Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important that the House sets standards by which the commission should consider introducing the transition. A point that has continued to concern the Opposition during the Bill’s passage is the way in which the computer software and hardware seem to be always slipping inexorably further into the future. We are constantly told that these software upgrades are fundamental to producing the business information, productivity and savings around the whole operational improvement plan, which itself will not mature until March next year. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right to say that all this introduces uncertainty about the situation, even if it were not for the Child Support Agency’s history with regard to software and hardware issues. I am very sceptical about whether the software programmes are up to speed but the commission has no alternative but to stick with the programme provided by EDS. I am not at all confident that all these problems will be solved by 2010-13 with regard to the specifications established 10 years ago when this programme was put in place. Even at this late stage in the Bill—although this has been discussed previously—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is absolutely right to seek assurances on this point. Before it hands over responsibility for these issues the department should establish in its framework agreement with the commission an outline timetable in ministerial minds about what is reasonable; otherwise, the whole thing could slip. We have seen the hopes and expectations of clients who depend on these systems dashed. Therefore, it is incumbent on us all in this third iteration of this legislation to get an outline timetable that instils confidence that it will deliver the goods this time round.