Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and my noble friend Lord Rea for their contributions. The Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Freud, are keen that the work that this body does represents not only the finest research that is capable of being provided to Government but, alongside that, value for money. Noble Lords will be aware that on Report in another place we tabled a government amendment providing the commission with a research capability. We agreed with Members on all sides that this would improve the quality and independence of its advice to the Secretary of State. This provision is now expressed in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1. In making this amendment, we were mindful of a number of considerations. First, we want to ensure that we have a common understanding of what we mean by "research". Inviting organisations combating child poverty to speak to commission members and making visits to see what works on the ground and to see and hear the experiences of children and families in poverty are both ways of gathering information that we envisage the commission may wish to adopt. They are certainly among the approaches pressed by a number of respondents to the consultation on the Bill and witnesses in the oral evidence sessions. I am happy to put on the record today that we see both these activities as already within the scope of the Bill. Resources made available under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 can include resources to carry out these activities. We envisage making explicit reference to them in the commission’s terms of reference. Furthermore, on allocating the commission’s funding, paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 requires that it is adequately resourced to comply with its statutory duty to provide advice to the Government. The commission will want to draw on the already large body of existing high-quality research into the extent, nature and causes of child poverty. It may also wish to tap into the emerging findings of relevant new research commissioned or conducted by government departments in the normal course of their work. It will, at all costs, avoid duplication. This model follows the very successful one used by the Low Pay Commission, an advisory body respected for the quality of its research. In practice, we expect there to be an early discussion between the commission and the Secretary of State to agree the areas to be studied, and then commissioning and delivery of an annual programme of work by the Secretary of State on its behalf. Indeed, this is the process followed by the Secretary of State and by the Low Pay Commission when drawing up its annual research programme. I share the noble Lord’s concern that, in exercising this research power, the commission must avoid duplicating existing research. However, the amendment is unnecessary. Should the commission make a request to the Secretary of State for new research where he is able to point it to existing sources, sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 gives the Secretary of State ample scope to decide not to comply with the commission’s request and to explain his reasons for doing so. I am also confident that the criteria for membership in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 are such that familiarity with, and expert mining of, existing material will be natural to its ways of working. In practice, I think it highly unlikely that the commission would wish to use its limited resources to request work that duplicates existing material. The noble Lord asked me specifically about paragraph 10. The Secretary of State can refuse to comply with a request to carry out research. That decision must be reasonable, and he must explain the reasons behind it. This would apply to research being carried out by the Secretary of State or by others. Ultimately, the Secretary of State has control over the budget. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.