Child Poverty Bill

I honestly do not know. I know that it does not fall to me to decide this. There is a serious point here about which Secretary of State will be responsible. If I can add any more information, I will write to the noble Lord. Allowing Parliament to have the final say on making these appointments, particularly the chair, risks blurring those important lines of accountability. Finally on this issue, given the general welcome to the commission, I think it important that we avoid using this Bill to reopen a debate on public appointments that has been had elsewhere. Noble Lords will be aware that in June 2008 the Government announced that pre-appointment hearings would be trialled for a small number of key public sector posts with executive or regulatory powers. Following discussions with House authorities, a list of 60 or so key public sector posts was agreed. As these posts become vacant, pre-appointment hearings are being held on a pilot basis. It would be impractical and disproportionate to subject all public appointments to pre-appointment scrutiny by Select Committees. I think there are some 800 NDPBs. We are not in any way persuaded that the chair of this small and purely advisory body, however important the issue on which it is advising, falls into the category of posts that should be added to the agreed list of those where pre-appointment hearings might be trialled, particularly given the assurances provided by the OCPA process that I have outlined. Of course, Committees of the House can invite whoever they like to give evidence, and the chair and other members of the commission, once appointed, will be able to give evidence to them about the advice they provide and the extent to which they think Ministers have regard to it. On this basis I hope I have persuaded the noble Lords not to press Amendments 19 and 20. On Amendment 21, although it is not specified in the Bill we envisage that the deputy chair would effectively take on the chair’s role in their absence. It therefore follows that the Secretary of State should retain the overall power to appoint the deputy chair, given the importance of the position and the confidence the Secretary of State must have in their abilities. However, I understand the importance of a strong working relationship between the chair and deputy chair. That is why paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 requires the Secretary of State to consult the chair before any deputy is appointed. In practice, the Secretary of State is unlikely to appoint someone to whom the chair had strong objections, as this would clearly undermine the effectiveness of the commission. However, I have listened to what noble Lords have said today and acknowledge that we agreed that members of Ofqual, rather than the Secretary of State, should select a deputy chair. Realising the strength of feeling on this issue, I will consider further whether the independence of the commission could be strengthened by permitting it to choose a deputy chair from among its appointed members. I very much take the point that if we were able to do that, it would be positive evidence of our determination that it is independent. Without overstating that point, I may revert to it on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, asked whether the commission will have real teeth. It has a key role in identifying barriers to addressing child poverty and advising the Government on the content of its child poverty strategy. That is a particularly important role. The Bill requires the Government to appoint a commission that understands child poverty issues and is well equipped to provide advice. In the consultation process, stakeholders called for transparency. We responded by including a requirement for the commission’s advice to be made public so that it would be possible to scrutinise how far Ministers have had regard to it, in a very clear and transparent way, so it will be very clearly on the record. The noble Lord referred to my colleague Helen Goodman’s comments in the other place. She was trying to draw a distinction that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, drew between a body such as Ofqual and one such as the Child Poverty Commission. That is not to say that members of the commission are not fulfilling an important public function—of course they are fulfilling a hugely important function—or that child poverty is not an important public concern. I have referred to the OCPA process and the timeframe that it might involve. We have not formally begun appointing the commission and will not do so until after Royal Assent. If that is some time in March, assuming that we speed up our deliberations, it clearly could not be done before that event, which I know we are all thoroughly looking forward to. The noble Lord referred to the Children’s Commissioner. The role of the Children’s Commissioner is distinct from that of members of the Child Poverty Commission. Their focus will be on child poverty and the strategy, while the Children’s Commissioner has the much broader role of reflecting on and promoting the views and interests of children. I hope that I have dealt with each of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, indicated that he believes that it is important that the commission is seen as independent. On that basis, I hope that I can urge noble Lords not to press any of these amendments today. We will look to return on Report to see if we can support the issue about the appointment of the deputy chair.