Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in schedule 3, page 61, line 31, leave out paragraph 51.

This is a probing amendment. Paragraph 51 inserts a new section, 50A, which states:

“Any decision falling to be made under or by virtue of this Act by the Commission may be made, not only by a person authorised to exercise the Commission’s decision-making function, but also by a computer for whose operation such a person is responsible.”

I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether it is a standard insertion in Acts that apply where computers may have a role in the administration of facilities. I make no apologies for repeating a point that was made earlier: the failure of computers to operate properly is one of the principal reasons why the CSA  has such a bad reputation for making the wrong decisions in the wrong way at the wrong time and coming up with the wrong answer. The Minister admitted as much this morning when he referred to the internal audit of the CSA’s computer system, which he said had found 506 problems, which is not a small number, of which 219 have been fixed, leaving 287 remaining. He was frank about the problem, for which I commend him.

I assume that the Minister thinks that the problems will be fixed and that by the time CMEC comes into existence its computer system will be up and running and carrying out its functions. If it is not, the clause seems rather a sweeping measure, as it provides that a decision made by computer is to be regarded as a decision of the Secretary of State, or, in future, of the commission. The fact that it is a standard provision should in no way be taken to undermine my concerns about the idea, because unless the Minister can offer reassurances that the IT problems will be sorted out, the concept behind the proposal will not engender public confidence or the confidence of Members of Parliament in the operation of the new system.

The amendment provides a good opportunity for the Minister to say a little about the IT systems that CMEC intends to use, how the Government intend it to operate those systems and in what respect it will be different from how the CSA operated its IT systems, which the Minister admitted were beset by problems from the start.

The Government seem to have rejected the idea of a completely new IT system, so the proposed insertion in the schedule provides new responsibilities for those computers, if only legally, in name. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but at the same time it seems that CMEC will take over the legacy computer system of the CSA, albeit, one hopes, with the remaining 287 faults corrected. No doubt a number of new IT releases will be brought in to allow the new formula and the new rules set out in the Bill and in the regulations to be applied.

The report by the Work and Pensions Committee referred to the Child Support Agency’s record of serial IT failures and made the point that there is no evidence that a new system will be any more effective than the last two. The National Audit Office report on IT projects, “Delivering successful IT-enabled business change”, which I am sure is familiar to every member of the Committee, highlighted the complexities of the technical problems encountered when joining new and old systems in a variety of settings.

In responding to this brief debate, perhaps the Minister will explain his strategy for CMEC’s computer system. If it is a final decision, will he say why he has decided that the legacy computer system will be improved rather than having a new system? If that is the case, how does he intend to address the issues that were highlighted by the National Audit Office about the problems that exist in transitions between IT systems when patches and new releases have to be put in place? I would guess that in part the failure of that process in the past has been the cause of many of the problems that our constituents have experienced with the CSA. If a similar process is to be entered into again, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that it does not result in the same lack of  effectiveness, lack of competence and extreme frustration and anger on the part of users of the system?

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. I am guessing that the Minister has a technical explanation for the proposal, but I hope that he will address the philosophical concept of computers being able to make decisions in the normal sense of the word, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

Computers can only implement instructions laid down for them by human beings. Given past problems, the responsibilities of some of the software providers and the implementation of the IT systems, it would be worth the Minister explaining whether this part of the schedule transfers any responsibility or if, as I suspect, it is just a technical measure to avoid a legal challenge made by people paying maintenance to any aspect of the process that involves an IT system. Perhaps he will explain the use of the words “decision” and “computer” in respect of the wider philosophical point.

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

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to get philosophical, which I will do in a moment. I always welcome such invitations.

I want first to respond to the questions raised about IT systems by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who reiterated some of the facts that I gave the Committee about the current situation. Of course we must get the IT right, as I said.

The hon. Gentleman asked about future arrangements. CMEC will simply take over the existing CSA IT systems, bearing in mind that in the meantime it will have gone through the operational improvement plan enhancements, which I outlined in more detail this morning. The CSA’s existing IT contract will novate to CMEC, and from that starting position it will be open to the commission to determine its IT strategy, giving consideration to its objectives and available resources.

Paragraph 51 to schedule 3 inserts new paragraph 50A to the Child Support Act 1991. That simply replicates an existing provision under the Social Security Act 1998; and section 2 of that Act stipulates that decisions can be made or issued not just by a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but also:

“by a computer for whose operation such an officer is responsible”.

That applies specifically to decisions made under, among others, the Child Support Acts of 1991 and 1995. The provision was originally introduced to allow automated decision making.

Social security and child support legislation states specifically that decisions must be made by particular officers or the Secretary of State, and, by extension, officials acting on his behalf. Technically, prior to the Social Security Act 1998, no decision could be made by a computer. At that time, many processes were automated; computers would take relevant data and often make complex calculations, for example, about the amount of benefit owing. However, because there needed to be a “decision maker”—that is a technical term—an officer would have to sign off a computer  printout for each person affected. Section 2 of the 1998 Act did away with the need for that laborious and bureaucratic clerical process. The amendment would require that process to be reinstated for any decision taken by the commission. That would, no doubt, require changes to existing processes and IT, and would build back in inefficiencies that were removed in 1998.

I reassure the Committee, as the Committee was reassured in 1998, that staff rather than computers will be used to make decisions requiring the exercise of discretion or judgment. The decisions that will be automated are those that follow set rules and processes, such as for maintenance calculations. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked me to do, I can reassure the Committee on the general notion of computers making decisions, which sends an Orwellian chill down the spine. We should think of it more as computers determining an outcome, based on criteria or rules established by the true decision makers—the commission’s personnel or, indeed, us. The software applies the law to the facts of the case. Computers are not exercising judgment between options, which is what most of us would normally understand by the concept of a decision. Furthermore, they are simply doing what they are told to. The ultimate responsibility remains, of course, with those who do the telling.

I hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey will withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister is clear on the philosophical and legal nature of the amendment. I do not want to venture into the metaphysical territory that he explored. It was enlightening, however, in that I had not been aware that social security legislation and other such legislation contained what might be described as a computer-says-no clause. That is a useful piece of information for an after-dinner speech, and it would go into my diary, if I kept one.

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

Will the Minister say something about the issue frequently complained about by our constituents—of computers churning out different assessments, perhaps on the same day? Is there anything within paragraph 51 in respect of those responsible for computers having some sort of duty to ensure that they are not churning out wildly different maintenance calculations that arrive on the same day, on the same doormat, and cause real anger and consternation?

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

We have been having a discussion about computers making decisions and a computer making one decision might be one thing, but a computer making half a dozen or a dozen different decisions on the same day and sending them all to the same person at the same time, is not acceptable. It does happen and it is exactly the sort of thing that the operational improvement plan fixes are designed to put right.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.