The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Helen
Goodman): It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship this afternoon, Mr.
Key. The
effect of the amendment would be to take from the Bill an order-making
power, subject to the affirmative procedure, for a future Government to
wind up the commission once its work is complete. I understand that the
hon. Member for Northavon has concerns about how the power might be
used. He would like to see a continuing role for the commission after
the target date of 2020. I would like to reassure hon. Members that the
power is in the Bill simply to avoid a future Government finding itself
with a statutory public body that has completed its work but remains in
existence because there is no ready means to bring it to an
end. I
am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire for
pointing out the technical deficiencies in the amendment. I was hoping
that the hon. Gentleman would tell us what Mrs. Gauke
thought, but he has not done so on this
occasion. Clause
7(4)(b) clearly states that the power can only be used on a date
falling after the target year. Furthermore, the explanatory notes
clearly state that it is the Government’s intention to use the
power only if they consider that there is no longer a role for the
commission. As
we have stated before, the order-making power is subject to the
affirmative procedure, which means that a future Government would need
to demonstrate to Parliament that there was no longer a role for the
commission. It would clearly not be appropriate to wind down the
commission if the targets had not been met. All Members know that
constraints on Government spending will continue into the next decade.
In that context, continuing to fund a public body that has no remit
after the target year would not be a sensible use of public
funds.
I understand
the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Northavon that the targets
could be breached after 2020. However, schedule 2 places a duty on the
Government to ensure that targets are met beyond the target year; if
breached, it would require regulations to be made setting out the steps
to meet them again. Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 allows regulations to be
made after 2020 relating to the provision of advice by the commission.
The Bill therefore envisages that the commission will continue to play
a role after 2020, if it is considered that it can still add
value.
Having
pointed out the back-stop position given in schedule 2, I hope that I
have satisfied the hon. Gentleman’s concern and that he will
withdraw the amendment.
Steve
Webb: Having established that we need the child poverty
commission to keep an eye on Government, I cannot envisage a world in
which we went forward without it because we had achieved our targets.
It is not clear who will be reporting post-2020 if the commission
has gone and we have been meeting our targets. Who will be keeping an
eye on those targets and ensuring that they are met? I assume that the
Department will publish statistics, but who is to report on why the
targets have not been met? That is what the commission will be doing
pre-2020.
Helen
Goodman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands
that responsibility for meeting the targets and reporting on them lies
with the Secretary of State. It is the commission’s
responsibility to advise the Secretary of State. There will be no
question about it: the Department will continue to oversee the
policy.
Steve
Webb: I am trying to make the point that if a Government need
advising pre-2020, why should a post-2020 Government not need advice?
They may have hit a target, but it does not mean that they do not need
advice. I am reassured that schedule 2 provides for the post-2020
world. I would be tempted to remove subsection (4) and leave the
Government to remove subsections (5) and (6) in order to tidy things
up. However, given the context of our discussions, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
John
Howell (Henley) (Con): This will be my second attempt to
get some definition of how the Minister envisages the commission
working in practice. A number of visions of how it would work were set
out in witness statements and the memorandums that accompanied them.
Save the Children saw it playing a strong role, active in driving the
strategy forward, whereas others saw it playing a lesser
role.
Both
Ministers were at the Work and Pensions Committee hearing on 17 June,
but we heard a rather uncertain view of the commission from them. We
were told that it would be an advisory body. We were told that it would
not set targets, but that that would be an important task for
Government and for Parliament. We were told that it would be a
high-profile organisation. However, all those views were extremely
general and gave no substance to the circumstances in which Ministers
envisaged it being used. It is great that, according to the Minister,
it will have a budget for research—but research for what and on
what
occasions?
Helen
Goodman: I am sorry if it is not clear to the hon.
Gentleman, but the commission’s role is to advise the Secretary
of State. The commission will do that by considering the
Government’s position in relation to meeting the targets, and it
will consider the sort of content needed for a credible strategy to
meet the targets. It will advise the Secretary of State and its advice
will be published. Obviously, the commission will meet
regularly—it is not intended that it should be called together
only in exceptional or unusual circumstances. It is intended that it
should maintain a watching brief throughout the period to
2020.
John
Howell: There is a huge difference between a body that
provides advice when asked for it by the Secretary of State, and a body
that provides advice on its own initiative. Which will the commission
be?
5.45
pm
Helen
Goodman: The duty to provide advice is set out in the
Bill, and it will be the Secretary of State’s duty to take
account of the advice and to show that it has been taken into account.
I am sorry, but I cannot understand why that is not clear to the hon.
Gentleman. The duties are laid out, and the commission will fulfil its
duties.
John
Howell: I am sorry, but that is not the question
I asked. It was a simple question: does the commission have the ability
to initiate the right to give advice to the Secretary of State when she
has not asked for
it?
Mr.
Gauke: I did not intend to raise this point at this time,
but, given the helpful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for
Henley, the fact is that the role of the commission is to advise
Ministers. I ask this to obtain information. Will the Minister explain
why she thinks it necessary to have an outside body providing policy
advice? Should not Government Departments provide advice to Ministers,
who are then held accountable in
Parliament? The
Bill creates a distance from parliamentary scrutiny. I think that the
intention behind it—this is not necessarily a
criticism—may be to create transparency in respect of advice
provided to Ministers. But given that we could work out a system
whereby targets exist and Government Ministers are held accountable for
the decisions that they take, why is it necessary to have an entirely
separate
body?
