Child Poverty Bill

I am pleased to hear that. It would seem to be outwith the process if the noble Lord had done so. I will speak first to Amendments 19 and 20, which concern the appointment of the chair of the Child Poverty Commission. Amendment 21 would provide a power to the commission members, rather than the Secretary of State, to appoint a deputy chair. I am glad that there has been such widespread welcome for the establishment of the Child Poverty Commission. This was made clear on all sides of your Lordships’ House at Second Reading. The commission has a key role in identifying barriers to addressing child poverty and advising the Government on the contents of their child poverty strategy. Amendments 19 and 20, as has been identified, are similar provisions. Amendment 20 requires the Secretary of State to consult the relevant Select Committees before appointing the commission chair. Both amendments would then require the appointment to be subject to parliamentary control before it could be confirmed. I recognise the concerns expressed over the independence of the Child Poverty Commission and, in particular, the transparency of the appointments process for the chair. This was raised at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and his colleague the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and was discussed in another place. I wholeheartedly agree that there must be an open and transparent recruitment process, and that the appointment must not be politically driven. I also recognise that Parliament has an interest in such an appointment, but I will explain to noble Lords why the amendments are unnecessary. The appointment of the chair and, indeed, all members of the commission will be made with utmost care and transparency, in accordance with the principles set out in the code of practice for public appointments, published by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. My noble friend Lady Hollis has given us the benefit of her experience of that process. The code is underpinned by seven principles derived from the work of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. They include openness and transparency, appointment on merit, independent scrutiny, ministerial responsibility and proportionality. The entire appointment process will be overseen by an independent person approved by OCPA. This will ensure that appointments to the commission are made on merit, fairly and in an open manner, with criteria for selection published at the start of the appointment process. I draw noble Lords’ attention to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which requires the Secretary of State to aim for a commission that has knowledge and experience of child poverty policy, research and work with families. That is quite a broad remit. I hope that will provide some assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, particularly that latter requirement about people who have worked with families. It is against these criteria that all applicants for this post will be judged. I hope I have demonstrated that the commission members will be appointed on merit, and will not be beholden to Ministers, political parties, stakeholders or special interest groups. I categorically refute what was said at Second Reading about being swayed by the political affiliations of applicants. There is also an important point to be made concerning accountability for the appointment of the chair. The Secretary of State will be accountable to the House for the strategies to meet the targets set out in the Bill and, ultimately, for whether the targets are met. The Secretary of State needs to be confident that the work of the statutory body advising on the strategy is of high quality in its thoroughness, independence and timeliness. It is appropriate and logical therefore that the Secretary of State appoints members of the body responsible for advising on its content. Allowing Parliament to have the final say—