My Lords, as noble Lords will know, it is with some regret from my perspective that we do not have the chance to go back and debate the black economy—or informal economy—amendment again.
Amendments 22 and 23 seek to insert in the Bill powers that appeared in several pieces of recent legislation establishing similar independent bodies. I am curious as to why the Bill did not contain the usual wording. I appreciate that there are often small discrepancies between different Bills, but these provisions seem exceptionally pared down. I wonder whether the Minister is able to give us more clarity on what sort of behaviour would be considered a firing offence under these provisions. Given that the Government’s view of the commission is for it to be facilitator of government policy-making, what would happen if the Secretary of State were to conclude that the commission’s advice was not in line with the department’s assessment of government policy?
The Secretary of State for the Home Office recently removed the Government’s drugs adviser from his position as head of the independent expert body—the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—because of public comments disagreeing with government policy. That body was established under a 1971 Act which, as far as I can see, does not contain provisions on the removal of a member. Does that mean that the chair of this commission will be in a stronger position than the unfortunate Professor Nutt? Will he or she be able to publish criticism without putting their job at risk?
If these provisions give the chair a greater level of immunity, what will the consequences be if the commission and the Secretary of State do not agree on the appropriate strategy for reaching the targets? Constructive criticism can be taken too far. If the commission insists on taking a radically different approach to meeting the targets and refuses to work with the Secretary of State, we would agree that the Government must remain ultimately accountable. I am sure that the Minister would agree that if the chair of the commission is not aiding the Secretary of State in the formation of policy, the necessary steps should be taken. Can the Minister confirm that that would be possible under these provisions? I beg to move.
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Freud
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 25 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Child Poverty Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c237-8GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:28:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614036
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614036
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614036