---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

Amendment No. 38 introduces a new clause requiring the commission to produce an operational plan. This could take effect only once a debate on it has been held in both Houses. I recognise the concerns the noble Lord raises but I believe it would be inappropriate for us to make the operational business plan of a non-departmental public body subject to the procedure outlined in the amendment. We believe an NDPB is the right governance structure for the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission precisely because of the independence this model allows. The commission will be led by an autonomous board. As we can see from the appointments already made, board members will be highly qualified for their role and will be the people best placed to decide the direction and plans for the commission. The commission should provide documentation that allows effective parliamentary scrutiny. Treasury guidance already requires that all NDPBs prepare and agree a corporate plan that looks three years ahead, and a more detailed operational business plan for the year immediately ahead, as part of the financial and management documents that must be agreed and between a sponsor department and NDPB. These plans must be published. In addition, Clause 9 requires the commission to provide a comprehensive annual report alongside its accounts, and the Secretary of State must lay this before Parliament. In all these respects, the commission will follow precedent for the relationship between NDPBs, government and Parliament. Amendment No. 66 would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State that guidance and directions must be laid in both Houses of Parliament. As the noble Lord will be aware, ultimate accountability for the commission’s performance and actions remains with the Secretary of State. As such, in line with the legislation for other NDPBs, Clause 10 provides powers of direction and guidance. After listening to thoughts provided in another place, as to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, we brought forward a government amendment providing that any directions given by the Secretary of State should be laid in Parliament. That is now in Clause 10(5). I would hope to persuade the noble Lord that this provision should not be applied to guidance, as his amendment would require. There are significant differences between guidance and directions. The commission is required to follow a direction issued by the Secretary of State and we intend that this power is only used in emergencies. Guidance, on the other hand, is less rigid. The commission should take it into account but it does not have to be followed to the letter and is likely to be used for relatively routine, low-profile matters. As a result, we do not consider it appropriate to lay all guidance before Parliament as a matter of course. However, it remains open to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any guidance he thinks appropriate. We would also expect guidance to be published and the implementation of guidance to be reported on by the commission through the annual report. Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 210, which found somewhat more favour with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It requires all persons with relevant interests in child maintenance to be consulted before any regulation under the powers in this Bill or the 1991 Act can be made. We are committed to consultation as an essential part of the policy-making process. The Bill has emerged from the Henshaw review, which gave rise to a consultation on a White Paper. Both the Bill and the broader child maintenance redesign programme have been built on consultation with stakeholders and cannot possibly succeed without it—both noble Lords acknowledged that. I can confirm that the department will consult stakeholders as it draws up draft regulations and the Secretary of State will ensure that the commission does likewise in line with the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation. However, I am not convinced of the case for putting a consultation requirement in the Bill. In view of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.