Helen
Goodman: The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire
proposes that the Bill should provide for payments made to members of
the commission to be published online each month. He is proposing that
we follow the precedent set for Members of Parliament. I understand his
concern that expenditure on the new advisory body should represent
value for money and be
cost-efficient. It is worth underlining the importance that we attach to
drawing on independent expert advice in developing the sustainable
child poverty
strategy. Once
established, the child poverty commission will be a public body. As
such, it will comply with all parliamentary rules on managing public
money, and must deliver value for money for the taxpayer at all times.
In accordance with the Cabinet Office publication, “Public
Bodies: A Guide for Departments”, relevant to an advisory body
of this nature, we shall set out the total costs of the commission in
the annual report to Parliament of the sponsoring Department. That
report will be laid in the Libraries of the Houses. It is worth noting
that our policy intention is to provide members of the commission or
their employers with no more recompense than is absolutely sufficient
to ensure that service on the commission does not leave them out of
pocket. We
are determined that the body should offer value for money, but I do not
believe that there is a parallel between the members of the child
poverty commission and Members of Parliament, so I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gauke: I am disappointed with that response. I would not
anticipate members of the commission having anything to hide. I assume
that the Government would seek to obtain value for money and,
presumably, we are looking at people with considerable expertise. I see
no reason why that information should not be made available to the
public. That is generally the direction that we are moving in with
public expenditure across the board—much greater
transparency—so I intend to press the amendment to a
vote. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
Division
No.
5] Question
accordingly
negatived.
Question
proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Gauke: I would like to return to the issues of appointment
of members of the commission and when it will be up and running. The
Minister was not able to be clear or was not in a position to say when
members will be appointed.
The context
is the intention for the child poverty commission, which moves in
different directions—at one point the commission is clearly an
advisory body, which is meant not to be terribly strong and powerful
but a source of good advice, while at other times it tries to be an
important, independent, arm’s length body, including in the
appointment of members. Normally one would expect a Secretary of State
to have a degree of discretion as to whom her advisers would be, and
yet there is little in the schedule to enable the Secretary of State to
change those advisers—the members of the commission. I would be
grateful if the Minister made it clear how she envisages that
working. Let
me be frank: a Minister and his or her advisers ought to share the same
outlook about methods and so on, and there ought to be a degree of
compatibility between them. I am concerned that people with a
particular view of how the child poverty target should be met could be
appointed to the child poverty commission before a general election.
Their views might then apply to a new elected Government and the body
be used to harangue such a Government and become a platform for
internal opposition.
The
expression on the face of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions is such that I am already reassured that that is not the
intention—something so ludicrous would not have crossed the
minds of Ministers. I would be grateful if she gave us some idea as to
when commissioners will be appointed, what ability the Secretary of
State will have to choose his or her advisers as he or she thinks fit,
and what can be done to prevent any party political mischief, which the
cynical among us might believe could result from the
commission. 7
pm
Helen
Goodman: I am taken aback by the hon. Gentleman’s
suggestion, not least because I thought that we had a consensus about
the Bill. I thought that we had an agreement on the importance of
reaching the targets, so I thought that we would have a consensus about
how we should move forward to achieve them.
Mr.
Gauke: In all our sittings it has been clear that there is
a consensus about the targets, but there are differences, at the very
least of emphasis, as to how we go about that. The debate this morning
revealed that, as will future debates. The job of the commission is not
to set the targets, but to advise on how we go about reaching them.
There are differences among the parties as to how we do that, which we
are honest and open about and do not dispute. That is why I have those
concerns.
Helen
Goodman: I am afraid that I do not understand where the
hon. Gentleman is coming from. It is impossible to predict the outcome
of a general election, and it is completely inappropriate for
him to make such remarks. I shall point out what is in the
Bill and what the powers
are. In
making appointments, it is clear that the Secretary of State cannot
pre-empt Parliament, so they must be made after Royal
Assent—but, obviously, the commission should inform strategy, so
it must be within a year of Royal Assent. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman has
noted the provisions for how a Secretary of State may remove a member,
in particular paragraph 6(d), which states that a member may be removed
if “the
Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is otherwise unable or
unfit to perform the
duties”. In
answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire earlier, I made
clear that we anticipated appointing commission members with a variety
of experiences and different things to contribute. Any skilful chairman
running the commission would not stifle disagreement—there would
be no point in setting out in the Bill, as we have, the wide range of
different experiences that we wanted if we were looking for people with
a single perspective.
Andrew
Selous: The Minister has raised an important issue. She
prayed in aid paragraph 6(d); I looked at it earlier and my reading of
it was that the Secretary of State will only be able to get rid of
someone if they
are “unable
or unfit to perform the duties of the
office.” I
had taken that to mean that they had either lost their mind or had done
something criminally negligent to make them unfit in that sense. I had
not read it at all in the sense that perhaps a new Secretary of State,
in a new Parliament, might want to use paragraph 6(d) to remove people
from what the Minister has told us will be an advisory body. If the
Minister is saying that, I, for one, am partly reassured, although that
was not my reading at all of the intention of paragraph
6(d).
Helen
Goodman: “Unable or unfit” is not defined;
it is a matter for the Secretary of State’s discretion. I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will be
reassured.
Mr.
Gauke: The Minister may say that that is for the Secretary
of State’s discretion, but I am afraid that a Secretary of State
might quickly find herself in court if she relied on those words. If it
is a question of a different approach to tackling the child poverty
targets, I do not think that the Secretary of State has much
discretion.
Helen
Goodman: We are now in the realms of the hypothetical.
Opposition Members should feel reassured: the commission is
independent, we have set out what qualities we will look for, and we
are looking for people not with one particular perspective, but a range
of different perspectives and experiences. We have also made it
absolutely clear that the appointment process will be independent. I am
sorry if Opposition Members would like me to go further, but I do not
think that that is a practical proposition.
Question
put and agreed to.
Schedule 1
accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned. —(Mr.
Mudie.) 7.7
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 29 October at Nine
o’clock.
| 