Helen
Goodman: It is the responsibility of the Secretary of
State to establish a strategy that will achieve the targets and to work
to achieve the targets. In doing so, the Secretary of State will draw
on all the advice from her officials on which she normally draws. At
the same time, because of significant public interest in child poverty,
and following the consultation that we have conducted over the past few
months, it was decided to establish a child poverty commission to
ensure that the best independent advice could be given to the Secretary
of State, drawing on people of exceptionally high quality, knowledge
and expertise in the
field. This
is an extremely important priority for the Government. That is why we
believe that it is important to have transparency in the whole process,
so that all those who are concerned about and interested in it
will be able to see all the factors that have been taken into account,
and to determine whether things have been done
properly.
Mr.
Stuart: I am struggling to see where in the paragraph
headed “Provision of advice by Commission” in schedule 1
it explicitly states that the commission can give advice to the
Secretary of
State.
Mr.
Stuart: I am informed by my hon. Friend that I will see
the answer if I look at clause 9. I shall now sit down with no more
ado.
Andrew
Selous: This has been a useful debate. On the
Minister’s comments about the people nominated to sit on the
commission, have she and the Department given any thought to the type
of individual who will be nominated? She said that nominees will be
people of distinction—we take that as read. Does she envisage
that there will be some people involved in fighting poverty on the
front line of their organisations who take a hands-on
approach—perhaps people such as Edna Speed, who came before the
Committee—or does she envisage that the commission will be
entirely staffed by local academics and people with a policy or
research background? Would it be useful to have a mix of the two? I
think it is important that we get a feel for the thoughts of the
Minister regarding the balance of expertise on the
commission.
Helen
Goodman: If the hon. Gentleman turns to paragraph
1(4) of schedule 1, he will see the wide range of experience and
knowledge that we will look for when making appointments to the
commission. We will not look simply for policy and academic
researchers, albeit their skills are valuable, but for people who work
with children and families that are experiencing
poverty.
Mr.
Stuart: I was perhaps not helped by my hon. Friend
the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. The Minister said that the
commission will be able to provide advice to the Secretary of State at
its own behest. That does not seem to appear in clause 9 or schedule 1.
Clause 9
states: “In
preparing a UK strategy, the Secretary of State must request the advice
of the
Commission” and
in schedule
1: “The
Commission must comply with any request made by the Secretary of
State...Advice given by the Commission under either of those
sections must contain the reasons for the
advice.” It
continues: “As
soon as reasonably practicable after giving advice under either of
those sections, the Commission must publish the
advice”.
As ever, one must look
carefully at the detail of the legislation to ensure that the
Government are genuinely setting up an independent body of experts that
can, when it sees fit and for reasons that it judges to be suitable,
make public advice to the Secretary of State and try to trigger
change.
It is not
clear to me—I could be wrong, and perhaps the Minister will
reassure me—that the answer she gave to my hon. Friend the
Member for Henley is exactly what is included in the
Bill.
Helen
Goodman: I am sorry if I was not clear. Let me try to
reassure hon. Members on this point.
As has been
noted, the Secretary of State must request advice when preparing or
revising the strategy. The Secretary of State can seek advice at any
other time. The commission will not provide advice to its own time
scale, but will do so in a timely manner to enable the Secretary of
State to fulfil her duties.
That is a
different point from the question whether the advice is genuinely
independent. Given the recruitment of people with independent
experience, the transparency of the process and the fact that the
advice will be published, it will be clear that the commission has a
proper degree of independence.
Andrew
Selous: I think that this is a genuinely useful
debate. We are assuming that the commission will speak with one voice
and give united advice. What happens if there is a difference of view
within the commission—perhaps a majority view with a significant
minority view? Will there be provision for the members of the
commission who have a minority view to make that view known? I do not
see why that should not be possible, and it would be helpful if the
Minister said something encouraging about that. There can be minority
reports in Select Committees, and it happens in the Monetary Policy
Committee of the Bank of England. If the minority disagrees with the
majority decision, we are able to see that in the minutes. Does the
Minister favour the greatest possible transparency, to ensure that if
the commission is not unanimous, the full range of views is made
available to the public?
Helen
Goodman: The point would be covered by the terms of
reference. In practice, we will have a group of people who might have
differences in emphasis. The parallel with the Monetary Policy
Committee is not quite right, as that body discusses one lever that is
designed to achieve monetary policy objectives. In tackling child
poverty, we can have a range of policy
options.
5.55
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 6.10
pm On
resuming—
Helen
Goodman: As I was saying before the Division, the parallel
with the Monetary Policy Committee is not a good one, because while it
is solely focused on one objective and one target, this is obviously a
more complex arena. We are making it clear that we are drawing on the
expertise of a lot of people, who will be able to contribute on various
different policy levers of which Ministers will want to avail
themselves. I do not think that anybody realistically thinks that the
targets that we are setting out in the Bill can be achieved solely
through one type of policy response. I hope that it is clear in
paragraphs 13 and 14 of schedule 1 that the commission will
regulate its own proceedings, so we are not prescribing now precisely
how it should do its
work. I
should like to make a final point about the qualities of people,
particularly the chairman of the commission. A good chairman seeks not
to stifle debate, but to draw creatively on the different contributions
of the members of a commission, and in doing so to build a consensus
when possible. Certainly, they do not seek to provoke disagreement. The
commission is not intended as a debating chamber; it is intended to be
a body that formulates advice for the Secretary of State. Of course, on
occasion, people might lay a different emphasis on aspects of that
advice. In such instances, it would be interesting for people to know
that, and that would be
reasonable. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
