Clause 9
Child Poverty Bill
2:00 pm
To require the Government to explain to what extent it has decided to follow any recommendations made by the Commission, and where it decides not to take the Commission’s advice, its reasons for this.
Briefly, the amendment seeks to probe the Government’s thinking on how responses might be given to the recommendations of the child poverty commission. My hope and intention is that the commission’s recommendations will be more likely to be responded to in a manner mirroring the responses to—I hesitate to use these words—the Social Security Advisory Committee, than in the production of a report such as “Opportunity for All”. There is a lot to be said for the way in which the Government produce such broad and comprehensive reports, which set out a great deal of useful information and look at targets. However, it would be a missed opportunity if the child poverty commission did not receive a more specific, line-by-line, detailed explanation of how and why the Government felt that any recommendations should not be taken forward. Recommendations and advice that are accepted do not need such a comprehensive response. However, where the Government choose to differ from the advice and recommendations of the child poverty commission, or need to explain a failure to implement them fully, it would be sad if they did not set out the arguments and provide evidence for so doing.
There is a temptation for Governments of all colours to prefer to use such opportunities to set out their own case and to congratulate themselves on what is done well. I understand why that is, but it is not necessarily the best way to progress towards meeting our objectives. I encourage the Government to think about the kind of rigour that they will adopt in their responses, and I hope that the Minister will concede that point.