Contingencies Fund Advance

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The Cabinet Office has received a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £37,199,000.

The requirement for this has arisen because the Cabinet Office cash receives a relatively high proportion of its voted resource programme funding at supplementary estimate, and so can only draw the related cash from the Consolidated Fund after the Supply and Appropriation Act has received Royal Assent in March 2016.

HM Treasury’s supply estimates guidance provides for a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund in order to meet an urgent cash requirement for existing services when cash provision from the main estimate has been exhausted.

The cash advance will pay for programmes which will generate Government-wide benefits or savings and are urgent in the public interest.

The following programmes are funded from the reserve:

various technology and property programmes announced in the 2015 summer budget which will generate savings across Government (£46,000,000);

individual electoral registration (£9,750,000); and

various Office for Civil Society programmes (£690,000).

The following programmes are funded from budgetary cover transfers from other Government Departments:

various national security programmes (£17,465,000);

a cross-government secure IT programme (£15,931,000);

an identity assurance programme (£19,657,000);

cross-government shared services (£3,836,000);

common technology services (£3,500,000);

cross-government Gulf strategy commitments (£1,491,000);

various Office for Civil Society programmes (£1,300,000);

financial management review target operating model (£300,000);

and diversity and inclusion (£279,000).

The requirement for an advance is reduced by cash proceeds from the sale of Admiralty arch (£65,000,000), and budgetary cover transfers to other Departments for the GREAT campaign (£18,000,000).

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £37,199,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £37,199,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS483]

Public Bodies Reform Programme

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

In May 2010, the coalition Government committed to reviewing public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of Government. The 2010 to 2015 public bodies reform programme delivered the biggest reform of the public bodies in a generation.

Its successes included:

reducing the number of public bodies by over 290, by abolishing more than 190 and merging over 165 bodies into fewer than 70;

98% of planned abolitions and mergers completed;

reducing administrative spend by a cumulative £3 billion over the life of the programme to the end of March 2015, comfortably exceeding the original estimate of £2.6 billion;

an Act of Parliament, the Public Bodies Act 2011, to facilitate the abolition, merger and reform of public bodies;

improved accountability through bringing the functions of over 75 bodies closer to democratically-elected representatives; and

increased funding from alternative sources and volunteering by moving some organisations outside the public sector under innovative delivery models.

We have delivered our promise. The landscape is now smaller, more accountable and efficient, with reduced administrative costs, ensuring better value for money to the public. This remarkable achievement is thanks in no small part to the committed public servants who have embraced the spirit of reform.

Full details of the reforms are available at: https://www.gov.uk/public-bodies-reform.

“Public Bodies 2015”

The public bodies report was first published by the Cabinet Office in 1980 and is now a single transparent source of top-level data on all non-departmental public bodies, executive agencies and non-ministerial departments.

“Public Bodies 2015” details the broad range of public bodies sponsored by the UK government and provide further detail on the success of the 2010 to 2015 public bodies reform programme. The Cabinet Office will today publish “Public Bodies 2015” at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-2015 and I am also today placing it in the Library of the House. The online data set will be updated quarterly where applicable.

Public Bodies Reform 2015-20

I can also announce the Government’s approach to public bodies reform from 2015 to 2020. We have worked in partnership with leaders of public bodies and departments to develop a new two-tier approach to transformation.

Instead of just piecemeal reviews, of individual arm’s length bodies, we will look at how groups of quangos can be merged, share back offices or work better together. So the first tier is a set of cross-departmental, functional reviews, covering several ALBs in similar or related areas of Government. This will initially cover bodies with regulatory functions. The review, led by Amanda Spielman, Chair of OFQUAL, will be delivered through partnership with arm’s length bodies, the Cabinet Office and other Departments.

