Clause 9
Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill
12:30 pm
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)
We have reached clause 9. It is an extremely important clause, and it is very good as far as it goes. However, we contend that it does not go nearly far enough, which is why we seek to amend it fairly extensively. There are six amendments in this group—four tabled by the Conservatives and two by the Liberal Democrats—and I find myself in broad agreement with all six.
Amendment No. 10 would have the effect of requiring CMEC’s annual report to the Secretary of State to report not only on the extent of contracting out by CMEC, but on the extent of the agency arrangements covered by clause 7, which we have just debated. We know from that clause that any relevant authority can be used by CMEC in the course of the discharge of its functions. I listened carefully to the debate, but I do not think that the matter came up, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an idea of the range of different relevant authorities with which CMEC might make agency arrangements. It would also be useful to know what functions and services are likely to be contracted out or provided by those other relevant authorities. Does the Minister have in mind any limit on the extent of the contracting out or agency provision of services, or is he completely open-minded on that? Are there any areas in which he thinks that contracting out or the use of agencies by other relevant authorities would be particularly appropriate?
Amendment No. 11 would require CMEC to give details of each authorisation to contract out a function, and of how successful each contractor had been in achieving the commission’s objectives. We have no objection in principle to contracting out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said during the earlier debate, but it would be useful to know which organisations were acting on CMEC’s behalf and how successful they were in achieving their objectives.
There is, of course, a danger that CMEC’s reputation could be damaged if its contractors do not act with high standards. The Minister will want them to have the highest possible standards, so hopefully that will be written into the contract terms and there will be ongoing monitoring and review. It is important that we receive such assurances now given the huge issues of reputation with which the CSA is dealing. We must now state how we want the contractors to behave, if CMEC is to avoid having to deal with damage to its reputation in future.
One Parent Families has said that there is always a risk with contracting out by a Government organisation of the details of the contractor’s performance being hidden behind the veil of commercial confidentiality. Of course, there will always have to be some commercial confidentiality. That is the harsh reality of the business world, but it is important that the public interest in knowing whether public money is being spent wisely is not overlooked. That is why CMEC must be placed under a statutory obligation in the Bill to disclose the performance of its contractors, at least once a year.
It is not as though there is not a lot of history to the issue. Let us consider the excellent report of the Public Accounts Committee, “Child Support Agency: Implementation of the Child Support Reforms”. Somewhat bafflingly, it was published the day after the Bill’s Second Reading. I, for one, found that particularly unhelpful. I wish it had been available before that debate. Page 11 of the report sets out the relevant financial details of a large number of contractors. Such information has come into the public domain in a useful way through the good offices of the Public Accounts Committee, but I would be more reassured if the Bill required such information to be provided annually so that CMEC has to prepare it regularly.
It is also important that the commission justifies its decisions regarding the contracting out of its functions in terms of its objectives under clause 2 rather than only on cost grounds. I hope that I have been helpful to the Committee by explaining the rationale behind amendment No. 11.