House of Commons - Social Security

Select Committee on Social Security Tenth Report

THE 1999 CHILD SUPPORT WHITE PAPER

TRANSITION

115. The White Paper explains that because it will take time to move to a new system, because the new legislation has to be considered by Parliament, new IT equipment needs to be developed and installed and new working practices have to be designed and communicated to staff, the Government does not expect to be in a position until "towards the end of 2001"[327] to introduce the reforms. The Government plans to start by taking on only new cases, with existing cases being brought on at a later date, but only once the new system is shown to be working well and getting maintenance paid more regularly and reliably.[328]

116. Baroness Hollis explained that it seemed "simply safer"[329] to avoid a 'big bang' approach, which she described as "jolly risky."[330] We are concerned that there may be considerable pressure from affected parents to bring existing cases on to the new system well before any dispassionate view could be reached as to the extent to which the new system is 'working well'. Baroness Hollis told us that the Government was prepared to "look again" at transitional cases and in particular at how to ensure that assessments made more swiftly under the new system did not overtake existing cases which currently take much longer to process.[331] Baroness Hollis indicated that the alternative to running the new and existing systems as a two step process might be a substantial delay in introducing the reforms.[332]

117. In any case the Government would still be "morally obliged"[333] to phase in the application of assessments made under the new system to existing cases.[334] Baroness Hollis recognised that the Government was seeking a balance between complexity and fairness to the individual.[335] The White Paper proposes that in the interests of fairness that any changes in liability for existing cases should be phased in by fixed steps.[336]

118. The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman referred to the Department of Social Security's previous experience of transitional arrangements, and he warned of the danger of a deterioration in the CSA's performance if it was not given the resources and the time to make the transitional changes.[337] Mr John Wheatley of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux thought it would be "a nightmare for all concerned" to have to run two different systems at the same time.[338] He thought that it would be better to move wholesale to the new system, even if that meant a delay.[339] Professor Jonathan Bradshaw suggested that there should be a trial run of the new system.[340] Professor Jane Millar suggested that a pilot could be conducted over 12 months, but there would have be agreement on how success was to be defined and measured.[341]

119. The National Council for One Parent Families foresaw problems with the parallel running of two systems and suggested that the new system should be introduced from a common date for all cases, although they wished to have the child maintenance premium in payment as soon as possible.[342] Mr Roger Smith of The Children's Society also called for the child maintenance premium to be introduced in advance of the other changes.[343] Mr Martin Barnes of the CPAG called for the disregard to be brought forward and also referred to the "lessons from history" about the Government's experience of other reforms critically dependent on new information technology systems.[344] Mr Charles Law of the Public and Commercial Services Union PCS thought that the CSA's customers would want the new system to be brought in as soon as possible,[345] and anticipated that this could be achieved within one year. However, the CSA staff had as yet had very little information from CSA management about how the transition would be managed.[346]

120. We recommend that every effort should be made to bring existing cases on to the new system at an early stage. In particular, we recommend that provisional timetables should be drawn up for transferring existing cases, so that those within the system can at least have some indication of the length of time they will wait.

327 Cm 4349, Chapter One page 6 para 23. Back

328 Cm 4349, Chapter One page 6 para 23. Back

329 Q. 18. Back

330 Q. 500. Back

331 Q. 32-33. Back

332 Q. 38-39, Q. 501. Back

333 Q. 500. Back

334 Q. 39. Back

335 Q. 31. Back

336 Cm 4349, Chapter One page 6 para 23. Back

337 Q. 89. Back

338 Q. 456. Back