Search Results

1-5 of 5 results for subject:Software

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Dept of Social Security;Social Security Benefits Agency

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his Answer of 31st October, Official Report, 355 c346-7W, what conclusions the Benefits Agency internal audit came to regarding the role of EDS in the duplication of income support payments on 17th and 18th January. - Inc text of...

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Social Security Benefits Agency

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

9 November 2000

For answer on

17 November 2000

Answered on

17 November 2000

Mr. Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000, Official Report, columns 346-47W, what conclusions the Benefits Agency internal audit came to regarding the role of EDS in the duplication of income support payments on 17 and 18 January. [138338] Mr. Rooker: The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my right hon. Friend. Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field, dated 17 November 2000: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Question asking what conclusions the Benefits Agency (BA) internal audit came to regarding the role of EDS in the duplication of income support payments on 17th and 18th January. The report concluded that responsibility for the error lay with DSS Information Technology Services Group (ITSG), Benefits Agency (BA) and EDS. The report did not apportion levels of responsibility; it identified errors on the part of all parties. The report concluded: `Following a technical problem, incorrect (re-start) action by ITSG led to the creation of the £10.5m Income Support file with an incomplete number of records. The EDS automated system to transfer files to BACS had limited in-built validation and reconciliation checks and this allowed the £10.5m file to be forwarded to BACS . . . Reconciliation checks undertaken within the BA identified a problem but the incident handling and escalation procedures were inadequate'. As mentioned in my response on 30 October, Official Report columns 346-347, the report contained a series of thirteen recommendations. EDS is a key stakeholder, working with DSS in the programme of activity to implement these recommendations, which include improvements to validation and reconciliation checks to prevent a reoccurrence of the original incident. My previous response provided more detail. I hope this additional information is helpful.

Date

17 November 2000

Reference

138338; 356 c804W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Social Security

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what the mainframe problems were in the period before the duplicated payments of income support started.

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Social Security

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

14 November 2000

Reference

138336; 356 c618W;356 c618-9W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether Sir John Day was aware of the incident at Wilmington, USA in 1989 concerning a Chinook HC1 at the time of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre accident; pursuant to his Answer dated 23rd October, Official Report,...

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 November 2000

Reference

356 c417W; 137390;137350

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew the extent of his Department's legal claim against the FADEC manufacturer, Textron Lycoming, at the time of their investigation into the fatal crash of RAF Chinook ZD576; if the engineering member of the...

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

13 July 2000

For answer on

25 July 2000

Answered on

25 July 2000

Mr. Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew the extent of his Department's legal claim against the FADEC manufacturer, Textron Lycoming, at the time of their investigation into the fatal crash of RAF Chinook ZD576; [131259] (2) if the engineering member of the RAF board of inquiry into RAF Chinook ZD576 informed the other members of that board as to the precise nature of the Wilmington incident, in which an RAF Chinook was severely damaged in 1989 as a result of an FADEC fault. [131258] Mr. Spellar: [holding answer 18 July 2000]: In the short time available it has not been possible to establish whether, at the time of their investigation into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew the extent of the Department's claim against Textron Lycoming. This litigation sought redress for faulty test procedures that caused a Chinook helicopter undergoing tests on the ground at Wilmington, USA to be severely damaged. We know that in their report to the RAF Board of Inquiry, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) states: In view of reports of a number of ongoing service difficulties experienced with the operation of FADEC, the Engine Change Units and FADEC were examined in some detail. The report goes on to say that: Strip examination of the engines indicated that both were running at high speed with turbines hot at the time of impact, and revealed no signs of pre-impact failure or malfunction that could have affected the operation of either engine. Thus, as the evidence available indicated that the engines were working normally up to the point of impact, it was reasonable to conclude that FADEC could not have been a factor in the accident. The action taken by MOD arising out of faulty test procedures in the early days of the system's development programme had no relevance to the accident under investigation. It is therefore irrelevant whether Sir William and Sir John were aware of the litigation against Textron Lycoming. Similarly it is irrelevant whether the engineering member of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Chinook ZD576 accident advised the other members of the Board about the test at Wilmington.

Date

25 July 2000

Reference

354 c550W;354 c550-1W; 131259;131258

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will preserve all files and papers relating to the procurement and introduction of the FADEC system for the Chinook Mk2. - (Holding answer 18 July 2000).

Asked by

Lord Field of Birkenhead (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

21 July 2000

Reference

354 c341W; 131257

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Month

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher