Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Liam Byrne

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I would expect community organisers to work closely with those organisations and to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. These community organisers, many of whom already exist and do great work in communities, will not carry any kind of bureaucracy or organisational structure with them. Their job is to put people together, give support to organisations and make connections where they are not already being made.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

This morning, figures showed that youth unemployment has rocketed up, and this afternoon we expect the Government to confirm that they will cancel the education maintenance allowance. Without work and without study, surely we need our youth charities more than ever before, yet the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services says that three quarters are now cutting projects. Just what have the Government got against young people, and why is there such a narrow place for young people in the Government’s vision of the big society?

[Mr Maude]

I am pretty reluctant to take lectures on this from the right hon. Gentleman, because he will know, as a prominent member of the last Government, that when his Government left office there were many more young people out of work than when they took office.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Liam Byrne

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

I want to speak briefly about Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6, as well as amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). During proceedings on the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) has consistently raised concerns about the arbitrary caps that the Government introduced at the start of this process, which now form the body of clause 2. I confess that we are still not clear about why the caps are still in the Bill given that clause 1, which was newly introduced on Report, effectively gives the Government the power to impose any settlement after the consultations that we discussed earlier have been completed. We heard, in the Minister’s helpful update to the House, that there is a degree of agreement with at least some of the trade unions, which the Government have declared will supersede the terms in the Bill. Why then do they not seek to introduce a sharp instrument containing the specific terms they have agreed with the trade unions, rather than the blunt instrument containing general powers that is the Bill before us?

We are pleased that the Minister has given a clear commitment, in a letter to right hon. and hon. Members, that it is his ambition to

“repeal the caps in clause 3 insofar as they could impact on the new civil service compensation scheme”.

His letter also says that if the caps were ever revived he

“would table an order…so as to increase the caps to such a level that would…reflect what would otherwise apply under the new scheme.”

Most of us will welcome that good progress.

In earlier debates, we raised concerns that the Bill would allow the revival of caps at any time in the future even after a negotiated settlement was in place. We fear that the relevant measure, which the Government call a sunrise clause, would put an undesirable amount of power in their hands during negotiations, as they could simply threaten to revive statutory powers whenever they ran into any dispute on any matter, not just issues of redundancy. Given that it would allow the Government to resurrect the terms of a long-dead provision, it is not so much a sunrise clause as a zombie clause, which would live on for ever. Whatever we call it, the measure is entirely without precedent in a Bill of this nature. Indeed, the only recorded precedent of such a measure is in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

We are pleased that there will be a limit of three years on the caps if they are revived, and that the Government cannot extend that period. Given what the Minister has said this afternoon, however, I do not see how he can argue that the correct balance of time and the correct limit to any revived power should be three years. The whole House will welcome what the Minister said this afternoon about his ambition that the revival of the caps should never be triggered. If that is true—and I am prepared to accept that it is—I do not see why he cannot accept the very sensible amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Although we are happy to accept amendments from the Lords, we shall support amendment (a).

[Mr Maude]

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) asked why we needed to keep the caps at all. The answer is simple. The caps will be established in primary legislation, but the new civil service compensation scheme, which I hope to lay before Parliament next week, before the House rises, does not have the full force of primary legislation, despite the changes to the Superannuation Act 1972 made by clause 1.

I shall be frank. We want to avoid being in the position that followed the High Court judgment in May this year, which resulted in the previous Government’s February scheme being quashed. The effect of the scheme being quashed is that the existing scheme remains unreformed and in force. Indeed, the old scheme—unaffordable, unsustainable and unreconstructed—is in force today. Of course, in preparing the new scheme we were at some pains to ensure that it would be legally robust, and we shall vigorously defend any legal challenge to it. However, as was apparent from the litigation against the previous Administration’s scheme, there can never be guarantees in litigation. Even litigation that is destined ultimately to fail can be disruptive, because of the uncertainty it causes until the case is concluded.

Public Bodies Reform

Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Liam Byrne

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement—in the Financial Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph this morning. He is a man who appreciates the courtesies of this House, so I know that he will provide you, Mr Speaker, with an explanation of how the media could possibly have been briefed before Members were.

