---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

It is not a matter that has been brought to my attention in the various discussions that we have had over the month, but I will specifically check on that and revert to my noble friend. As I was saying, at the highest level, there are two questions that the commission must resolve. The first is whether to seek provision of IT services independently, or whether to remain within the scope of DWP contracts and negotiate in conjunction with the department. The second is whether to replace or maintain the existing CSA computer system. These are obviously hugely important matters and I believe that it would be wrong to impose a solution, as would the amendment, on the commission. We are, after all, recruiting an independent and expert board precisely because we want it to take decisions such as these. Furthermore, on perhaps a more technical point, I believe that the amendment oversimplifies the range of potential options. It is possible, for example, that the commission would want to maintain the current system for some services and functions, but develop a new solution for others. The proposed amendment would prevent such an approach. However, regardless of the approach that the commission takes, I can be absolutely clear that whatever contracts it may enter into, they will be let through open competition in accordance with government procurement rules. These rules state very clearly that any government procurement exercise must be through competition that is open, fair and transparent. Importantly, that automatically applies to the process of renewing a contract that has ended. These are rules to which the commission must adhere. Amendment No. 204 would require the Office of Government Commerce to provide assurances that the information technology system meets all the standards and specifications in the contract to supply information before the HMRC data are supplied to the commission, or to a person providing services to the commission in relation to its child support functions. As I am sure we are all aware, the intention in Schedule 6 is for the commission to benefit from the information gateways which already exist between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Northern Ireland Department and HMRC. So it has access to all the necessary information required to carry out its child support functions. We are all aware that the information provided by HMRC will be essential to the operation of the commission, and so we will take all precautions necessary to ensure the smooth and effective establishment of systems suitable for this purpose. I want to inform Members of the Committee that we are currently investigating, and I am in discussion with HMRC on the details of the HMRC data transfer. Additionally, the Office of Government Commerce is already involved and is providing assurances on the overall child maintenance redesign programme within the department that oversees the establishment of the commission. For those reasons, I believe that the proposed risk assessment from the Office of Government Commerce is not necessary. I would also want the commission carefully to consider and make decisions in its IT requirements, clearly undertaking appropriate reviews, and in time before the planned maintenance system comes into operation in 2010. Perhaps I may pick up on a couple of comments that were made about EDS and the existing system. Clearly, there have been problems with it. A great deal of work has been carried out to improve the stability of the new computer system—CS2—and operational performance has improved to the point where contracted service levels are consistently being met. The agency is planning a major IT release by the end of this financial year, which will resolve many of the remaining performance issues. Of the 506 system defects agreed in 2005, 219 of the most critical were resolved as of October 2007. The enhanced systems will establish a more stable IT platform on which the commission will be able to build. In particular, the agency’s telephony has shown tremendous levels of improvement. The average time taken to answer calls from the queue fell from one minute 40 seconds in 2005 to only 21 seconds in September 2007. So progress has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made broader reference to the OIP, but perhaps we should find another occasion to go through some of the detail of that. Perhaps I will just use the opportunity to say that if you look at performance to date—we are not two thirds of the way through the three-year programme—more children are benefiting; maintenance collections have risen; the number of uncleared applications has fallen; and the telephony has improved dramatically. So there are positive results from that work and it is only nearing the end of its second year, with one year to go. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lord with withdraw his amendment.