Clause
7
Agency
arrangements and provision of
services
Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 38, in
clause 7, page 3, line 14, at
end insert—
‘(1A) Before any
arrangements are made pursuant to subsection (1) above, the Commission
must ensure that consideration has been given to how the specific
arrangements sought will contribute to the Commission’s main
objective of maximising the number of children living apart from one or
both of their parents for whom effective maintenance arrangements are
in
place.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 39, in clause 8, page 3, line 26, at end
insert—
‘(1A) Before any
authorisation is given pursuant to subsection (1) above, the Commission
must ensure that consideration has been given to how the specific
authorisation sought will contribute to the Commission’s main
objective of maximising the number of children living apart from one or
both of their parents for whom effective maintenance arrangements are
in
place.’.
Paul
Rowen:
This clause deals with agency arrangements and the
provision of services. I know from our evidence-taking sessions last
week and our debates that when CMEC comes into operation, greater use
will be made of the voluntary and third sector to provide information
services. I welcome that. The amendments seek to place in the Bill what
we believe is the prime purpose of the agency and to ensure that that
aim is not overlooked when arrangements are made to contract out and
for different services and support to be provided by other
bodies.
I appreciate
that if money can be saved by delivering a service in a different way,
that is in itself a laudable aim. But that pursuit of greater
administrative efficiency should not be allowed to obscure the
importance of delivering the service for which the agency has been set
up. The Minister already knows of our concerns about the planned cuts.
He has given reassurances about that, which he has repeated this
morning. Nevertheless, as we begin to contract out and to use other
services, we need to make sure that our prime purpose is to ensure
better delivery of service. That is why I quoted the example of making
greater use of the third sector in the provision of information
services. That is an excellent example, which shows that locally
delivered, locally administered voluntary agencies can be much more
successful in providing support to parents who seek to make child care
arrangements than an arm’s length agency that might not have
sufficient staff in the locality to provide information and
support.
11.45
am
We also accept,
as the Minister pointed out last week, that the use of private debt
collection agencies has brought results. We are not opposed to the use
of private debt collection agencies. However, we have to be clear about
our purpose in moving to the use of such agencies, and that purpose
must be the provision of child maintenance and the welfare of the
child. The amendment is designed to ensure that that remains the prime
purpose for introducing any such contracting or agency
arrangements.
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): I want to return
to something that the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago on the
commission’s objectives in securing effective maintenance. Does
he share my regret that the phrase “and the welfare of the
child” does not appear in clause
2?
Paul
Rowen:
We had a full debate on that last
week, and I was disappointed that the Minister could not accept a
reasonable amendment that would have set the agency up with that very
clear purpose. This measure is not only about collecting money, but
putting arrangements in place to ensure that children are properly
cared
for.
On
professional and technical services, I want to make a brief comment
about the provision of IT services, which has bedevilled the CSA since
its inception. There are still two different computer systems in
operation. I know that the Secretary of State said in February in
evidence to the Select Committee that the Government intended not to
have a new system. However, he also stated that they were happy with
the arrangements with EDS and that there was a clear programme to
ensure that the problems with the current system would be worked out. I
hope that the Minister can update us on the improvements to IT
services. I am still experiencing problems in my casework that are
caused by the inability of the IT systems to extract the information
that is
needed.
Mrs.
Dorries:
It is not only a case of being bedevilled by IT.
Some cases are more complicated than others, as we have said before. In
complicated cases, such as that of Mr. and Mrs.
Jennings who are two grandparents in my constituency who are looking
after children who have an absent mother and father, the IT system
seems
to fail completely. Then, going back to an earlier point, we have to
depend on individual caseworkers. Can we have an assurance that the IT
system will not be of the average standard used for average cases, but
that measures will be built in to allow the software to deal with more
complex
cases?
Paul
Rowen:
I agree with the hon. Lady. She has quoted an
example in her constituency, and all of us have cases in which the
current IT system is not delivering. The Select Committee insisted that
before CMEC becomes operational, the Department should provide the
House with information on how the computer system will operate. We want
an indication from the Minister about what will happen as CMEC is set
up and what arrangements will be put in place.
We do not want to deal only
with yesterday’s computer solutions—this is the point in
the Henshaw report about the CSA having a fresh start and a clean
break—because we want to know what arrangements are being put in
place to ensure that any replacement or enhancement system can deal
with not only the new method of operation, but, more importantly,
existing cases. The Minister knows that in the previous sitting I went
on about ensuring that historic debt is not forgotten. We must
ensure—we need a comment from the Minister—that what he
has got planned will ensure that the new systems will perform and that
what has bedevilled the CSA in the past will be dealt with more
effectively.
Mr.
Boswell:
I have quite a lot of sympathy
with the comments that are being made, and, sadly, assurances are
needed in relation to IT systems. I have a different point, which picks
up a dialogue about confidentiality that the hon. Member for Angus and
I engaged in at the oral evidence session. I have no ideological
difficulty whatsoever with either agencies or outsourcing, if that is
the most effective thing to do.
One of the
attractions of the amendments, which bears on clauses 7 and 8, is that
they relate to the agency’s main purpose. However, I have
concerns that information may leak out to other persons. If the
Minister remembers the oral evidence sitting, we developed the argument
that highly confidential information on income, which HMRC does not
normally release, will pass from the Inland Revenue to CMEC in order
for CMEC to do its job. I do not think that anyone in this Committee is
seeking to overturn that.
It is
extremely important that that information or any other material, such
as medical submissions that appear on the file, stops at that point.
The collection of such information is justified by the need to sort out
maintenance, but not as part of a fishing expedition that becomes part
of the public currency. Those people are private individuals, and we
are all aware of the sensitivity of the cases. All that I am asking for
is the Minister’s assurance that whatever obligations apply to
officials within the existing agency will continue into the new
commission and its agents or contractors. There will be absolutely no
question of any dilution of standards or safeguards in terms of the
privacy or confidentiality of the information relating to
individuals.
Mr.
Weir:
I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member
for Daventry, which is the point that I also wish to make. Taking up
what the hon. Member for Rochdale said about IT, we challenged in the
evidence-taking session the flow of information, and I made the point
that CMEC is fundamentally different from the CSA in that it will get
its information from Revenue and Customs. At that point, I raised the
concern about where that information will go after it has reached
CMEC.
Hilary
Reynolds, who is the civil servant responsible, said that one of the
schedules includes all the available information gateways and that the
gateways are fairly wide to allow CMEC to take and receive information
from a wide variety of sources. This is a specific clause about the use
of that information and the scheduling of various gateways. That is
quite correct. The schedule in question is schedule 6, which states
that
“Information to which
this paragraph applies may be
supplied—
(a) to the
Commission, or
(b) to a person
providing services to the
Commission
for use for the
purposes of functions relating to child
support.”
My concern is
that the contracting-out of services, specifically in clause 8, gives
the potential that a lot of information coming from HMRC is going not
to CMEC but to outside agencies. I made that point in the
evidence-taking session in relation to the extent of contracting
out—for example, will the calculation of maintenance be
contracted out to a third party? There are limits on contracting out,
including on when services can be contracted out. However, clause 8
does not set any limits, as far as I can
see.
Mr.
Boswell:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are also
issues about jurisdiction? We understand that the agency, at least, is
operating within British law. There is nothing, as far as I know, to
prevent the new CMEC from commissioning services from different
providers in another country where British law does not apply and where
the provisions of the Official Secrets Act or the obligations of the
civil service code, for example, are not binding unless
specified.
Mr.
Weir:
That is obviously a concern. I
would be concerned if there were proposals to contract out CMEC
services to overseas agencies—for example, many big accountancy
companies operate multinationally. However, there is concern about the
level of contracting out, and the amendments would set some controls on
that.
Will the
Minister say something about the extent to which confidential
information from HMRC may be passed on? We all agree that information
can go to the commission for the purposes of child maintenance, but
where it goes once it reaches the commission is a different matter,
which is a huge concern for many hon.
Members.
Mr.
Harper:
On clause 7, which deals
specifically with agency arrangements for other public bodies or other
parts of Government, I want the Minister to indicate what he has in
mind. His colleague, Lord McKenzie of Luton, made it clear that CMEC
was being set up as a non-departmental public body rather than as a
Government agency, because it would be
better if it were more at arm’s length and further away from
Government. Since the clause deals with a number of the relevant
functions performed by other parts of the Government, I am curious
whether the power was included as a general power in case it was
required, whether at this stage the Department had any specific
thoughts about how it may want to deal with that—what bits of
Government CMEC may want to use—or whether it was included just
in case to allow future
flexibility.
We will
be able to discuss the two points about IT contracting when we discuss
new clause 13, which has been tabled by me and my hon. Friend the
Member for South-West
Bedfordshire.
The
information control addressed by amendments Nos. 38 and 39 is
important. As the hon. Member for Angus has said, we touched on that in
the evidence session. The relevant schedule is wide and permits
information to be passed. When we talk about that schedule in due
course, we will want to have some controls on where the information can
go and on the responsibility that CMEC would retain for ensuring that
that it was handled securely under British
law.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I feel that the debate on clause 7 has strayed
significantly into clause 8 as well, but provided that you permit me,
Mr. Chope, I will respond to all the points that have been
raised.
The hon.
