Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 31 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.


Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

One thing is certain: no computer owned by CMEC or the CSA can take any account whatever of voluntary arrangements, because no one knows what they are or what they will be. We spoke briefly of the trials and tribulations of the CSA computer problems, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I referred to them at Second Reading. For the noble Lord to accuse me then of the pot calling the kettle black—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, might say, were she here, ““du””—as he did on that occasion, was somewhat over the top. Neither I nor my party have had the 10-odd years to do anything about those undoubted problems that the Government have had. On Tuesday, yet again we heard from the Minister that the EDS computer system is now expected by the end of the financial year—I think that he said the end of March, which would be about right. He keeps making these assurances. A few months ago, in a discussion on an order, the Minister assured me that proper contractual and tendering arrangements are now in place across government, which includes the CSA, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs and so on. We have yet to have proof that that is correct. We will await the new computer at the CSA by the end of March with great interest. But, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that the prognosis is far from good. However, this Bill forces the promotion of an open competition to replace it, should it then need replacing because it is yet again defective, overdue, perhaps again over-budget and either under or over specification, but until it is up and running none of us can make any judgment about it whatever. Promoting an open competition is what should have happened throughout the past 10 years; it certainly happened under a Conservative Government. Sometimes, I freely admit, the open competition did not produce the results that one expected and desired. I cannot see that putting such a condition in the Bill will make the situation any better now. What is necessary is for the people with knowledge to take a grip on the situation. Amendment No. 204 is perhaps slightly different. I understand it to be a probing amendment asking the Minister to give us adequate assurance that inaccurate information will not be transferred or—as we have seen recently—be lost in an attempt at transfer when the various bits of information that will go between CMEC and HMRC, for example, travel backwards and forwards. It is essential that we are given confirmation of that.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c393GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Child support Children Contracts Contact orders Absent parents Contracts for services Child Support Agency Fees and charges Families ICT Information Maintenance Parents Poverty Parliamentary scrutiny Welfare tax credits Voluntary organisations Separation Children's centres Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
Legislation
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk