Civil Service Reform

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord Maude of Horsham

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I do not have the last fact immediately at my fingertips, although it could no doubt be there soon. On my hon. Friend’s first point, yes, we do plan to publish permanent secretary objectives. They ought to be set in a rigorous way through agreement with the Secretary of State, with the lead non-executive on the Department’s board, with the Prime Minister and with the head of the civil service. That needs to be done. We will then publish those objectives, because the public need to be able to see the extent to which they are being met. My hon. Friend also asked about milestones. We are becoming much more open and saying much more about the way in which the major projects are governed, and about their performance, than has ever been the case.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As well as suggesting a greater role for Secretaries of State in the recruitment process for permanent secretaries, the right hon. Gentleman referred to Ministers being able to ask permanent secretaries to appoint a limited number of senior officials to time-limited executive or management roles. Has he any plans to circumscribe or, better still, proscribe any involvement, interference, intervention or influence by special advisers in relation to such matters? Does experience not teach us that special advisers should not taste, touch or handle any aspect of such a process?

[Mr Maude]

Special advisers do not take part in the recruitment and appointment of mainstream civil servants, but they do play an important part in the way in which Ministers achieve their priorities and deliver their programmes.

Party Funding

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord Maude of Horsham

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I refer my hon. Friend to what our mutual right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in response to the Kelly report: at this time of great financial stringency, we do not think it would be acceptable for the Government to put forward an increase in state funding to make up for a deficiency caused by such a low cap. We think that a cap above that level could be sustainable without additional state funding and would give great comfort that the system was incapable of being abused.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Can the Minister indicate whether the controlled foreign companies rules which are the subject of Budget resolution 36 tonight were discussed with any donors at any time?

[Mr Maude]

I have no reason to suppose that they were.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord Maude of Horsham

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

He or she will have equal access and will exercise a decisive role in leading the reform of the civil service so that we can create a genuinely modern, progressive civil service that a modern Britain requires.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Is the Minister satisfied that with the split of the new roles, the various questions of probity, propriety and procedure that were aired in the O’Donnell report on the Werritty affair will be clearly brought to a known figure in the future, or will there be confusion?

[Mr Maude]

We will make sure that those issues are properly scrutinised, as they were on that occasion, and that there are proper arrangements to ensure that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord Maude of Horsham

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The big society bank will not make grants. It is a bank, so it will make loans and provide investment capital for this important and growing sector. One of the problems in the social investment market has been that Futurebuilders was able to give both grants and loans, which was very distorting for the large and growing number of intermediaries in that market. The bank should be an investment organisation, not a giver of grants.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

What steps have been taken to ensure that the big society bank will be relevant and accessible in all regions? Also, is it being impressed upon the banks that the coming arrival of the big society bank will not obviate their duty to show consideration and support for the third sector in the current challenging funding environment?

[Mr Maude]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that relevant question. The introduction of the big society bank certainly does not obviate the broader need to support voluntary and social enterprises, in the interests of local residents. The bank’s remit will be UK-wide. The money put in by the banks will be for UK purposes, but the money coming into the big society bank in due course from dormant bank accounts will be for England only, unless the devolved Administrations decide to put their share of that money into the big society bank, which I hope they will be encouraged to do.

Public Bodies Reform

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord Maude of Horsham

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly proper point about staff. We hope that jobs will not be lost, although some will be; we recognise that every single one is a personal disaster for the family involved. The chief executives of all bodies affected by the changes I am announcing should have communicated with staff this morning to give them as much certainty as possible about the future.

As regards Consumer Focus and consumer activities, the funding implications are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, and results will emerge in due course. We recognise that we cannot just hand these functions over to outside bodies without any resource implications.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In pursuit of his body count, did the Minister consider the role of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which has upheld absolutely no complaints against the security services and has never offered any reason? Its existence is merely a deceit of scrutiny to mask the conceit of unaccountable, secret powers. Has he found any more faceless, toothless or spineless creatures in the ecosystem of government?

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Gentleman encourages me to have a very good look.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord Maude of Horsham

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend says that those terms were “almost agreed”, but that was far from being the case. In fact, one of the trade unions refused to agree to them, sought judicial review and had the agreement quashed. Given that one of the unions had refused to contemplate agreeing to the relatively modest—if we are honest—changes to the current scheme, it would be unrealistic to assume that we could then go back and say, “Oh, PCS, please feel completely differently, and please execute a rapid volte face from your position of a few months ago.” I take the view that the previous Government took, which is that the situation is not sustainable, and that one union cannot be allowed to stand in the way of necessary reform. That is why we have introduced the Bill, and why we are engaged in a concurrent process of negotiation, through which we genuinely want to achieve a long-term, sustainable settlement.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister has stressed that five unions—not the PCS—had agreed to the arrangements in February. How many of the unions are in agreement with the framework that will be imposed by the Bill?

[Mr Maude]

Just to be clear, we are seeking to negotiate a new scheme, which would effectively make the terms in the Bill redundant. I make no bones about this: the Bill is a bit of a blunt instrument. It does not seek to create an entire, comprehensive new scheme. It simply imposes a cap on the amounts payable under the current scheme, so that it will be possible for the scheme to operate in a way that is fair to the taxpayer and to workers in other sectors outside the civil service. This is a complex process, and no one should be surprised that there is not instant agreement on a comprehensive new scheme. We are seeking to negotiate all the terms, but particularly those relating to additional protection for lower-paid workers and to a cap on what can be paid to the highest-paid workers.