Each ALB will continue to be reviewed each Parliament. So the second tier is a programme of tailored reviews, for those not falling into a functional review, or for those which may require a more in-depth review in addition to a review of some aspects within a functional review. It develops the triennial review programme, extending the scope of reviews to include executive agencies and non-ministerial Departments. Departments will have greater flexibility to dovetail with wider policy reviews. Crucially, every ALB will be reviewed at least once in the lifetime of each Parliament.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS428]

Transparency Update

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

Enhancing transparency and accountability continues to be at the heart of our approach to Government, ensuring that Whitehall’s elected representatives and senior officials uphold the highest standards in public life through transparency and democratic scrutiny.

In support of this aim, the Government are today publishing:

The list of Ministers’ Interests. Under the terms of the “Ministerial Code”, Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their ministerial position and their private interests, financial or otherwise. The list captures those interests relevant to Ministers’ ministerial responsibilities, and should be read alongside the two parliamentary registers. In addition, we have today published an update report by the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, Sir Alex Allan.

The list of special advisers. The list sets out the names of the special advisers in post as of December 2015, each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary—where this is higher than the senior civil service entry-level salary—together with details of the total pay bill for 2014-15 and the estimate for 2015-16. The cost has fallen from last year, and the cost represents just 0.08% of the civil service pay bill.

Details of the salaries of officials in Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies earning £150,000 and above. Excluding machinery of government transfers, the number of people of people earning £150,000 and above in central Government has reduced by a third since 2010.

Details of ministerial meetings with external organisations and overseas travel, ministerial and special adviser gifts and hospitality, the use of official residences and the Prime Minister’s UK visits and charity receptions for the period April to September 2015.

Details of Permanent Secretary meetings with external organisations, and senior officials travel and gifts and hospitality for the period April to September 2015.

Copies of the list of ministerial interests and the list of special advisers have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. All publications will be available on gov.uk.

Attachments can be viewed online at http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS439]

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Every hon. Member will know of a charity or charities doing extraordinary work in their constituency, as will you, Mr Speaker. Many have served or will serve as patrons or trustees. They may even have subjected themselves to ritual humiliation to raise money and awareness. I have dressed up as a sumo wrestler, carried a pedometer for a week and even lost two stone to race a charger around the Newmarket July course. Charities channel the best of our instincts against the worst that life can inflict, whether that is sickness of mind and body, entrenched poverty or natural disaster.

So often, charities lead the way for us in Government to follow. Long before there was an Education Act, an NHS or a welfare state, charities that knew people could not wait had set up hospitals, schools and almshouses. Today, their compassion and kindness are matched by ideas and innovation. When Paula and Robert Maguire posted their first ice bucket challenge video, they expected to raise about £500 for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, but the campaign went viral, many of us joined in and they ended up raising £7 million. Let us look at Bristol Together, a social enterprise that buys and refurbishes properties and employs ex-offenders to carry out the work: that social investment is transforming lives.

The Government are committed to a flourishing civil society. We have protected the budget of the Office for Civil Society, we are expanding the brilliant National Citizen Service and we are rolling out more locally designed social impact bonds. Along with those opportunities, there are challenges. Perhaps more than any other kind of enterprise, charities trade on their reputation. Scandals of poor governance or unscrupulous fundraising undermine public trust, tarnishing the vast majority of charities that are well run and seek only to do good.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I could not agree more with the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend in describing, to use an awful expression, the charitable landscape. I am a patron of Unlock and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. Both organisations have concerns, which I hope he can allay, that this much needed legislation might make it more difficult for them—bearing in mind that the subjects that interest them are prisons, prison reform and the condition of prisoners—to have among their trustees people with criminal convictions. The point is obvious, but I am sure that he can deal with it.

[Matthew Hancock]

I can give some assurance to my hon. Friend—

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

And learned.

[Matthew Hancock]

Sorry, my hon. and learned Friend.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Right honourable.