May I, however, start on a note of consensus? I thank the Minister for his work in completing a process that was set in train during my time at the Treasury. In March I told the House that 123 quangos would need to close, and from first glance at this statement it appears that two thirds of the 192 arm’s length bodies that need to close are those that I announced in March. Instead of 20% of quangos being closed, the Minister has announced that 25% will be.

I am grateful, too, that his tests largely confirmed the approach that I set out in March. I welcome his endorsement of the principles of a sunset clause for quangos and of triennial reviews. I am especially grateful for his confirmation of our decision to mutualise British Waterways, which will be an important institution in the third sector that I know we both support.

May I, however, raise the slightly obvious question about the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has conducted this exercise? All of us want to improve accountability—it was one of the three principles that we set out in the ALB review in March—but we also want to save money, and once upon a time I thought that the current Prime Minister agreed, because, in a typically thoughtful and measured intervention, he said in October 2008:

“Sound money means…destroying all these useless quangos and initiatives.”

Now the Minister tells us that the Prime Minister in fact got it wrong. Saving money

“is not the principal objective”,

he told the “Today” programme this morning.

Labour’s plan would have saved £500 billion by 2012-13. Now we are told that the Government’s approach will not in all cases save money at all. In fact, it could cost more money than it saves at the Audit Commission, the RDAs, the UK Film Council, Standards for England and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I am afraid that the Minister has become the most expensive butcher in the country. His friend the Chancellor will no doubt be delighted.

Will the Minister, first, set out the total cost of implementing the plan this year and next? He should have those figures at his fingertips now that the review is almost complete. Secondly, can he explain the impact on jobs and unemployment? Organisations such as the UK Film Council help to strengthen industry and tax revenues. What estimate has he made of the impact of his announcement on growth and jobs?

Thirdly, the principle of independence is sometimes important, and I am glad that he acknowledges that, but it is not clear how he has applied it in all cases. For example, we need to hear a little more from the Minister about the Football Licensing Authority. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport infamously had to apologise for blaming Liverpool fans for the Hillsborough tragedy; now the Government are scrapping the organisation established to ensure that a Hillsborough never happens again, without being clear about what will be put in its place.

Finally, in March I introduced a new principle whereby quangos would be set up only as a last resort. The Minister’s statement confirms his presumption that state activity should be undertaken by bodies that are democratically accountable. His party’s manifesto promised 20 new quangos—one third of the extra quangos that he has abolished today. Will he confirm that those quangos will not go ahead?

[Mr Maude]

It is very good to have such a consensual approach from the man who famously told the world on leaving government that there was no money left. There will be savings as a result of the process, and there need to be because the right hon. Gentleman was a prominent member of a Government who left office spending £4 for every £3 of revenue. They were having to borrow £1 out of every £4 just to keep the lights on, the teachers in the schools, the pensions being paid and the doctors and nurses in the hospitals. This Government have to clear up the mess that his Government shamefully left behind, and there will be savings from the process.

[Mr Byrne]

How much?

[Mr Maude]

We became used to the previous Labour Government bandying around large numbers in respect of the savings that they proposed to make, but we know that when the National Audit Office went around after those much vaunted efficiency exercises over which he and his colleagues presided, it found that in most cases they had not saved money at all. It was all about the optics and trying to make a point; it had nothing to do with reality.

I am sorry to say that jobs will be lost as a result of this process, but, in order to clear up the fiscal mess that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left behind, that is sadly an inevitability. Savings will be made as a result of the exercise, but, as I said at the outset, it is not principally about saving money, although it will do so. It is principally about increasing accountability—the important presumption that when an activity is carried out by the state, and there is no pressing need to do so at arm’s length from government, it should be carried out by someone who is accountable democratically, either a Minister who is accountable to this House and, through this House, to the public, or a local authority that is accountable to local residents.

It is very good that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with our approach and thinks it sensible. He tried to claim credit for it himself, actually, so, as the various bodies that we have discussed today start to complain, as some will, and as some vested interests will with a very loud voice, I shall be able to tell them that our approach is a consensual one—that the Labour party wants to play its full part in responsibility for the whole exercise.