| Report by the Secretary of State for Social Security under Section 82 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999
|
|
Mr. Pickles rose—
Angela Eagle: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question in a minute. We would have to reprogramme the computer now to introduce the new system in that crude way. We are here today because we decided to buy a new, much more up-to-date computer that will give us all the things that large organisations take for granted in their computer systems—a work-flow model, telephony services, accounting systems and all the rest. To come to the hon. Gentleman's question, if we reached the stage—I am not saying that we shall—where the computer procurement had been delayed or there was some problem with it or an issue of functionality, I would be asked whether the introduction should be delayed. I would have to decide whether to introduce the new system in time on an obsolete piece of equipment or to delay the introduction further. It is 99 per cent. obvious what that decision would be: we would rather get the computer right and functional and check that it could deliver the system than risk an already difficult changeover because of the transition issues that we discussed in Committee. Rather than put at risk the whole change, delay would be an attractive option. Mr. Pickles: Would a fair summary of that answer be yes? Angela Eagle: Yes, but many people would not even think that we had those practical problems with the present equipment. I merely hope to give a flavour of the difficulties that our staff face day in and day out trying to run this system and, at the same time, of the consequences of buying cheap, off-the-shelf stuff from Florida because it is easier and quicker. [Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. Now, Mr. Pickles, you must not get carried away with yourself. Mr. Pickles: I am so sorry, Mr. Cunningham. I apologise. Angela Eagle: I was trying to give a flavour of the fact that we must learn from the mistakes that were made when the old system was implemented. It is in everybody's interests that the new system works, and the computer that we are in the process of procuring is at the centre of that. It is difficult to see how we can proceed without having the new computer up and running. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said that the Select Committee was concerned about two things—the type of information and incomplete information. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made the same point—rather superciliously, I thought—about the so-called inaccuracy of the information. It is true that the £59 million figure was mentioned to begin with, but when evidence was finally taken in what is a new process—hon. Members must bear that in mind—it had been discovered, after more detailed work had been done in the interim, that the parts that section 82 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 refers to are those that are affected by primary changes in legislation and not by on-going administration in existing systems. Officials had a chance to take a closer look and to divide up the work being done on modernisation between work that was directly relevant to changes in the primary legislation and work relevant to other modernisations that we can do without parliamentary approval, because the money is not extra but has already been voted in the appropriate Appropriation Votes. The information was inaccurate in the sense that that division had not been made. I agree that it looks odd, but by the time the officials appeared before the Select Committee we were able to say that we had done further work and realised that £6 million of the £59 million related to the changes in primary legislation. That is the explanation for the two different figures. As regards incomplete information, clearly there is an issue of commercial confidentiality before contracts are signed that cannot easily be resolved. At the appropriate time the expenditure and all the value-for-money issues around it will be considered in the usual way by the National Audit Office and by the DSS's internal audit mechanisms. Therefore, financial assurance exists. The recommendation to the Procedure Committee that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is a matter for the House. However, all members of the House, particularly those who serve on the Public Accounts Committee, should consider how systems and methods of procurement have changed. When we are developing mechanisms on non-greenfield sites in already existing complex organisations, perhaps changing the time scale, Parliament should look at more effective ways of checking Government expenditure than those that we have inherited, sometimes from two centuries ago. Clearly, the Procedure Committee has every right to do that, and I look forward to its conclusions, if it does that. In his comments on slippage, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked some questions about the Information Technology Services Agency, which I am happy to answer. The ITSA issue relates to a decision that was taken and to matters discussed in the Committee, which he did not deign to attend. He would have been involved in some of the debates if he had come on to the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. We announced in Parliament that we were in negotiations with Affinity to outsource large parts of ITSA to it. Much of the agency's work is in maintaining our old legacy systems, which we are starting to change to a more up-to-date system. The change will take a few years to complete. In the meantime, the existing legacies systems must be maintained and a group of people with the necessary computer skills retained to service them. The parliamentary question to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to relates to what I call the intelligent customer facility. If we outsource the on-going maintenance of a computer system to an expert specialist company because we decide not to maintain it in-house, it is essential for future procurement and value for money that the Department keeps an intelligent customer base—in other words, computer experts who can give appropriate advice on future systems and all the strategic decisions that must be taken ahead of the procurement process. Therefore, the parliamentary question relates to bringing into DSS headquarters that intelligent customer facility, while outsourcing to Affinity the on-going maintenance provision for the existing legacy systems. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's references to Hansard and the parliamentary questions that I have answered. The hon. Member for Northavon is not happy with the process and talked about our losing 90 per cent. of the money. We have not lost any of it. I hope that my explanation to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has reassured or enlightened the hon. Gentleman. We managed to split that money into the money that we are spending on ensuring that primary legislation, for which this process has been created, is properly covered in the period before Royal Assent and the money that we are spending on on-going modernisation, all of which is contributing to helping the Child Support Agency through the transformation and into the new system. The hon. Member for Northavon said that there was confusion about whether work on child support reform would be done in September. Under current work programmes, we expect the primary legislative changes to be in the computer build in September, but that date could move forwards or backwards. Building a new computer is like painting a room: things must be done in a certain way. If it were suddenly decided that the equivalent of papering the walls or painting the ceiling had to be done, we would want to ensure that we had the facilities and the financial cover from the House to do it. At present, we do not expect that to happen. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that this debate may not be relevant. If the Bill receives Royal Assent in June, the work will be done some time after June, so the debate will not have been needed. What if we had not asked for the appropriate cover and a glitch had occurred, Royal Assent were put off until October and we found ourselves unable to do work? The whole project could have been held up simply because we had not been willing to have this debate and open ourselves to this scrutiny so that we could get the financial cover that we needed to transform the system in the most appropriate way. That is why we decided, prudently, to ask for Parliament's approval for this expenditure before Royal Assent. I accept that it may not be needed. Mr. Webb: When does the Minister expect the contract to be signed this year? Is that when liabilities start to accrue? That appears to be the message. Angela Eagle: The contract is being procured under a private finance initiative. Such contracts work in a way that ensures that both parties undertake work, move towards coming to an agreement and signing a contract and undertake liabilities that may or may not be paid for, depending on what happens with the contract. We expect the contract to be signed in early June. That is the hope and the target, but these things slip. If I may reassure the hon. Member for Northavon, the first build of the new computer begins within the next 10 days, so work is being done prior to the signing of the contract to ensure that the announced date of April 2002 does not slip. However, the hon. Gentleman has already announced to the press that the computer has failed, even before it exists, so I am interested in his admission in the Committee that it does not yet exist, although it will start to be built soon. Mr. Pickles: When? Angela Eagle: Within the next 10 days. The original 2001 date was the best guess at the beginning of the process of the date when it might be possible to introduce the system. As negotiations commence and detailed decisions are made about how long it will take to deliver what is needed, one gets a better view of what is practicable. As soon as it became clear to us that April 2002 was a safer, more sensible date, we announced that in our proceedings on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. There is no secret about that. We are trying to be as open as we can about it. I appreciate that the constituents of the hon. Member for Northavon as well as mine and everybody else's want to know when it will happen, but April 2002 is still the target date. With those answers, I hope that the Committee will see fit to approve the report. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at nineteen minutes past Five o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 5 April 2000 | |
