Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I am not aware of particular discussions, but I will pursue the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to reform the procedure for the appointment of permanent secretaries of Government Departments.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The Government wish to strengthen the role of Ministers in permanent secretary appointments to reflect Ministers’ accountability to Parliament for the performance of their Departments. We believe it sensible to allow a choice of candidates who are judged by the Civil Service Commission to be above the line and appointable. The Civil Service Commission’s recent guidance is capable of strengthening the Minister’s role. We will review how it works before deciding whether to seek further changes.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Does the Minister agree with the two recent excellent reports from the Institute of Government and the Institute for Public Policy Research, which say that for there to be proper accountability Secretaries of State must have a say in who runs their Department, albeit from a shortlist agreed in the normal way? Will he reassure us that, contrary to press reports, he is not caving in to the mandarins on this vital reform?

[Mr Maude]

I do not think that that is a phenomenon that would be recognised in Whitehall. The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. The relationship between permanent secretary and Minister is very important. Ministers are accountable in this place for their Department, and it seems to us to make sense—it clearly makes sense to him, too—that a Minister should be given a choice of candidates, as long as they are deemed to be politically impartial and capable of doing the job properly.

Party Funding

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Ben Bradshaw

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The problem with what my hon. Friend suggests is that, as the Deputy Prime Minister has set out, it is simply not realistic at the moment to propose that we should significantly increase the amount of state funding for political parties. Having a set of reforms of the nature set out by Sir Christopher Kelly’s committee is absolutely dependent on increasing state funding, which I do not think anyone in this House will feel comfortable proposing to their constituents.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

If this is not about cash for access, could I bring a pensioner and a working parent from Exeter to see the Prime Minister, at Downing street or Chequers, so that he can explain why he cut taxes for millionaires but clobbered them with a granny tax and a cut in family tax credits?

[Mr Maude]

I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman proposes that, it will receive due consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I simply pray in aid what Lord Hutton, the former Labour Pensions Secretary, said yesterday, when he referred to public sector trade unions “holding a gun” to the taxpayer’s head. He said that the offer was generous and that it was hard

“to envisage a better offer being made.”

I hope that we can now move quickly to resolve the final, outstanding issues, so that we can move on without further disruption to people’s lives.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given that the Minister’s Department is currently the worst in Whitehall for meeting the Government’s business plan targets—targets for which he is responsible—having missed 38 at the last count, would his time not be better spent sorting out his own Department, rather than picking fights with public sector unions?

[Mr Maude]

The short answer is that we want to get these public sector pension issues resolved quickly. I would be quite interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman shares our belief—and that of Lord Hutton, his former colleague—that we are talking about a generous offer that the trade unions should accept, and that they should stop “holding a gun” to the taxpayer’s head. Does he agree with that?

Public Bodies

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Bradshaw]

While “The King’s Speech” is rightly being feted all around the world, the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are abolishing the organisations here in Britain that helped to make that film happen, as part of what even the Conservative-dominated Public Administration Committee has described as a “botched” bonfire of the quangos. Given that he cannot even say how much, if anything, this is going to cost, is it not typical of what the Government are doing in so many areas—ill considered, ill thought through, rushed and damaging?

[Mr Maude]

Just to be clear, the purpose of these reforms is to increase accountability. The Government will not simply create incontinently new independent bodies in order to avoid Ministers having to make and defend uncomfortable decisions. Ministers should be prepared to make those decisions and defend them themselves—that is what democratic accountability is about, and that is the primary aim. However, we will save money. The changes to the public body landscape planned and announced by the previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished ornament, were much more minor than the changes that we are undertaking. That Government claimed that those changes would save £500 million a year; our changes are much more radical and will save a great deal more.

[Official Report, 19 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 827.]

Letter of correction from Mr Maude:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 19 January 2011.

The correct answer should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The proposals for reform that I set out in the House last October are the most major change to the public bodies landscape that any Government have made in a generation. They will make a significant contribution to reducing the baseline of Government spending as part of the coalition Government’s deficit reduction plan.

[Mr Bradshaw]

While “The King’s Speech” is rightly being feted all around the world, the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are abolishing the organisations here in Britain that helped to make that film happen, as part of what even the Conservative-dominated Public Administration Committee has described as a “botched” bonfire of the quangos. Given that he cannot even say how much, if anything, this is going to cost, is it not typical of what the Government are doing in so many areas—ill considered, ill thought through, rushed and damaging?

[Mr Maude]

Just to be clear, the purpose of these reforms is to increase accountability. The Government will not simply create incontinently new independent bodies in order to avoid Ministers having to make and defend uncomfortable decisions. Ministers should be prepared to make those decisions and defend them themselves—that is what democratic accountability is about, and that is the primary aim. However, we will save money. The changes to the public body landscape planned and announced by the previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished ornament, were much more minor than the changes that we are undertaking. That Government claimed that those changes would save £500 million a year; our changes are much more radical and will save a great deal more.[Official Report, 2 February 2011, Vol. 522, c. 10MC.]