Political Party Finance and the Electoral Commission
Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in thanking the noble Earl and congratulating him on introducing this debate. It is a timely and incredibly important subject. I speak as a veteran, at various stages in a long and chequered career, of engaging in cross-party talks on party funding.
The concern I have about where we are today is that the long-established convention on these matters of changing the rules on party funding—that they are pursued only after cross-party talks, with agreement being sought—seems to be being abandoned. The noble Earl made a powerful case for a much more comprehensive and simple approach to these matters, so it is a matter of regret and concern that the Government have chosen to pick a couple of cherries out of the Rycroft report and introduce them, at a relatively late stage, into a Bill already going through its legislative process. That is a breach of the approach which has been followed pretty rigorously.
I recall that, in the period after the 2005 election, when Sir Hayden Phillips—sadly, now the late Sir Hayden Phillips—was asked to undertake one of these reviews, Jack Straw and I, accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, had comprehensive discussions, which sadly did not reach agreement. They did not reach agreement because the Labour Party had a concern that a cap on donations of £50,000 could not be applied to donations by trade unions. At that point, the whole deal that was being fashioned—which would have gone some way to re-establish trust and support in the system—fell down.
There is another concern here, which is the introduction of a retrospective element into what is apparently being proposed. There is a cap to be introduced retrospectively on donations from legitimate electors—people who are entitled to vote but who happen not to be living in this country. I query the whole principle of saying that some voters are more equal than others. If there is a concern about the right of people living overseas—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, slightly raised this point—to have full rights in our Parliament and our democratic processes then that should be dealt with differently, but to say that for one particular aspect of participation in our parliamentary democracy they should be disadvantaged in this way seems plainly wrong. These matters should be treated very carefully indeed.
There was a very good reason, first set out by Sir Winston Churchill in the late 1940s, why parties should treat these matters very carefully. If a Government are seen to be using their position to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors, that can trigger a tit-for-tat approach, because no party has a lifetime hold on power. At various stages during the 2005 Parliament, and during discussions that took place subsequently in the coalition Government, the approach that Jack Straw and I took was that which the then Labour Party was strongly committed to. All of this was approached by seeking consensus wherever possible. I strongly urge the Minister to take this message back to his colleagues in the other place, because this is a dangerous path.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord safe travels, and I hope he has a very enjoyable visit. With regard to the appointment, I think we have all been clear that this was a mistake and should not have happened, and the Prime Minister has taken personal responsibility for it.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the last, albeit inadvertent, public service that Peter Mandelson delivered was to enable to be laid bare for public scrutiny the extraordinary vacuum at the centre of this Government—that there is a lack of leadership and a lack of direction, and that this has consequences? Does she agree that, when the Financial Secretary stood at that Dispatch Box yesterday and told the House that the inevitable consequence of the Government’s so-called EU reset was that Britain would rejoin the European Union, that has consequences? Does she agree that that lack of discipline and of collective responsibility has to come to an end and can only do so with a change of Prime Minister?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, because he has given me an opportunity to highlight exactly how effective my Government and that of Keir Starmer have been since we came into office. More than 50% of asylum hotels are closed and knife crime has gone down by 10% in the last 12 months. The IMF has just raised our growth forecast. We have approved 110,000 grants to help people buy new electric vehicles, and we have increased the number of secondary school, special school and further education teachers by 4,000. Over 1,300 schools have joined the free breakfast club programme. The NHS waiting list is at its lowest level for three and a half years. Some 11 million renters have stronger rights and 56,000 illegal immigrants have been returned to their countries. We have brought in 30 hours of free childcare per week for parents and the minimum wage has gone up. I will take that every day of the week.
Civil Servants: Compulsory Office Attendance
Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for introducing this topic and giving us a chance to debate something that is important, because it relates to the productivity of the Civil Service, which is vital to the success of the United Kingdom as a country.
There are no absolutes in this: there is no absolute sense that working from home is terrible or that being required to be in the office all the time is perfect. There is plenty of evidence that a degree of hybrid working can increase productivity. Before Covid, there was evidence that people doing office jobs, working, perhaps, one or two days a week from home, could actually increase productivity. There was less time spent travelling—all of that—and productivity could improve. There are, however, some big “buts” on this. Generally—and my noble friend made this point—for more junior staff with less experience, often living in much more cramped circumstances at home, it is important to be able to learn from example and from interaction with each other, and to learn from people more experienced and senior than themselves.
The second “but” is that this is and should not be an entitlement. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, made the point that you would not expect Civil Service employment contracts that make working from home an entitlement, because business need has to be paramount. That is key. As many have observed, we all want civil servants and other employees to be happy, contented and motivated, but business need is paramount. We have seen the way that civil servants have tended to move, almost randomly and in an unplanned way, from job to job. That is the enemy of serving business need and of effective productivity.
Allowing working from home or hybrid working depends on effective management capability. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, just said, it is about not just watching people working but managing their outputs, which requires skilful and rigorous performance management. Frankly—and this is not just my complaint from recent times; it goes right back to the Fulton committee and earlier—that kind of rigorous performance management has been lacking in the Civil Service for a long time.
There has been a huge lack of discipline in controlling staffing levels. The coalition Government reduced the size of the Civil Service, like for like, by 21%. Since then, without any Ministers having made this decision, headcount has gone back to and beyond where it was in 2010, because there was no one in charge. Of course, it is impossible to have an effective workforce plan when pay is being decided in one part of government—the Treasury—and the size, shape, composition and capability of the Civil Service is in completely other hands. How can you have effective, holistic workforce planning in that context?
The truth is that it is much easier to manage hybrid working or working from home if you start from the baseline of people working in the office. That is the reverse of the position: we are starting from the baseline of people expecting during the pandemic to work from home. There is a strong case, which I urge on the Government, not just for saying that we are expecting people—but with lots of exceptions, as my noble friend made clear—to work in the office 60% of the time, three days a week, but for resetting this. To reset the baseline, we should have a requirement for no working from home at all. Once that has been put in place, we could allow some hybrid working to begin again much more easily and more effectively, but in a controlled and disciplined way. That discipline does not currently exist.
Whitehall: Prioritising Performance
Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I previously quoted the report as saying that the Civil Service brand is “battered”, and part of our reset as a new incoming Government must be to reset the relationship between the politicians and civil servants. All of us fortunate enough to come on to the Front Bench have been incredibly well supported over recent weeks and months by the Civil Service. I also do not think we should get into a battle about private sector good or private sector bad, or public sector good or public sector bad—that does not serve any of us well.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that concerns about a lack of rigorous performance management in the Civil Service, which is not unique to the British Civil Service, have been around for decades. While valiant attempts have been made by Ministers on both sides and by officials to remedy this, where there has been success, it has not been sustained. Will she accept, from one of those who has tried, that this will never be achieved on a sustainable basis until there is a dedicated full-time head of the Civil Service who has a proven track record of system leadership and a real mandate from the Prime Minister, with his statutory power to manage the Civil Service, and who is held accountable to an independent body, which could be a strengthened Civil Service Commission that reports to Parliament? Until then, we will continue to be in a position where the only organisation that looks at the internal workings of the Civil Service is the Civil Service itself.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As a relatively new Minister, I need to reflect on the noble Lord’s experience; he makes some very interesting points. I will look into the points he raised and get back to him if that is acceptable?