute.

Standard 4 – We aim to resolve complaints, or agree next steps, within 20 days of receiving them.

Standard 5 – We aim to refer appeals to The Appeals Service within 12 weeks.

Once the Appeals Service has notified us of their decision, we will revise the child maintenance decision if necessary within 4 weeks.

Standard 6 – We will aim to ensure cash value accuracy of 92% to the nearest penny on the last decision made on the assessment.

Deputy Chairperson’s letter
of 17 January 2008

Public Accounts Committee
Parliament Buildings
Room 371
Stormont Estate
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

Tel: (028) 9052 1208
Fax: (028) 9052 0366

Public Accounts Committee

Date: 17 January 2008

Mr David Thomson
Treasury Officer of Accounts
Department of Finance and Personnel
Room P4, 3rd Floor
New Building
Rathgael House
Balloo Road
BANGOR
BT19 7NA

Dear David

Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Funds Account 2003-04 – 2006-07

At the Public Accounts Committee meeting today, you agreed to provide any available figures that have been omitted from the tables on pages 25-27 of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2006-2007.

I would appreciate a reply by Friday 1st February 2008.

Yours sincerely

Roy Beggs

Deputy Chairperson
Public Accounts Committee

Correspondence of 4 February 2008
from Mr David Thomson

Treasury Officer of Accounts
David Thomson

Central Finance Group
Rathgael House
Balloo Road
BANGOR BT19 7NA

Tel No: 028 9185 8150 (x 68150)
Fax No: 028 9185 8175
mail: david.thomson@dfpni.gov.uk
and jill.downie@dfpni.gov.uk

Roy Beggs
Deputy Chairperson
Public Accounts Committee
Room 371
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

4 February 2008

Dear Roy

Northern Ireland Child Support Agency Client Fund Account 2003/04 – 2006/07

Thank you for your letter of 18 January.

The Civil Service Commissioners (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provides that information on direct recruitment must be published by departments and agencies. The Child Support Agency’s 2006/07 annual report and accounts indicate that it did not carry out any direct recruitment during the year and this is reflected in the various statements at paragraph 2 of Annex 3 (required minimum information requirements prescribed in the Order). That being the case, there was no requirement for the Agency to include paragraph 3 (page 24) or the tables (pages 25 – 27) in its report.

The Recruitment Service did provide staff to the Agency. Its Annual Report 2006/07 sets out all of the recruitment they provided to departments and agencies. However this is not disaggregated, therefore the staff that they provided to the Agency is not separately identified. The Recruitment Service has provided me with details of the staff they provided to the Agency during 2006/07 and I have set this out underneath in the same format as the tables in the Agency’s Accounts.

Grade	Gender		Religion			Disabled	Total Appointments
	M	F	P	RC	ND
Admin Assistant	26	23	26	23	0	2	49
Admin Officer	133	139	138	132	2	14	272
Temp Admin Assistant	13	11	8	16	0	3	24
Total	172	173	172	171	2	18	345

DFP will discuss the future content of the recruitment information with the Agency in an attempt to make it more meaningful in its annual report.

I am copying this letter to Alan Shannon in DSD, Mary Quinn and internally in DFP.

Yours sincerely

David Thomson

Appendix 4

List of Witnesses who Gave
Oral Evidence to the Committee

1. Mr Alan Shannon, Accounting Officer, Department for Social Development.

2. Ms Mary Quinn, Chief Executive, Northern Ireland Child Support Agency.

3. Ms Andrea Orr, Director of Corporate Services, Northern Ireland Child Support Agency.

4. Mr John Dowdall CB, Comptroller and Auditor General, Northern Ireland Audit Office.

5. Mr David Thomson, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel.