New Clause
4
Power
of parental enforcement
‘If
the Commission fails to enforce a maintenance assessment in a
reasonable period, the parent with care can request that a liability
order be issued which can be enforced independently through the county
court.’.—[Andrew
Selous.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
17
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
6
Financial
circumstances of non-resident
parent
‘(1) In section 11 of
the Child Support Act 1991 (maintenance calculations) after subsection
(6) insert—
“(6A)
Where subsection (6) applies or an application for a variation under
section 28 has been made by either the non-resident parent or the
parent with care and any question arises concerning the income of the
non-resident parent—
(a)
the Commission shall take all reasonable steps to investigate and
verify the financial circumstances of the non-resident parent in order
to establish his income for the purposes of this Act or regulations
made under it;
(b) the
non-resident parent shall provide such information as is required by
the Commission in order to verify the financial information submitted
by him or on his behalf.” ’.—[Andrew
Selous.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
18
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
7
Report
on private arrangements
‘The
Secretary of State must, within one year of the coming into force of
this section, conduct and publish research
on—
(a) the number of
parents expected to reach private
arrangements;
(b)
parents’ perceptions of the efficacy of private
arrangements;
(c) the possible effect of removing the compulsion
for parents with care claiming state benefits to use the Commission on
the number of such parents with maintenance arrangements in
place.’.—[Paul
Rowen.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The new clause
is a probing clause, and we are seeking information from the Minister
about private arrangements and, in particular, on how the new scheme
will work, once it is in place. I am sure that the Minister will argue
that the Government have already carried out research—for
example, the indicators of future choices survey—that shows that
they were correct in their estimate of the number of people who were
going to move to private arrangements. However, I want to point out to
the Minister that the survey was conducted with current users of the
CSA to find out what they would do when CMEC comes into
being—whether they will register with CMEC on the new
maintenance agreement, whether they will register on the old agreement
or whether they will leave the system altogether. We feel that ongoing
research is needed to examine what people actually do once the
commission is
established.
As we
have discussed, the big group at risk is those who do not enter the
system at all. There will therefore be no reason for anybody to keep
track of them, and a large proportion of them may well be parents on
benefits who would previously have automatically enrolled before the
repeal in this Bill of section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991. In
particular, we want the research to focus on how many people have no
maintenance arrangements in place, especially as the purpose of the
Bill is to maximise the number of children for whom an effective
maintenance agreement is in place. I am sure that the Minister will
agree that we all want to tackle child poverty, and if we can encourage
voluntary arrangements that work and ensure that parents pay their fair
whack, it will help to do that. We feel that we need some sort of
research to keep track of that and to ensure that some of the concerns
that we have raised do not fall through a crack.
We know about the advice and
information services that the commission will provide, which might be
contracted out or handed over to the private and voluntary sectors. It
is important for them to have an opportunity to feed back to the
Government on their experiences and the people whom they see daily. Are
such people going through voluntary agreements? If they are not
following through those agreements, why not? What action might the
Government need to take? The matter will probably not need legislation,
but it might mean that the contracting out arrangements for support
need to go further than the Government have
envisaged.
Although
the Minister may not agree with the new clause, I hope that he can
assure us that some such review will be carried out and reported to the
Select Committee. The private arrangement aspect of the Bill is its
most novel feature, and it is the cornerstone of its success. It is not
necessarily those who are in the system who are of concern, but those
who move into those
arrangements and might not enter into any private arrangements. If they
do not enter into a private arrangement, we need to know
why. 4.15
pm
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I appreciate the hon. Member for Rochdale
tabling the new clause and discussing it in the way in which he did. He
is right to point out that we all have a concern in seeing how the new
system unfolds and ensuring that it meets the objectives that we have
set for it. I remind him that the commission is required to produce an
annual report of all its activities, which will always be an
opportunity for hon. Members and Parliament to review its progress. It
is open to the Select Committee to inquire at any time into how the new
arrangements are going, but that is a matter for the Committee, not me.
However, I am certain that I want to follow
progress.
The hon.
Gentleman is also right that the changes are big changes, especially
those to the voluntary arrangements, which is another reason why it is
important to take time over the transition. We need to spread knowledge
about the changes and make sure that all the other organisations and
bodies that are engaged with people going through the separation
process become aware of the support services, which will be very
important, and the move towards the far higher disregards, which will
completely change the incentive for parents with care to seek
arrangements under the new system.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and
others in Committee that we are fully committed to ensuring that a full
and comprehensive research programme is conducted to consider all the
issues that he has raised, and others. Indeed, research has already
told us a significant amount about all those areas, and it has helped
us with the decisions that we have been making about the design and
implementation of the information and support
service.
As I have
said, it is important not to rush research, and I am sceptical about
the value of linking research programmes to legislation in the direct
way set out in the new clause. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we
are committed to publishing the findings of our research as soon as
they are available. In the area covered by his new clause, for example,
we have published independent research on the attitudes of parents
towards the reforms, and we have conducted a telephone survey of a
significant proportion of the current agency case load, asking about
the choices that people are likely to make once they can transfer to
the new
arrangements.
The
latter research showed that a significant proportion of CSA new scheme
parents with care on benefits—almost two in five—would be
likely to consider going for a voluntary arrangement, supported by the
services that we plan to introduce. Unsurprisingly, the research also
highlighted that there are advantages and disadvantages to voluntary
arrangements and that they are not suitable for everyone. Where a
voluntary arrangement is not preferred by parents, they will, of
course, be supported by the statutory maintenance service.
The relationship and separation
survey is also due to be published early next year. It will build on
the
evidence provided by the telephone survey through face-to-face
interviews with around 2,500 parents who have voluntary arrangements or
arrangements through the CSA or the courts. I hope that I can reassure
the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to conduct and publish
research to ensure that the new maintenance system is as effective as
possible, and to evaluate its success. There will be abundant
opportunities for Parliament to monitor and assess performance through
various processes as we move into the new arrangements. I hope that
that is sufficient to reassure the hon. Gentleman and that he will
withdraw the
motion.
Paul
Rowen:
In view of the Minister’s reassurances, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
13
Management
of ICT contracts
‘The
Commission shall endeavour to have in place a competent single
responsible owner for any major ICT contract, as defined by the
Commission, until in the opinion of the Commission, the contract is
working to an acceptable standard.’.—[Andrew
Selous.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): I beg to move,
That the clause be read a Second
time.
This brings us
back to the thorny subject of the computer systems that will support
CMEC, which we have touched on several times during our discussions.
New clause 13 would help the computer systems to make a success of the
new commission. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Public
Accounts Committee’s 37th report for the 2006-07 Session said
that
“the Department did
not maintain the capability to be an intelligent
customer”
in outsourcing
most of its IT capability to EDS. Having a single senior departmental
official responsible for overseeing the implementation of the computer
system is an issue that Committee members have raised repeatedly with
departmental officials who have come before the
Committee.
It is not
as though we have not been here before, not only in this Department but
across Government. After some brief research this morning, I came up
with the following list of Government IT projects in which things have
gone wrong—the Inland Revenue tax credit system, the passport
office, the Ministry of Defence asset tracking software, national
insurance recording, the central veterinary laboratory database for
BSE, the Libra project for magistrates courts, the national probation
service’s information strategy, the Criminal Records Bureau, the
National Air Traffic Services system and the national programme for
information technology in the NHS, as well as the moving of the GCHQ
computer system.
That
is a brief list. Thankfully, not all of them were at the Department for
Work and Pensions, but it is worth putting on record that the recent
history of Government—of both parties, it is fair to
say—has not been glorious. The new clause is a small, practical
proposal to ensure that there is one individual who will see the
contract all the way through. In the civil service, as elsewhere, it is
not unusual for people to be moved after a time, perhaps because of
other opportunities that fit their career path, but with public sector
contracts of this size and importance, there is a valid case for one
person earning stars on the career path by seeing the project through.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new
clause.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
Before I respond specifically to the hon.
Gentleman’s point, I shall respond generally. It is a kind of
mantra—time and time again we hear public sector IT contracts
slated by people reeling off a list such as that. I urge, however, that
it be kept in proportion. There have been some huge, remarkably
successful public sector IT contracts. I pray in aid the IT programme
in my Department that introduced direct payment of benefits after the
phasing-out of order books. It was a huge programme and a massive
investment, and it came off almost without a hitch. We have examples of
projects that worked very well, as well as those that throw up
problems.
It is also
important to keep the issue in balance. It is not as though the same
problems do not exist in the private sector. Some huge private sector
IT contracts have not exactly gone smoothly. It is not just that only
the poor old Government have IT problems. The issue can come up in
private sector as well as public sector operations. I say that to
balance the comments predictably made by the hon. Gentleman, but I
reassure him that as a non-departmental public body, the commission
will have to adhere to the EU and public sector procurement regulations
and all associated requirements regarding value for money and
transparency. In addition to the procedures under the regulations, the
commission will follow the guidelines set out by the Office of
Government Commerce to ensure that it maintains a rigorous approach to
its procurement.
On
the hon. Gentleman’s idea in the new clause, the Department for
Work and Pensions and the agency already have in place a dedicated
contract manager to oversee the current IT contracts. It is expected
that that practice will be continued by the commission once it has been
established. It will develop a commercial strategy of its own, which,
as previously mentioned, will follow EU and public sector procurement
regulations and Office of Government Commerce procedures, which promote
the importance of contracting authorities having in place a dedicated
procurement and contract management system. I therefore think that the
hon. Gentleman’s objective is met and that his new clause is
therefore unnecessary, so I hope that he will agree to withdraw the
motion.
Andrew
Selous:
I have heard what the Minister had said, and of
course he is right that there have been huge IT projects that have been
successful. He might have mentioned the Pension Service system in his
own Department, which has been reasonably successful. However,
independent observers and those who study the effect on our public
finances agree that the overall record shows that we must do a lot
better than we have in the past. Sadly, vast amounts of public money
have
been wasted, and the inefficiencies have meant that people using
services have not been well
served.
I listened
carefully to what the Minister has said. He said that a senior manager
is currently responsible for the project, and I believe that he said
that it was expected that that person would remain in place in CMEC
when it is established, but I shall stick to my guns on this one. We
know enough history to learn from what has gone wrong in the past, and
I wish it to be stated in the Bill that that individual will indeed
stay in place until the computer contract has been bedded down. I shall
therefore press the new clause to a
Division.
Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
19
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
|
