Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in clause 39, page 36, line 6, at end insert ‘(subject to subsection (3))’.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in clause 39, page 36, line 6, at end insert—

‘(2) The Secertary of State must publish a report on the systems that will be put in place to facilitate information sharing between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Commission.

(3) A Minister of the Crown must make a motion in each House of Parliament in relation to the report mentioned in subsection (2) before the coming into effect of Schedule 6.’.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 refer to schedule 6, which deals with the use of information. I am sure that Members will recall our discussions in Committee when we considered several amendments dealing with the relationship between the commission and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In particular, we addressed concerns about the systems in both the Inland Revenue and the commission, and about whether all the information from the different computer systems at the Inland Revenue would be readily available to the commission. The specific issue that was raised was that of the non-resident parent who might seek to maximise their tax position to minimise their payments to the parent with care.

What this small amendment—again, it is very much a probing amendment—is seeks to do is to elucidate from the Government what particular process is currently in place. As I have said, several computer systems are already operating within the Inland Revenue, and they do not necessarily talk to each other. There is also the issue of the free flow of information to the commission. Before the new system becomes operational, we want the Government to present a report to Parliament that sets out how the system will operate.

We know from the history the problems that have been experienced with IT systems. Will we be embarking on a whole new IT system? If we are not doing that, what steps will be put in place to ensure that the existing system copes?

Albert Owen (Ynys Môn, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about different Departments talking to each other. However, does he agree that the role of the Select Committee is to  scrutinise each Department and to ensure that its reports are up to date? The Select Committee will get that information by scrutinising properly.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the Select Committee will have a vital role to play, to ensure that, once the commission is up and running, the system is working. However, the purpose of the amendment is different. We know what has often happened in the past—when new IT systems have been introduced or there has been a new way of working, it has taken months or years for such information to become available.

From our previous discussions about the recovery process, we know the number of amendments that are being made to the current system to make it operate properly. I seek an indication from the Government about what will happen with those IT systems. Will there be a full-scale rewrite? If not, how will we ensure that that large amount of information is accurate? We have previously discussed the problems that the parent with care has when the non-resident parent seeks to deny the information, and also the concerns about the onus that is always being put on the parent with care. We fully support the use of Inland Revenue systems, but we want the Government to ensure that those systems—as I have said, several systems within Inland Revenue do not automatically talk to each other—work to the benefit of the parent with care and do not, as they do at the moment, considerably disadvantage them.

The purpose of asking for a report before the process starts is to enable the Select Committee, once the commission is operational, to have a benchmark. The Government have said that certain things will happen and that this is the process that will be gone through. The Select Committee will then be in a position to monitor progress. I am sure that the Government and members of the Committee agree that that is something that we all want to see. We want to see the commission get off to a flying start; we want to ensure that the correct systems are in place; and we want to ensure that the Select Committee has the wherewithal to monitor that process.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor. As I shall be away this afternoon, may I say anticipatorily how much I have enjoyed your and your colleague’s chairmanship of this Committee, which has been very constructive? I hope that the debate continues in that vein.

The hon. Member for Rochdale is right to raise the issue, and I agree with his general judgment that the resources and information available to HMRC should also be available to make the most accurate assessment of child support liabilities. There is no difference between us on that matter or on the specific intentions, which the hon. Gentleman has explained, about the need for a public understanding that the computer systems are going to talk to each other and are going to be fit for purpose. We are all at one on that.

It is worth a moment of the Committee’s time, if only because I enjoy Ministers giving me assurances, briefly to consider some of the civil liberties arguments. The clause’s heading is “Use of information”, and it  occurs to me that there is always the potential—Ministers need to be aware of this and to acknowledge it—for abuse of information. I would simply like the Minister in responding to the amendment to give us assurances, which I recall, for example, being given to me on the Welfare Reform Act 2007, that the information will be used, as the schedule states, for the purposes of functions relating to child support, which is virtually the rubric of the schedule, and only for that purpose. The first point is that there will be security systems in place.

