Mr.
Timms: Let me start by confirming that clause 15 does not
have an impact on the binding character of the target, which is a point
that the hon. Member for Northavon rightly said that I had made before.
In my view, clause 15 strengthens the Bill. The truth is that we shall
achieve the targets only if we can establish an economically
sustainable way to do so. The hon. Gentleman focused on subsection
(1)(b) and, if we were to remove the clause, it is true that we would
then liberate the commission to produce advice unrestrained by economic
realities—sometimes that can be advised by his party. But what
use would that be? I do not agree with him about this. I think that we
want the commission to be constrained by realities. The hard bit of the
job is determining how we are going to achieve these targets in a way
that is consistent with the realities of what will happen over the next
10 years, and that is precisely what we want the commission to help us
with. I do not think that anyone is interested in well meaning flights
of fancy. What we want from the strategy and from the
commission’s advice is hard-headed measures consistent with
economic reality because those are what can be implemented to eradicate
child
poverty.
Steve
Webb: Will the Minister remind us who appoints these
people? Do not he or his colleagues appoint them,
and does he really think he will appoint people given to flights of
fancy? Surely these are expert people who live in the real world. Why
do they need a legal duty to do something that they will do
anyway?
Mr.
Timms: I think it will be very helpful for the commission
to have this clear remit that it is to formulate advice that is
consistent with the financial circumstances over the next 10 years. I
can think of many experts who have given advice on a variety of topics
that does not comply with the clause as it is set out in the Bill. We
want this particular group of experts to give us advice that does
comply. It is a strength of the Bill that that is made explicit so that
everybody is clear what is
required.
Andrew
Selous: The Minister has said something significant and I
want to make sure that I understood it correctly. He rightly said that
we need to find a sustainable solution to eradicating child
poverty—we are all with him on that. By that I took him to mean
one that was financially sustainable and did not break the bank. Is he
implying that if we are not quite there in 2018 and 2019 but a
significant increase in tax credits would take us there, yet that would
not be sustainable for the UK economy, it would not be the right thing
to
do?
Mr.
Timms: The hon. Gentleman puts a hypothetical situation to
me. There will be a series of three-year strategies over the next
decade and annual reports against each of them. The hon. Member for
South-West Hertfordshire quoted what I said on this: I do not think
that when we get to the latter point of the decade what has happened
will take us by surprise. As for whether clause 15 should be in the
Bill, it is undoubtedly a strength of the Bill that it is here. It
gives a clarity of purpose to everybody
involved. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
15, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
16 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
2Continuing
effect of targets after target
year Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Gauke: I have one or two brief questions. First, paragraph
9 gives a power to the Secretary of State to exclude or modify the
absolute low income targets. The Secretary of State can either amend
the percentage specified or the base year with regard to the absolute
low income target, or repeal it altogether. The explanatory notes are
helpful in explaining why the power exists in respect of that one
target and not the others. As the hon. Member for Northavon has
mentioned on more than one occasion, this is the least ambitious of
the four targets. The intention is, presumably, under
paragraph 9(1)(a), for there to be an opportunity to renew
and update the targets in a more ambitious and meaningful way—I
understand that. The alternative approach, in paragraph 9(1)(b), is to
repeal clause 4 altogether, because the target has been met, and is
therefore meaningless, so we can just move on to
focus on the other three. However, there is nothing in paragraph
9(1)(b), as far as I can see, that says that the repeal applies only in
the event of the target being met. I might be raising an unlikely
hypothetical situation, but if there is no economic growth in the years
ahead and, somehow, the target is not met, I understand that would
still be possible for the Government to repeal the target. Is that
interpretation right? Is there an argument for stating that the power
to repeal should exist only in the event of the target being met in
2021? Secondly,
if I interpret the schedule correctly, if the target has not been met,
the infrastructure that exists under the Bill—the strategy, the
reports and so on—does not apply because it falls, under the
Bill. However, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to set
out regulations that, by and large, bring them back. I should be
grateful if the Minister told us how much discretion exists in respect
of the nature of the reports, strategies and so on, and whether
paragraph 3, in particular, gives the extent of the discretion that is
available to the Secretary of
State. Thirdly,
paragraph 2
says: “If
the target statement relating to the target year or a renewed target
year indicates that the targets have been met in relation to that
financial year, the Secretary of State must ensure that they are also
met in relation to the financial year following that in which that
target statement is laid before
Parliament.” Using
our example of 2020, that means that we might anticipate, although we
cannot be certain, that the target statement will be made in the first
quarter of 2022. There is a target for 2020-21 but none for the year
2021-22, and then the target comes back again for 2022-23—that
is the way I read it, but I might have missed something. I am sure that
if I have, the Minister will not have done, and that he will clarify
those
points.
Mr.
Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right. Paragraph
9(1)(a) provides the power to make regulations to amend the absolute
income target and the base year.
Paragraph 9(1)(b) enables clause 4—the absolute measure—to
be repealed instead of a new target and base year being set, reflecting
the fact that there is a slightly different status to the target. The
hon. Member for Northavon has argued that that should not be a target
at all, and I made the case that, in our view, in response to the
consultation responses that we received, it was right to have it.
However, it is conceivable that, in the decade after 2020, a different
view might be taken, which explains the ability provided by the
regulations. Of course, the Bill requires all four of the targets,
including this one, to be hit by
2020.
Mr.
Gauke: Yes, the Bill does require it, but after
2020—this is the purpose of the schedule—it is possible,
as I read the schedule, for the requirement to be withdrawn or
abolished, even if it has not been met. I accept that it is
theoretically unlikely, but it is
possible. 4
pm
Mr.
Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is not a
requirement to hit it before that provision is
available. On
the question of why there is not more detail about strategies and
reports, the provisions are a bit different in schedule 2. We took the
view that it was not appropriate to provide the same level of
regulatory detail for strategies and reports after 2020 because someone
else will have had another look at them by then, one would
imagine. Question
put and agreed to.
Schedule
2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause
17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.
—(Mr.
Mudie.) 4.1
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 3 November at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
