Schedule
3
Transfer
of child support
functions
Danny
Alexander:
I beg to move amendment No. 58, in
schedule 3, page 61, line 31, leave
out paragraph
51.
This is a probing
amendment. Paragraph 51 inserts a new section, 50A, which
states:
“Any
decision falling to be made under or by virtue of this Act by the
Commission may be made, not only by a person authorised to exercise the
Commission’s decision-making function, but also by a computer
for whose operation such a person is
responsible.”
I shall be
interested to hear from the Minister whether it is a standard insertion
in Acts that apply where computers may have a role in the
administration of facilities. I make no apologies for repeating a point
that was made earlier: the failure of computers to operate properly is
one of the principal reasons why the CSA
has such a bad reputation for making the wrong decisions in the wrong
way at the wrong time and coming up with the wrong answer. The Minister
admitted as much this morning when he referred to the internal audit of
the CSA’s computer system, which he said had found 506 problems,
which is not a small number, of which 219 have been fixed, leaving 287
remaining. He was frank about the problem, for which I commend
him. I assume that
the Minister thinks that the problems will be fixed and that by the
time CMEC comes into existence its computer system will be up and
running and carrying out its functions. If it is not, the clause seems
rather a sweeping measure, as it provides that a decision made by
computer is to be regarded as a decision of the Secretary of State, or,
in future, of the commission. The fact that it is a standard provision
should in no way be taken to undermine my concerns about the idea,
because unless the Minister can offer reassurances that the IT problems
will be sorted out, the concept behind the proposal will not engender
public confidence or the confidence of Members of Parliament in the
operation of the new
system.
The amendment
provides a good opportunity for the Minister to say a little about the
IT systems that CMEC intends to use, how the Government intend it to
operate those systems and in what respect it will be different from how
the CSA operated its IT systems, which the Minister admitted were beset
by problems from the start.
The Government seem to have
rejected the idea of a completely new IT system, so the proposed
insertion in the schedule provides new responsibilities for those
computers, if only legally, in name. The Minister will correct me if I
am wrong, but at the same time it seems that CMEC will take over the
legacy computer system of the CSA, albeit, one hopes, with the
remaining 287 faults corrected. No doubt a number of new IT releases
will be brought in to allow the new formula and the new rules set out
in the Bill and in the regulations to be applied.
The report by the Work and
Pensions Committee referred to the Child Support Agency’s record
of serial IT failures and made the point that there is no evidence that
a new system will be any more effective than the last two. The National
Audit Office report on IT projects, “Delivering successful
IT-enabled business change”, which I am sure is familiar to
every member of the Committee, highlighted the complexities of the
technical problems encountered when joining new and old systems in a
variety of settings.
In responding to this brief
debate, perhaps the Minister will explain his strategy for
CMEC’s computer system. If it is a final decision, will he say
why he has decided that the legacy computer system will be improved
rather than having a new system? If that is the case, how does he
intend to address the issues that were highlighted by the National
Audit Office about the problems that exist in transitions between IT
systems when patches and new releases have to be put in place? I would
guess that in part the failure of that process in the past has been the
cause of many of the problems that our constituents have experienced
with the CSA. If a similar process is to be entered
into again, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that it does
not result in the same lack of
effectiveness, lack of competence and extreme frustration and anger on
the part of users of the
system?
Mr.
Harper:
The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will
be brief. I am guessing that the Minister has a technical explanation
for the proposal, but I hope that he will address the philosophical
concept of computers being able to make decisions in the normal sense
of the word, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.
Computers
can only implement instructions laid down for them by human beings.
Given past problems, the responsibilities of some of the software
providers and the implementation of the IT systems, it would be worth
the Minister explaining whether this part of the schedule transfers any
responsibility or if, as I suspect, it is just a technical measure to
avoid a legal challenge made by people paying maintenance to any aspect
of the process that involves an IT system. Perhaps he will explain the
use of the words “decision” and “computer”
in respect of the wider philosophical
point.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s invitation
to get philosophical, which I will do in a moment. I always welcome
such invitations.
I
want first to respond to the questions raised about IT systems by the
hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who
reiterated some of the facts that I gave the Committee about the
current situation. Of course we must get the IT right, as I said.
The hon. Gentleman
asked about future arrangements. CMEC will simply take over the
existing CSA IT systems, bearing in mind that in the meantime it will
have gone through the operational improvement plan enhancements, which
I outlined in more detail this morning. The CSA’s existing IT
contract will novate to CMEC, and from that starting position it will
be open to the commission to determine its IT strategy, giving
consideration to its objectives and available
resources.
Paragraph
51 to schedule 3 inserts new paragraph 50A to the Child Support Act
1991. That simply replicates an existing provision under the Social
Security Act 1998; and section 2 of that Act stipulates that decisions
can be made or issued not just by a person acting on behalf of the
Secretary of State, but also:
“by a computer for whose
operation such an officer is
responsible”.
That
applies specifically to decisions made under, among others, the Child
Support Acts of 1991 and 1995. The provision was originally introduced
to allow automated decision
making.
Social
security and child support legislation states specifically that
decisions must be made by particular officers or the Secretary of
State, and, by extension, officials acting on his behalf. Technically,
prior to the Social Security Act 1998, no decision could be made by a
computer. At that time, many processes were automated; computers would
take relevant data and often make complex calculations, for example,
about the amount of benefit owing. However, because there needed to be
a “decision maker”—that is a technical
term—an officer would have to sign off a computer
printout for each person affected. Section 2 of the 1998 Act did away
with the need for that laborious and bureaucratic clerical process. The
amendment would require that process to be reinstated for any decision
taken by the commission. That would, no doubt, require changes to
existing processes and IT, and would build back in inefficiencies that
were removed in
1998. I reassure the
Committee, as the Committee was reassured in 1998, that staff rather
than computers will be used to make decisions requiring the exercise of
discretion or judgment. The decisions that will be automated are those
that follow set rules and processes, such as for maintenance
calculations. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked me to do, I
can reassure the Committee on the general notion of computers making
decisions, which sends an Orwellian chill down the spine. We should
think of it more as computers determining an outcome, based on criteria
or rules established by the true decision makers—the
commission’s personnel or, indeed, us. The software applies the
law to the facts of the case. Computers are not exercising judgment
between options, which is what most of us would normally understand by
the concept of a decision. Furthermore, they are simply doing what they
are told to. The ultimate responsibility remains, of course, with those
who do the
telling.
I
hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey will withdraw the
amendment.
Danny
Alexander:
The Minister is clear on the
philosophical and legal nature of the amendment. I do not want to
venture into the metaphysical territory that he explored. It was
enlightening, however, in that I had not been aware that social
security legislation and other such legislation contained what might be
described as a computer-says-no clause. That is a useful piece of
information for an after-dinner speech, and it would go into my diary,
if I kept one.
Andrew
Selous:
Will the Minister say something
about the issue frequently complained about by our
constituents—of computers churning out different assessments,
perhaps on the same day? Is there anything within paragraph 51 in
respect of those responsible for computers having some sort of duty to
ensure that they are not churning out wildly different maintenance
calculations that arrive on the same day, on the same doormat, and
cause real anger and
consternation?
6
pm
Mr.
Plaskitt:
We have been having a discussion about computers
making decisions and a computer making one decision might be one thing,
but a computer making half a dozen or a dozen different decisions on
the same day and sending them all to the same person at the same time,
is not acceptable. It does happen and it is exactly the sort of thing
that the operational improvement plan fixes are designed to put
right.
Danny
Alexander:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
3 agreed to.
Clause
13
Transfer
of
employees
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Harper:
I have two points. The first we touched on briefly
in the last debate and it focuses on the people who are going to be
transferred to CMEC. Many of the problems that have been experienced by
parents and families in the maintenance process have not been caused by
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. In
some ways, the staff of the agency are as much victims of the process.
It came up during the evidence-taking session with the Minister and the
chief executive of the agency that the morale in the agency was quite
high and the staff were looking forward to this process taking place.
It was worth getting that on the
record.
I have one
specific question for the Minister, in light of our debate on clause 8.
He was keen not to fetter or limit the scope and flexibility of the
commission, which is why clause 13(3)(a) amends the TUPE regulations to
change the trade union recognition procedures that are standard in TUPE
recognition, and removes the limitation that is normally there. That
seems to fetter the role of the commission slightly and make it more
difficult for it to take a different position in relation to trade
union recognition. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain
the logic behind that as TUPE regulations do not normally require that
to be the
case.
Paul
Rowen:
I agree that the clause is important. I was
grateful to the Minister for agreeing this morning that the results of
staff survey would be placed in the Library. I understand why
subsections (2) and (3) are included. They modify the TUPE regulations
so that existing trade unions who represent CSA employees can continue
to do so. I am sure that most Members agree that that is a particularly
important process in that it gives certainty to those employees that
they will continue to get the same
recognition.
I want
to ask the Minister about subsection (5) and the circumstances in which
he envisages an order-making power to exclude some people from
transferring under the TUPE terms being used. I note that it is a
negative resolution, so there is little opportunity for debate unless
it is prayed against. Who does the Minister think would be covered by
this subsection? Clearly, if it is widely exercised, it would cause
concern to current employees of the CSA. Perhaps the Minister can tell
us which employees could be affected by this subsection and why it is
subject to a negative resolution.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
As hon. Members know, we intend to transfer the
child support functions, which are currently the responsibility of the
Secretary of State, to the commission in 2008, at which point the CSA
will cease to exist and the commission will be made responsible for
delivering child maintenance services.