[Matthew Hancock]

My right hon. and learned Friend. If he would like to raise it any further, I could continue. I commend the two charities of which he is a trustee for their work. While protecting charities through the Bill, we will of course seek to support the good work that excellent charities do. The Bill proposes extra restrictions for those with unspent convictions. However, the Charity Commission will be able to waive those restrictions and, as with almost all the extra powers of the Charity Commission, it will be possible to appeal to the charity tribunal. I hope that he is reassured by the safeguards that are in the Bill, and that we can work with him to ensure that they are applied properly to charities that work in the important area he mentions.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

My right hon. Friend has been extremely clear and helpful. May I make him an offer? I know of his success at Newmarket racecourse. There is a very good racecourse, Leicester racecourse, in my constituency. If he would ever like to run there, he should let me know.

[Matthew Hancock]

I very am grateful for that unexpected invitation. I am dearly tempted. I hope that Unlock and the Prison Reform Trust will work with us to ensure that the Bill passes in a form that supports the important work that they do.

On the broader question of supporting the reputation of charities, by one measure trust in the sector is at a seven-year low. It is in all our interests that we have a strong, confident and thriving charitable sector.

The purpose of the Bill is twofold: first to tackle the challenges and then to unlock new opportunities. The main provisions of the Bill fall into three main areas: first, strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers, including over trustee disqualification; secondly, the regulation of charity fundraising; and, thirdly, the new social investment power for charities.

Let me turn to the Charity Commission’s powers. The purpose of the Charity Commission is to ensure that each of the 164,000 charities in England and Wales pursues its charitable objectives. Set up in 1853, it has done a century and a half of good work, but two years ago the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee found that it was failing in its core duty. In particular, they found that it was not doing enough to tackle the abuse of charitable status. The NAO made a series of recommendations to improve the commission’s effectiveness.

The coalition Government published proposals for new powers based on those recommendations. Following a public consultation, the draft Protection of Charities Bill was published. Pre-legislative scrutiny and the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords have resulted in further refinement. I thank all the Members, peers and others who have improved the Bill that is before the House today. These measures are just one part of a wider programme of reform, aimed at turning the Charity Commission into a tough, clear and proactive regulator.

[Mr Jenkin]

It pains me to point out that my right hon. Friend has left out the significant post-legislative scrutiny of the Charities Act 2006 that was conducted by my Committee, the Public Administration Committee, in the last Parliament, which was the prime precursor of this Bill. I also sat on the Joint Committee that performed the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

Will he say something about recent controversies, for example those around charitable fundraising? The Select Committee is very frustrated that we are conducting significant inquiries that the regulator, the Charity Commission, should be conducting, but it does not necessarily have the power to hold its hearings in public in a way that would demonstrate its regulatory role.

[Matthew Hancock]

I was going to come on to the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee in making sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape. I am very grateful for the work that he did at the end of the last Parliament, after the National Audit Office report, to make sure that when we had a Bill, it gave the commission the necessary powers.

We believe that the Charity Commission has the power to convene meetings in public. However, I recognise that there is a question over whether it does so. During the passage of the Bill, we will look at that point in more detail. We are prepared to accept amendments, if they are necessary to bring clarity on the point that my hon. Friend raises.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny are extraordinarily important in this place. Will he observe, for the record, how much legislative scrutiny is being performed by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, since there are precisely no Opposition Back-Bench Members in the House?

[Matthew Hancock]

I hope that this Bill can unite both sides of the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to her place. My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and it will appear on the record, but I do not want to get into an unnecessary dispute with the Opposition, given that I hope we will have all-party support for this important Bill which will strengthen the role of the Charity Commission and, ultimately, be in the best interests of charities throughout the land.

As I said, we want to provide a tough, clear and proactive regulator. Under the strong and capable leadership of William Shawcross and Paula Sussex, there has been a direct focus on tackling abuse and mismanagement. However, an effective regulator needs to have teeth. As the NAO reported, the commission needs our help to address the “gaps and deficiencies” in its legal powers. The Bill will close those gaps in the commission’s capabilities, as well as tackling a number of damaging loopholes in charity law.

