Child Support Agency a “failing organisation”
The Child Support Agency (CSA) has been condemned by MPs as a “failing organisation”.
And they add that if the problems can not be rectified it should be shut.
Work and Pensions Secretary Alan Johnson later said that this could be an option.
The Work and Pensions Select Committee concluded that: “The Child Support Agency is a failing organisation which is currently in crisis.
“It is difficult to exaggerate the damage the agency’s already low reputation has continued to suffer over the last five years.”
Chairman Sir Archy Kirkwood said if it could not be rescued, it must be replaced.
“Over half a million children from broken relationships continue to suffer. The woeful record of the CSA is a shameful indictment of the Government’s priorities,” he said.
The committee said it could be five years before the CSA was “fit for purpose”.
It called on the CSA to contemplate “the abandonment option” should the computer system continue to malfunction.
It was also highly critical of Government plans to cut jobs at the agency, whilst £750 million in maintenance payments are still outstanding and there is a backlog of 250,000 cases.
Responding, Mr Johnson, said: “My initial response is that many of the committee’s conclusions and recommendations accord with my own thinking and are helpful in signposting the way forward.
“The committee makes clear that the agency’s difficulties have their origin in IT problems. With these not yet fully resolved, as the report says, we cannot reasonably ask the agency to improve performance with reduced front-line staff.”
As such, he said the department would suspend plans to reduce front-line staff in the CSA before the computer system was fully operational.
He added that he would be meeting senior management in the IT contractor EDS in weeks, and “I will be asking them for personal assurance on the timing of their crucial contribution to our overall recovery plan.”
Suggesting that “progress is the best way forward” he nether the less said: “We need to keep a close eye on performance in light of changes we are making, including considering whether there are more radical fall-back proposals.”
