---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

moved Amendment No. 38: 38: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— ““Approval of operational plan (1) The Commission must— (a) prepare an operational plan (““the plan””) to establish how it will meet its objectives under section 2 of this Act and; (b) publish the plan in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate. (2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of the plan published under this section. (3) The plan shall not have effect unless, within three months of the date on which it is laid before Parliament, a motion has been made in each House considering the plan. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations determine the categories of information to be included in the plan. (5) Regulations made under subsection (4) may include details of staffing levels the Commission considers it appropriate to maintain in order for it to fulfil its functions.”” The noble Lord said: We can deal with this group of amendments with some despatch. The amendments deal generally with parliamentary scrutiny once the commission is up and running. It is sensible that we should take a little time to reflect on what we would like to see happen once the commission is up and running. Obviously, there will be a flurry of interest at the beginning and as things settle down, but I am thinking more about the relationship between Parliament and the commission as it evolves and once it gets into a steady state, as I hope it will, and in the longer term. Amendment No. 38 tries to set out an operational plan. I guess that is something that you could integrate into an annual report, and I understand perfectly well that there are provisions for that later on in the Bill. I would take more comfort if there were some guidelines, framework or template that Parliament could request that the commission adopts and develops on an ongoing basis, so that we can track over a period of time exactly what is going on in this important body that we are creating. The annual report or the operational plan could be debated in the Chamber, if nowhere else. An expectation that there be a continuing relationship between what the commission is doing in the future and parliamentary approval—harking back to the discussion that we have just had about technology—might be of interest to some, if not most, of us as the commission starts life and starts to deploy policy. Amendment No. 66 may arguably be nugatory to the extent that, since I tabled it, it has been made clear that guidance and directions from the Minister will be made public, although I am getting quite negative signals from the Minister at the moment. The power that Clause 10 gives to the department—whoever is in charge of it—needs to be thought about carefully. I can perfectly well understand that, as a residual last-gasp emergency, if everything that can go wrong does go wrong, or if something unexpected happens, the Secretary of State, of any political stripe, could not stand by and watch the thing go wrong for whatever reason, because this is such an important area of policy. Maybe the Secretary of State needs a residual power of guidance or direction. I certainly think it would be worth taking a moment or two to think about this. I am not asking the Minister to use a crystal ball and fantasise, but there must be some sense of the circumstances in which this power is envisaged to be used. Some thought must have been given to it, or else it would not be there. Exactly what evidence would there be for the rest of us if these are not to be published or laid in front of Parliament when the guidance and directions are given? What is the difference between guidance and a direction? In what circumstances would guidance be given, and in what circumstances would a direction be given? What possibilities are there for the commission to say, ““Thank you very much, I understand this guidance but I do not agree with it, so we are going to do what we want anyway.””? To what extent are these mandatory, and to what extent are they discretionary? These are important questions, and the Committee would benefit from the Minister giving us some background feel for what those two words mean in practice and the circumstances in which they may be deployed. Amendment No. 210 is a duty to consult relevant interests before making regulations. I confess that I think the department did very well. It certainly used the time. It was a long time coming. I was complaining about that the other day, but I have since cheered up a little. The consultation process that took place in advance of the Bill’s publication was commendable. The Minister took part in some of the seminars and in some of the work with the stakeholders to some effect. We were grateful for that. It makes a big difference if Ministers take the trouble to come and not just make a speech and march off, but to sit and listen to what is being said to them and to soak up some of the questions. That is what happened. I was pleased to see that, but there is no guarantee that, if a Minister has been taken on to higher pastures, the next Minister will be as assiduous. Perhaps Parliament should make it a duty to consult relevant interests before making regulations. The trio of amendments all seek to do the same thing. They try to tie Parliament into the proceedings and the development of the commission’s work as it unfolds. They may be belt and braces, and I guess that is what the Minister will say—that none of it is necessary because it is all going to be done anyway. I would like to believe that. Indeed, in his ministerial hands I might be prepared to believe it. However, we are setting legislation for the long term, and we do not know who will be implementing it in future. On that basis, Parliament would be better to play safe and to put these amendments in the Bill so that we can guarantee that Parliament will stay advised and properly informed about the work of the commission in future. I beg to move.