Clause 13 will ensure that,
when those functions are transferred, all the people employed by the
CSA will also transfer to the commission. In other words, it will
ensure that, from day one, the commission will have the people that it
needs to fulfil its responsibilities. There are exceptions, as the hon.
Member for Rochdale said, and there are good reasons for them. We
therefore expect to use clause 13(5) to exclude from the transfer those
who are working at the CSA as consultants or working there under
contract for a private sector organisation at the time of
transfer.
The people
employed by the CSA are its biggest asset. They will be critical to the
development of the modern service that needs to be put in place. Our
staff will provide the commission with a strong base on which to build.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the agency’s
staff. Over the past few months, my fellow Ministers in the Department
and I have held question and answer discussion sessions at various CSA
offices throughout the country, because we wanted the opportunity to
discuss with staff this substantial change. Those meetings were widely
welcomed by the staff involved, who, quite understandably, had a series
of questions and some concerns about the big change that is happening
in their organisation.
What came out of those
meetings——and continues to come out of them as we hold
them——was the huge commitment of the CSA staff, not only
to their current task, to which their commitment is beyond any
question, but to making CMEC work. After all, they want to be part of a
successful child maintenance operation and they are prepared to give
their all to help us to achieve that. Many of them have worked for the
agency for a long time and have been in the difficult spot of working
with a flawed design, which has been a tough task.
I can report that the staff
are pleased with the introduction of the operational improvement plan.
They have seen the tangible benefit of that additional investment. They
see it as essential preparation of the ground, which we are going
through with their help, for a smooth transition to CMEC. We need to do
our best to look after the staff, who have worked extraordinarily hard
and with great commitment to do their best with the CSA. They want to
help us to deliver the marked improvement that CMEC will
represent.
Andrew
Selous:
I want to put on record the official
Opposition’s gratitude to the staff of the CSA. We all recognise
that they share our frustration that child maintenance has not been
conducted as successfully as they would have liked. I have met CSA
staff who have travelled to my constituency office to deal with
individual cases. They have been unfailingly courteous and have shared
my frustration at not being able to resolve some of the cases on which
we have worked together. I therefore echo the Minister’s
remarks.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s
comments, as I am sure will staff throughout the
agency.
Clause 13
will provide much-needed assurance to staff involved in the transfer.
It will ensure that the protection offered by TUPE applies to the
transfer, which will provide a clear guarantee to staff that the
transfer will not affect their employment or their terms and
conditions. The Committee will see that we have made separate provision
to protect pensions in subsection (4).
I was asked why we are
amending the trade union paragraphs. TUPE regulation 6 provides for a
group of employees transferring under TUPE to retain access to their
existing trade unions. However, because of the way in which the
regulation is worded, it could be interpreted not to apply to the
transfer of people to the commission. Clause 13(3) therefore includes a
specific
provision to ensure that the commission must recognise independent trade
unions currently recognised by the Secretary of State. The clause
ensures that we are entirely in line with the Cabinet Office statement
of practice on such transfers, which sets out clear guidelines on the
treatment of staff and which should be followed whenever there is
organisational change within the public sector. That is unequivocal
about the fact that staff involved in transfers of functions should be
treated fairly and consistently and their rights should be respected.
Specifically, it states that departments must
“ensure that legislation
effecting transfers of functions between public sector bodies makes
provision for staff to transfer and on a basis that follows the
principles of TUPE.”
That is exactly what this clause does. A
number of provisions in the Bill should help to allay any concerns that
our staff might have. The Bill provides that people will retain their
terms and conditions on transfer, that they will continue to have
access to the principal civil service pensions scheme and, as I have
been saying, that their existing trade unions will be recognised by the
commission.
I know
that there are concerns about whether terms and conditions can be
changed immediately after transfer. Let me reassure CSA staff now that
the new employer cannot lawfully impose different terms and conditions
without the agreement of the individual employee or trade union, and
even then can do so only if the new terms and conditions are more
favourable to the
employee.
As an
additional measure, we will enable staff who move to the commission to
have access to Department for Work and Pensions vacancies for at least
three years. We are also in discussion with the Cabinet Office to
secure approval for people working in the commission to apply for
inter-departmental vacancies advertised on the civil service
recruitment gateway
website.
Clause 13 is
critical both for the success of the commission and for the reassurance
of the people currently employed by CSA.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 13
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