Member for Rochdale asked whether I could provide an update on fixing
the IT. Clause 7 does not relate to the IT situation, but seeing as it
has been mentioned, I will see to what extent I can reassure him. We
are all familiar with the IT problems in the agency, which have
bedevilled it pretty much from the outset. I do not want to go back
over the history of how the IT was acquired, because that would not add
much to our proceedings. However, suffice to say that the problem has
been there from the
beginning.
When we
thoroughly assessed the IT situation in the agency to find out what was
wrong, we discovered 506 defects in the system—that is
all—which is a seriously large number. Those had to be graded
into those of real significance, which undermined the efficiency of the
organisation, and relatively minor defects. We decided, sensibly, to
target the fundamental, systemic defects in the system first to try to
get them fixed; 219 of them have been fixed since June, the date of the
last report on IT status. That leaves a significant number of defects
still to be remedied, but those that are left are minor. Those that
were far more detrimental to the operation of the system were the focus
of our priorities and have largely been
resolved.
12
noon
A
major upgrade will introduce enhanced functionality throughout the
agency’s IT system by the end of the year and will resolve a
number of problems, as I shall explain. We will implement IT changes to
support the agency’s new operating model that allocates cases to
appropriately skilled case workers and teams to progress those cases,
which will certainly be a result. We will implement a more effective
telephone call routing strategy that is aligned to the new operating
model, which should improve the response to clients on the phones. We
will also implement a number of IT fixes that will prevent cases from
becoming stuck in the agency’s
computer system, which has given rise to many problems in all hon.
Members’ constituencies, and provide improved system-produced
key customer communications, a matter that was raised in earlier
sittings. Enhancements to the finance
system functionality will be introduced in 2008-09, which will improve
the system’s ability to collect debt and process all financial
transactions. The agency is working closely with EDS, the main
supplier, with the aim of ensuring that all cases will be technically
recovered by the end of March 2008. The agency will ensure that any
operational or remedial actions are taken on cases following technical
recovery by March 2009. In view of these plans, all current cases
should be unstuck by the end of March 2009 at the latest. I hope that I
can reassure the hon. Member for Rochdale that, to coin a phrase, a lot
has been done, but there is a lot still to do in respect of fixing the
IT system.
The hon.
Member for Daventry asked about confidentiality and I can assure him
that the confidentiality safeguards will not be diluted. They will
apply to any agency carrying out a function on behalf of another in
exactly the same way as they do to the commission itself. The hon.
Member for Angus strayed on to clause 8, but I will try to reassure him
that any supplier that has access to sensitive information in the
course of carrying out the commission’s functions will be
subject to exactly the same restrictions on the use of that information
as the commission’s employees. Provisions to govern that matter
will be enshrined within the associated
contracts.
Clause 2
provides the commission with a single overarching objective: to
maximise the number of effective maintenance arrangements in place. I
do not fundamentally disagree with what the hon. Member for Rochdale
sought to achieve by tabling the amendment, but I hope to persuade him
that provisions that will have that effect are already in the
Bill.
The functions
that the Bill confers on the commission and the powers that it is given
to carry them out have the common purpose of enabling the commission to
achieve its objective. For any functions that relate to child
maintenance, the commission already has a duty to consider its
objectives. Indeed, that is made absolutely clear in clause 2(3), which
states:
“The
Commission shall aim to pursue, and to have regard to, its objectives
when exercising a function that is relevant to
them.”
It is therefore
clear that the commission must already have regard to its objectives
when considering whether its functions should be carried out by another
provider. It is worth noting that clause 7 also makes it possible for
the commission to carry out functions of other Departments and public
bodies, and for each to provide services for the
other.
I
think that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean was anxious about scope,
and I shall now deal with that point. It might not always make sense
for the commission to enter into arrangements or to perform functions
with a view to its main objectives. The commission’s works sit
within and are closely linked to a number of other areas of government.
As such, there might be situations when the commission is best placed
to carry out a particular task, even if that task does not contribute
directly to its objectives. With the increasing momentum for work to be
joined up across government, I think that hon. Members will agree that
that should be encouraged.
We should also consider the
example of Northern Ireland when looking at the context of clause 7.
Although child support in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, the IT
systems provided by the British CSA are used at present. That makes
economic sense, given the small size of the Northern Ireland CSA
caseload and that its child support system is based on GB’s
child support system. Wider government success and efficiency depend on
such arrangements being possible, even when they do not contribute
directly to the aims of the individual
body.
I suggest
that the amendment would, on the one hand, simply repeat a requirement
that is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill and, on the other,
prevent the commission from contributing to and benefiting from wider
initiatives for joined-up government. I therefore hope that the hon.
Member for Rochdale will agree to withdraw the
amendment.
Paul
Rowen:
I was interested in the Minister’s comments,
particularly those that related to our earlier proposals on using HMRC
to collect some of the maintenance. In view of that, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
7 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
