Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Pugh and Lord Maude of Horsham

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

1. What plans he has to reduce the number of London-based civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

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

As part of our long-term economic plan to save taxpayers money and to pay off the deficit, this Government have reduced the size of the civil service like for like by 21%—that is after adjusting for machinery of government changes. That has increased productivity and saved the taxpayers £2.4 billion last year alone compared with spending in 2009-10. The reduction includes a substantial cut in the number of London-based civil servants.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for his positive answer. Given the pace and scale of devolution in the UK, is there not more scope for merging and moving London-based Departments?

[Mr Maude]

There is a lot of scope for us to get out of properties that we do not need and we have done that already. We have released a huge amount of property into the private sector where it can be used for the purpose of creating jobs, and there is more that we can and will do in that respect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Pugh and Lord Maude of Horsham

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T7. Had we reached Question 10, I would have asked what recent assessment has been made of Government policy on open source software and open standards.

[Mr Maude]

We are strongly in favour of using open source software wherever possible. We have established that that can cut the cost of providing digital services massively, while producing better results. On a recent visit to silicon valley, I and a number of colleagues found businesses that were capable of cutting those costs on a massive scale.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Pugh and Lord Maude of Horsham

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The social investment bank planned by the last Government would have received a meagre £75 million of investment at best, and probably a great deal less than that.

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady noted what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government told the conference of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations yesterday. He said that the Government had “reasonable expectations” that local authorities would not impose greater cuts in their funding for community, social and voluntary organisations than they imposed on their in-house services, and that if authorities did not follow those “reasonable expectations”, he would contemplate making them statutory.

The fact is that we face the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. As a result of the legacy of the Government of whom the right hon. Lady was a prominent member, we are spending £4 for every £3 in revenue, and we cannot carry on like that. The necessity—and it is a necessity—to eradicate the structural deficit is something for which the right hon. Lady should bear her full share of responsibility.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential efficiency savings from the use of teleconferencing.

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

Teleconferencing and video conferencing are a key part of our strategy to minimise travel in the civil service. Officials have been encouraged, indeed instructed, to use alternatives. Telephone calls can be quite helpful in that regard, when possible. So far, Departments have saved £50 million in the current financial year by avoiding travel, but by the better buying of travel services we have saved an additional £50 million. We are also reducing the cost of teleconferencing itself. We have opened up fresh discussions with major suppliers, and as a result of the Crown renegotiations that I have been overseeing, one of our suppliers has already offered a significant reduction in its audio conferencing tariffs.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for that full answer, but will he make it a little fuller by telling me which Departments make good use of teleconferences and which do not, and why?

[Mr Maude]

That is a very good question, to which I do not have an immediate answer. I am prompted by the hon. Gentleman’s interest to look into the matter, and I will get back to him with some answers.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between John Pugh and Lord Maude of Horsham

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I will come on to precisely that point, because the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a real concern that I have. I will deal with it in detail later, if I may, because how to protect effectively the position of the lowest-paid in the civil service is a really important issue that will concern everyone in the House.

It is now more than 20 years since the last serious reform of the compensation scheme and more than two years since the current reform process began, with an unchanged set of arrangements still in place. Frankly, that position cannot be allowed to continue. The current scheme is unaffordable and unsustainable. It allows for payments of up to three times annual salary or, for older workers, enhancements to pension and lump sum payments costing more than five times salary. For some, those enhancements can total as much as six and two thirds times annual salary. That compares with a maximum of 30 weeks’ pay under the statutory redundancy scheme, with a weekly cap on the salary allowable of £380, giving a total of about £11,000.

The level of payments under the current scheme would be excessive even if we were not facing such a difficult financial situation. The last Government left the country with, in the immortal words of their last Chief Secretary to the Treasury, “no money left”. The Government are having to borrow a pound out of every four just to keep pensions paid and schools and hospitals functioning.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The Minister has mentioned that the scheme was last revised in 1972, but did not that revision leave all previously accrued rights in place? Is he not doing something different now?

[Mr Maude]

The extent to which rights are accrued is an issue to consider. We are talking not strictly about redundancy but about compensation for loss of office under a statutory scheme, and the relevant rights are those in force at the time when redundancy or loss of office happens. If the statutory redundancy scheme changes, the terms that govern the entitlement are those in place at the time when the redundancy happens. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I do not believe it applies in this case. I shall deal with that matter a little more in due course.

Our view is that to maintain the current scheme would be unfair as between taxpayers and civil servants and as between workers in the civil service and those in the private sector or the wider public sector. It is unfair also to less well-paid civil servants, which is related to exactly the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made, with which I shall deal.

The effect of the current scheme is that it is prohibitively expensive to make redundant civil servants who are highly paid and long-serving. The result is therefore that when money has to be saved by reducing head count, the burden currently falls disproportionately on the lower-paid, more of whom lose their jobs than is necessary or desirable. My view is that lower-paid civil servants suffer disproportionately and are more likely to lose their jobs under the current scheme than would be the case under the arrangements that we are seeking to negotiate. In addition to the very simple cap incorporated in the Bill, we are seeking in parallel to negotiate different arrangements with significantly enhanced protection for lower-paid civil servants.