---

Lord De Mauley: Once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his contribution. To clarify the matter, there is no specific requirement that I can see in the Bill for the inclusion of a budget, which I do not think is unreasonable. I thank the Minister for her response to my question regarding the figures of 40 per cent and 63 per cent. That being the case, it is interesting to note that she implied that the existing three commissions' costs have increased by more than 16 per cent since 2002–03. The confusion regarding the provision of the financial information underlines the need for more clarity in that regard. I thank the
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 726
 
Minister for her response and for her assurances regarding the financial plans. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord De Mauley moved Amendment No. 69:

Page 2, line 22, at end insert "and the Secretary of State shall lay the same before both Houses of Parliament"

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 151, which is identical in effect. Under Clause 4, right at the outset of the Bill, the commission is required to publish a strategic plan and to revise it where appropriate. It is then perfectly properly required to publish it. But where should it do so—in some obscure journal or following an interview with a favoured journalist, in a newsletter of limited circulation or on a website of which one would need to know the existence to visit? Having done so, what opportunity would follow to enable Parliament to question or debate it? All that the amendment does is to see that the Secretary of State presents it to Parliament—because he and not the commission has the power to do so—thus giving either or both Houses the opportunity to debate it on a "take note" Motion if they so desire.

Amendment No. 151 to Schedule 2 relates to the outcome of an inquiry, investigation, or assessment conducted by the commission on the direct instructions of the Secretary of State. Clearly, that intervention by the Secretary of State would have been made as a consequence of some serious and weighty set of circumstances. The commission is required to report to the Secretary of State under Clause 16(2)(a), and he in turn is required to publish the report. The same question as I just asked arises about reports published under Section 4. Where and how shall that be done? Since, as I said, the inquiry would have been held at the behest of the Secretary of State for serious reasons, Parliament should at least be offered the opportunity of debating the result of the inquiry. The amendments are about accountability to Parliament. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: This really goes back to the debate that we had at the beginning of our considerations today about independence and parliamentary oversight. Of course I sympathise with the idea of giving Parliament oversight where possible, but this is probably a matter that we would like to consider when we see the imaginative and forward-looking amendments that the Minister will no doubt produce on Report to enhance independence and parliamentary oversight. It is hard to do it in isolation from that, but I agree with the objective.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not think that I undertook to come forward with imaginative amendments. I said that so far no one had come to me with a set of amendments that would achieve what was wanted that I thought were workable, achievable, or possibly desirable.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I accept that, but the point is that the Government have at their disposal the
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 727
 
kind of resources that will make that perfectly feasible. I have every confidence in her advisors and parliamentary counsel, and the wisdom of Ministers, in devising an imaginative answer to the problem.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, that is why the Government have come forward with the non-departmental public body as being a model that is transparent, well understood and highly appropriate. I do not see much movement on this side of your Lordships' House until I am convinced that there is a better model to come forward. It is not because we have not looked at the best model, but because the model that we are proposing is one that has stood the test of time.

The noble Lord is always, as he knows, welcome to come and discuss with me the possibilities or alternatives; and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, always has an open door with me. As yet, we can all fairly say that we have not quite cracked it. I would not want to give the illusion that I am going to devote a lot of energy to doing that, bearing in mind the other things that we are going to do. I am very open to proposals and suggestions that might come forward, but as yet we have not found a better way. Our way has stood the test of time. With all the issues that noble Lords have raised around it, I am not likely to want to go for a model that is completely untried and untested, for reasons that the noble Lord will understand well. Again, we will continue the discussions on Report.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: I thank the Minister for giving way. In the light of the debate that we have had today on independence, and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, if the Minister still believes that we have not "cracked it", is she not being slightly risk-averse? We have heard comments from other parts of the Government about evidence-based policy. Should we not look to a little innovation and keep an open mind about models that might ensure independence, yet safeguard the objectives that the Government hope to achieve? I hope that there would be an open mind there. We have some models in front of us in the amendments.

9.15 pm

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: There is nothing risk-averse about this Minister or department, or my colleagues—quite the opposite. If we are going to set up a new commission with the confidence of the stakeholders and of the country, we have to make sure that the model works. It is no good plucking a model out of the air and saying that it looks positive when we are trying to make sure that it is credible, can receive funding appropriately, is transparent and can deal with the issues in front of it.

As I have said, the model that seems to work so far as I can see is a non-departmental public body, because that model has stood the test of time. Members of the Committee who disagree with that are very welcome to come forward with new models. We take on a new model on the understanding that we are absolutely
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 728
 
sure that it will do what we want it do. Thus far, no one has done that for me. When it is achieved, I will be far from risk-averse.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I hear exactly what the Minister says, but suppose that we come up with a model that keeps to the Government's model but involves a form of consultation with some parliamentary and outside body, and has that looser and more flexible oversight. Would she consider with an open mind keeping her model but modifying it? If not, that is wasting our time and we will have to show political muscle on Report to persuade her to think again. I cannot believe that that is necessary with such an open-minded and listening government.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord does not have to threaten me with political muscle; I am very open-minded. I simply say that the job of government—he will know this from his experiences—is to make sure that whatever model we put in place for a body of such importance is worthy of it and able to survive and do the job that it is meant to do. I am trying to indicate that, although Members of the Committee have concerns about the NDPB model, it is none the less a tried and tested model. There are well known ways of appointing commissioners, and we have had the expertise of Dame Rennie Fritchie and others over the years that has helped us in those appointments.

Although there may be worries, I have also indicated that a huge amount of what will make the commission work is the credibility that it establishes outside in terms of how it operates with government and, more importantly, with the stakeholders that it seeks to serve. I am completely open-minded, but have not yet seen a suitable other model. Even the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in proposing his model said that he was not sure that it was perfect. He is always wise in what he says. We need to make sure that we have something that works. I am being honest in saying, "Show me something that we think will work and I will happily go to my colleagues and say, 'Let's look at this'", whether that is an amended version of the NDPB or something quite different.

The amendment is about reports. The noble Lord raises a concern about making sure that they could and would be published. We expect that any reports to be published would be communicated widely to stakeholders and any others who might have an interest on the issues. That will be very important. The plan is a key document in promoting the understanding of what the commission is doing and setting expectations of what it aims to achieve.

Schedule 2 places an obligation on the commission to prepare a report of its findings on an inquiry, investigation or assessment. If the inquiry, investigation or assessment is conducted at the volition of the commission, the commission simply publishes the report. If the Secretary of State has directed the commission to conduct it, the commission must submit that report to the Secretary of State, who is then obliged to publish it. We expect the commission to make those and any other key publications available in an accessible form to ensure that all stakeholders can understand them.
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 729
 

I am grateful for the noble Lord's amendments. They seem sensible and I take them seriously. With the permission of the Committee, I shall take them away and consider them further with colleagues and counsel and look again at our position on Report.

---