HC Deb 22 November 1994 vol 250 cc131-3W
Ms Coffey

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a final decision will be made on the review of technology and staffing in the Defence Accounts Agency.

Mr. Freeman

I expect to take a decision on the Defence Accounts Agency mainframes rationalisation project, which will shortly be submitted for MOD and Treasury approval, early in the new year.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which consultants were commissioned to undertake the recent study into the feasibility of rationalising the Defence Accounts Agency's mainframe computers at Cheadle Hulme, Bath and Liverpool; what assessment they made of the suitability of each of those three locations; and which of those three locations, if any, they nominated as a preferred location for the concentration of computing facilities.

Mr. Freeman

[holding answer 21 November 1994]: The commissioning of this study is within the delegated responsibility of the agency's chief executive and I have asked him to reply.

Letter from M. Dymond to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 22 November 1994: You asked the Secretary of State for Defence which consultants were commissioned to undertake the recent study into the feasibility of rationalising the Defence Accounts Agency's Mainframe Computers at Cheadle Hulme, Bath and Liverpool; what assessment they made of the suitability of each of those locations' and which of those three locations, if any, they nominated as a preferred location for the concentration of computing facilities. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply. The DAA Mainframes Rationalisation Project was undertaken mainly by an in-house team. Consultancy assistance was obtained as required for specific elements of the project, such as communications network design and business risk assessment. There was no consultancy assessment of the suitability of the three locations as part of the Project and no nomination by consultants of a preferred location.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role, structure, and current membership of the Defence Accounts Agency information technology board; and what information he has concerning the numbers of the members of the board who reside in or around(a) Bath, (b) Liverpool, or (c) Cheadle Hulme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman

[holding answer 21 November 1994]: This is a matter for the agency's chief executive and I have asked him to reply.

Letter from M. Dymond to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 22 November 1994: You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role, structure, and current membership of the Defence Accounts Agency's Information Technology Board; and what information he has concerning the numbers of members of that Board who reside in or around:

  1. (a) Bath
  2. (b) Liverpool or
  3. (c) Cheadle Hulme;
and if he will make a statement. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply. The DDA's IT Board sets its IT strategy, within MOD's corporate IT strategy, and oversees major IT plans and projects. The Board comprises myself as Chief Executive, my three operational Directors, and my Assistant Directors responsible for Finance and IT at the corporate level, together with a senior representative from the Ministry's central IT support organisation. Apart from one operational Director, based at Liverpool, and the central MOD representative, based at Swindon, all members of the Agency's IT Board are based at the Agency's Corporate headquarters in Bath.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the potential cost savings offered by the choice of(a) Cheadle Hulme, (b) Liverpool and (c) Bath for the location of Defence Accounts Agency computing facilities.

Mr. Freeman

[holding answer 21 November 1994j: This is a matter for the agency's chief executive and I have asked him to reply. I understand he has already written to the hon. Member stating that on cost comparison the advantage lay narrowly with Bath.

Letter from M. Dymond to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 22 November 1994: You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the potential costs and savings offered by the choice of:

  1. (a) Cheadle Hulme
  2. (b) Liverpool
  3. (c) Bath
for the location of the Defence Accounts Agency's computing facilities. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply. The DRA Mainframes Rationalisation Project has just completed its full study stage and will shortly be submitted for approval. Ultimately the decision on this major project rests with Ministers. The project team's assessment showed that compared with separate replacement of the computers the rationalisation approach would save some £3 million per annum. The comparison of costs made in the Agency's study narrowly favoured Bath. The other factors tended to favour either Bath or Cheadle Hulme, the collective balance of these other factors being narrowly with Cheadle Hulme. These differences were seen to be too marginal to support a recommendation for a specific choice of site by the study team. The decision by the Agency's IT Board to seek approval for the Bath location was based on wider corporate and strategic implications, particularly the Department's IT strategies for Finance and Civilian Pay/Personnel.