Child Support Agency

The much criticised Child Support Agency had been established in an endeavour to ensure that absent parents, essentially fathers, would have to accept financial responsibility for the maintenance of their children as determined by the Agency. The PCA’s report followed complaints referred to him by 95 MPs, covering  the time that the Agency started its operations in April 1994 until the end of 1995. Although the PCA investigated 70 complaints, the report focused on seven of those as being representative of the whole. These complaints highlighted a number of failures on the part of the CSA: mistakes as to the identity of individuals subject to the determinations of the CSA; failure to answer correspondence; delay in assessing and reviewing maintenance assessments; delay in actually securing payments due; and the provision of incorrect or misleading advice. The conclusion of the PCA was that the CSA was liable for maladministration, inexcusable delays and slipshod service. In response to the report, the chief executive of the CSA wrote to the PCA, informing him that steps were being taken to deal with the problems highlighted in the report. Such changes in the way that the CSA operated has not staved off its proposed replacement by a more sympathetic and efficient organisation.

Evaluation

All in all, the ombudsman system appears to function fairly well within its restricted sphere of operation, but there are major areas where it could be improved. The more important of the criticisms levelled at the PCA relate to the following:

• The retention of MPs as filters of complaints

It is generally accepted that there is no need for such a filter mechanism. At one level, it represents a sop to the idea of parliamentary representation and control. However, at the practical level, PCAs have referred complaints made to them directly to the constituent’s MP, in order to have them referred back to them in the appropriate form. It is suggested that there is no longer any need or justification for this farce.

• The restrictive nature of the definition of maladministration

It is possible to argue that any procedure that leads to an unreasonable decision must involve an element of maladministration and that, therefore, the definition as currently stated is not overly restrictive. However, even if such reverse reasoning is  valid, it would still be preferable for the definition of the scope of the PCA’sinvestigations to be clearly stated, and be stated in wider terms than they are at present.

• The jurisdiction of the PCA

This criticism tends to resolve itself into the view that many areas that should be covered by the PCA are not in fact covered by it. For example, as presently

constituted, the ombudsman can only investigate the operation of general law. It could be claimed, not without some justification, that the process of making law in the form of delegated legislation could equally do with investigation.

• The lack of publicity given to complaints

It is sometimes suggested that sufficient publicity is not given to either the existence of the various ombudsmen or the results of their investigations. The argument is that, if more people were aware of the procedure and what it couldachieve, then more people would make use of it, which would lead to an overall improvement in the administration of governmental policies.

• The reactive role of the ombudsman

This criticism refers to the fact that the ombudsmen are dependent upon receiving complaints before they can initiate investigations. It is suggested that a more  proactive role, in which the ombudsmen would be empowered to initiate investigation on their own authority, would lead to an improvement in general administration, as well as an increase in the effectiveness of the activity of the ombudsman. This criticism is related to the way in which the role of ombudsmen is viewed. If they are simply a problem solving dispute resolution institution, then a reactive role is sufficient; if, however, they are seen as the means of improving general administrative performance, then a more proactive role is called for.