Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This brings us back to the thorny subject of the computer systems that will support CMEC, which we have touched on several times during our discussions. New clause 13 would help the computer systems to make a success of the new commission. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Public Accounts Committee’s 37th report for the 2006-07 Session said that

“the Department did not maintain the capability to be an intelligent customer”

in outsourcing most of its IT capability to EDS. Having a single senior departmental official responsible for overseeing the implementation of the computer system is an issue that Committee members have raised repeatedly with departmental officials who have come before the Committee.

It is not as though we have not been here before, not only in this Department but across Government. After some brief research this morning, I came up with the following list of Government IT projects in which things have gone wrong—the Inland Revenue tax credit system, the passport office, the Ministry of Defence asset tracking software, national insurance recording, the central veterinary laboratory database for BSE, the Libra project for magistrates courts, the national probation service’s information strategy, the Criminal Records Bureau, the National Air Traffic Services system and the national programme for information technology in the NHS, as well as the moving of the GCHQ computer system.

That is a brief list. Thankfully, not all of them were at the Department for Work and Pensions, but it is worth putting on record that the recent history of Government—of both parties, it is fair to say—has not been glorious. The new clause is a small, practical  proposal to ensure that there is one individual who will see the contract all the way through. In the civil service, as elsewhere, it is not unusual for people to be moved after a time, perhaps because of other opportunities that fit their career path, but with public sector contracts of this size and importance, there is a valid case for one person earning stars on the career path by seeing the project through. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.

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

Before I respond specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I shall respond generally. It is a kind of mantra—time and time again we hear public sector IT contracts slated by people reeling off a list such as that. I urge, however, that it be kept in proportion. There have been some huge, remarkably successful public sector IT contracts. I pray in aid the IT programme in my Department that introduced direct payment of benefits after the phasing-out of order books. It was a huge programme and a massive investment, and it came off almost without a hitch. We have examples of projects that worked very well, as well as those that throw up problems.

It is also important to keep the issue in balance. It is not as though the same problems do not exist in the private sector. Some huge private sector IT contracts have not exactly gone smoothly. It is not just that only the poor old Government have IT problems. The issue can come up in private sector as well as public sector operations. I say that to balance the comments predictably made by the hon. Gentleman, but I reassure him that as a non-departmental public body, the commission will have to adhere to the EU and public sector procurement regulations and all associated requirements regarding value for money and transparency. In addition to the procedures under the regulations, the commission will follow the guidelines set out by the Office of Government Commerce to ensure that it maintains a rigorous approach to its procurement.

On the hon. Gentleman’s idea in the new clause, the Department for Work and Pensions and the agency already have in place a dedicated contract manager to oversee the current IT contracts. It is expected that that practice will be continued by the commission once it has been established. It will develop a commercial strategy of its own, which, as previously mentioned, will follow EU and public sector procurement regulations and Office of Government Commerce procedures, which promote the importance of contracting authorities having in place a dedicated procurement and contract management system. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman’s objective is met and that his new clause is therefore unnecessary, so I hope that he will agree to withdraw the motion.

Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I have heard what the Minister had said, and of course he is right that there have been huge IT projects that have been successful. He might have mentioned the Pension Service system in his own Department, which has been reasonably successful. However, independent observers and those who study the effect on our public finances agree that the overall record shows that we must do a lot better than we have in the past. Sadly, vast amounts of public money have  been wasted, and the inefficiencies have meant that people using services have not been well served.

I listened carefully to what the Minister has said. He said that a senior manager is currently responsible for the project, and I believe that he said that it was expected that that person would remain in place in CMEC when it is established, but I shall stick to my guns on this one. We know enough history to learn from what has gone wrong in the past, and I wish it to be stated in the Bill that that individual will indeed stay in place until the computer contract has been bedded down. I shall therefore press the new clause to a Division.