I flag up two particular concerns. First, persons within the agency or commission should use the system only when they are trained and when it is necessary for them to do so. It should not be available for fishing expeditions by other members of the commission. For example, there is the possibility of the parent with care seeking to find out information—there will be a strong temptation in some cases to do that, but it should be resisted.

Secondly, there is growing concern on both sides of the House about the retention of information, for example, on DNA databases for persons who may have no specific criminality or for whom the issue is long past. I am concerned about the retention of such material, and whether it might be in some way at a lower level of security or after a passage of time, straying out in to the public domain, where it should, could and generally will remain highly sensitive and properly controlled. That is not impossible. I do not wish my comments in any way to subvert Ministers’ intentions, which are both honourable and sensible, but we must always go through the business of assurances in such a sensitive area.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick & Leamington, Labour)

I understand entirely why the hon. Member for Rochdale has raised the issue. He is right to remind us of the history on IT and the experiences that we have had with the agency and its system. He is right to seek reassurances, and he is not alone in that. We all want reassurances about the IT.

The IT question divides into two parts, and in our brief debate we have strayed over both of them. First, there is the issue of the robustness of the IT within the agency as it is currently, and within what will become CMEC. We have had some discussions about the famous 509 defects and the speed with which they are being put right. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that, as part of the operational improvement plan, there is very heavy investment in re-engineering the existing IT platform, and the bulk of the defects have been corrected. We are absolutely determined to ensure that the legacy system that moves under CMEC’s control is fit for purpose.

The second part of the IT question is the inter-relationship between IT and different parts of Government, and the exchange of data. The hon. Member for Daventry, who spoke on that matter, is of course right that we seek the reassurances that he wants. That is why laws have been passed to set the framework and to give us the means to control that important and sensitive area. Both human rights legislation and data protection legislation have been fully recognised in the way in which we are proceeding, and gateways and security systems are in place to ensure that data is transferred for the purpose for  which it is intended and no other, and that there is no access beyond that which is authorised by the steps that we are taking.

The historical income information acquired from HMRC forms a central part of the proposed maintenance calculation arrangements. The use of HMRC historical income data and the proposed system of annual reviews will help to ensure that maintenance calculations are made more quickly, that they remain up to date and that the opportunity for manipulation of income by non-resident parents is minimised. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the link providing HMRC data to the commission functions both efficiently and effectively.

We are currently working on how the information links will be established. We have set up a cross-governmental working group with colleagues from HMRC and the information division of the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the process receives all of the attention that it requires. We intend that work to inform the development of regulations that set out how the transfer of information will take place and how the commission will use it to the fullest effect. The work that we are doing will also benefit the commission as it considers the development and implementation of the new systems and how they will be used by staff.

I assure hon. Members that we will take every step necessary to ensure the smooth and effective transfer of information between HMRC and the commission, and we will be happy to make information on this topic available as and when it is appropriate to do so. Of course, the Select Committee will rightly want to pursue that matter as we proceed. Until then, I do not believe that there is any need to require a report to be presented as a motion to Parliament. Furthermore, schedule 6 sets out the information-sharing gateways in relation to not only HMRC, but a number of Departments. The amendment, and the report that it would require, concern the information gateway between the commission and HMRC and so would miss part of the picture in any case.

All the information-sharing gateways are important to the commission and are essential to enable it to carry out its functions. The gateways are also essential to HMRC, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland Office to enable them to carry out their functions. If the coming into effect of schedule 6 were dependent upon a motion submitted to each House of Parliament, it would not only delay the ability of the commission to use historical tax information in the calculation of child maintenance, but impact on the functions of a range of other Departments, agencies and bodies. The hon. Member for Rochdale was right to raise the issue, as was the hon. Member for Daventry, and I hope that I have given them the reassurances that they seek. In that light, I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.