Let me briefly outline the five new powers that the Bill confers. These powers will help to protect the public, the staff and the people our charities serve from those who would seek to exploit them. First, the Bill will extend the automatic disqualification criteria. Currently, the focus of the law is on barring people who have misappropriated charitable assets, but the criteria are far too narrow. We will extend them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said, to include people with unspent convictions for money laundering, bribery, perjury or misconduct in public office, those on the sex offenders register, and those convicted for terrorism offences, including individuals subject to an asset-freezing designation.

Secondly, the Charity Commission will be given new powers to disqualify in instances where an individual has behaved in a way that makes them unfit to be a charity trustee, acting on a case-by-case basis and using its judgment and discretion. That new power is essential to empower the Charity Commission to tackle those who would bring charities into disrepute, and I hope that it will be used with care and decisiveness.

Thirdly, the Bill gives the Charity Commission a new official warning power in response to low-level misconduct. That will allow a more proportionate approach for less serious cases. Fourthly, the Bill grants a new power that allows the Charity Commission to direct the winding up of a charity following a statutory inquiry. That would apply if the commission proves that a charity is not operating, or that its purposes could be promoted more effectively by ceasing to operate, and that to do so would be in the public interest. We expect that power to be used in limited circumstances, and it is subject to several safeguards.

Fifthly, the Bill closes a loophole that allows offending trustees to resign before they are removed by the commission, and then act as a trustee for a different charity without fear of repercussion. That will ensure that trustees are no longer able to escape accountability if they abuse their position of trust. As with all the commission’s existing powers, all five of those proposals would be subject to the general duty to have regard to best practice. With the exception of the official warnings power, all the commission’s new powers are subject to a right of appeal to the charity tribunal.

All five measures that I have outlined are essential to protecting the interests and reputation of the vast majority of charities that are run by people of great integrity. The Charity Commission was closely involved in developing the powers, and it fully supports them. In addition, independent research for the Charity Commission found that 92% of charities supported new, tougher powers for the regulator.

We also intend to remove clause 9, which was added on Report in the Lords. We have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of that clause, as it attempts to encompass complex case law into a single statutory provision. It would also impose a major new regulatory responsibility on the commission. Clause 9 was not proposed because of concerns about charities in general, but in a narrow attempt by the other place to undermine the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. It is regrettable that a Bill with widespread support was used in that way, and we cannot allow that to stand. I urge the House to reject that anomalous clause and consider the matter elsewhere.

The challenge of regulating charity fundraising has already been mentioned. We can be incredibly proud that we are one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to charitable giving, but although people are happy to give, they do not want to be bullied or harassed into doing so. A voluntary donation must be voluntary. Earlier this year we heard about the tragic case of Olive Cooke, Britain’s longest-serving poppy seller. For years, she was targeted with hundreds of cold calls and requests for money. More than 70 charities bought her details or swapped them with other charities, and in one month alone she apparently received 267 charity letters. Sadly, since then more cases of unscrupulous fundraising practices have come to light, and we must act.

We began by asking Sir Stuart Etherington to review the regulation of fundraising over the summer, backed by a cross-party panel of peers, and I thank them for their work. Sir Stuart recommended a new, tougher framework of self-regulation, and we are working with charities to deliver that. Lord Grade of Yarmouth will chair the new independent body at the heart of that framework. It will be paid for by large fundraising charities, and it will be able to adjudicate against any organisation that is undertaking charity fundraising. The body will be accompanied by a fundraising preference service—similar to the telephone preference service—which will give the public greater control over their consent to receive charity fundraising requests.

Next, we will prohibit contractors from raising funds for a charity unless the fundraising agreement between them explains how the contractor will protect people from undue pressure, and sets out how compliance will be monitored by the charity. It will require large charities to include a section in their trustees’ annual report on the fundraising undertaken by them or on their behalf. That will include an explanation of how they protect the public in general, and vulnerable people in particular, from undue pressures and other poor practices.

[Mr Jenkin]

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—or PACAC, as we call ourselves—is concluding an inquiry into charitable fundraising, alongside our other inquiry into Kids Company. I will not pre-empt the outcome of those two inquiries, but we are concentrating our inquiries on the conduct of trustees in these matters, and their responsibility to oversee and support charitable organisations so that they reflect their values in their operations as much as in their objectives. We are making recommendations on that because it might be insufficient to rely on processes and structures to ensure that things are ethically and properly run.

[Matthew Hancock]

I welcome that review, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can consider—and where appropriate take on board—any recommendations to improve it. I am glad that the work of that Committee is taking place concurrently, and I hope that recommendations will come forward in time for them to be considered for the Bill.

[Dr Murrison]

How can we make more explicit the amount of money spent on management overheads, and in particular the £80 to £120 per direct debit set up that goes to chugging agencies? That must be made crystal clear to people. That is, on average, the amount for the first year of any direct debit set up in favour of a charity. At the moment, people are not clear how much of their generosity is being expended on management overall and on that practice in particular.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am a great fan of transparency and a supporter of transparency across Government. We should consider carefully whether further transparency should be applied to charities, and how that is best delivered. I have no doubt that transparency begins at home for charities, and best practice is for them to be widely transparent about their operations. There is a question about whether we should do more in law, and balanced arguments in both directions. I hope we can consider that during the passage of the Bill.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Do any of the new powers that the Bill gives the Charity Commission deal with charities that depart from their original charitable ambitions and disproportionately become political funding and campaigning organisations?

[Matthew Hancock]

We took action towards the end of the previous Parliament to ensure that the legal framework for charities and other organisations means that they do not cross over into direct partisan political work. A review is under way into how the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 has worked. There are questions about whether that needs to go further, but the best place to deal with such issues is in the review and during scrutiny of the Bill. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and it is important that our review fully considers the impact of the 2014 Act.

We regard the Etherington package, including the fundraising preference service and a move to opt-in for further contact, as the minimum necessary to rebuild public trust. We propose that regulation of fundraising happens on a self-regulatory basis, but that self-regulation must implement the review’s recommendations in full. Some people have rightly asked what will happen if self-regulation fails. We want it to work, but we are also clear that practices must change. In Committee, we intend to bring forward amendments that will strengthen the Government’s reserve powers to intervene if the self-regulation recommended by Sir Stuart fails. Predatory fundraising targeted at vulnerable people is wrong. It has shaken public confidence in charities and we are determined to stamp it out.

Alongside tackling those challenges, the Bill aims to open up new opportunities.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am terribly sorry for intervening again, and most grateful to the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I regret that I cannot stay to take part in the debate. The House will need to know that my Committee will produce its reports in January, in good time for the conclusion of the passage of the Bill. Before he leaves the matter of fundraising, will he bear in mind the concern of many people about some charities that raise a substantial part of their income from foreign sources? Security services are concerned that organisations posing as charities might be receiving funds from abroad for nefarious purposes. Will he consider introducing measures to the Bill at a later stage to deal with that matter? I know that that is something that also concerns the Charity Commission.

[Matthew Hancock]

The Chairman of the Select Committee need not apologise. He can intervene on me as many times as he likes and I will always seek to take his interventions. I know that that must happen, otherwise he will seek to get me in front of him in some other way. On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, that concern has been raised with us. We want to consider the matter in more detail as the Bill passes through the House.

The Bill seeks to open up opportunities for charities to do more to fulfil their mission by providing a new power of social investment. Social investment seeks a positive social impact and a financial return, trying to make money go further. It is a huge and growing chance for UK charities to make more of their assets in a field where the UK is already the world leader. In 2014, the Law Commission conducted a review of charities’ social investment powers. It found a lack of clarity around charities’ social investment powers and duties, and concluded that that could be deterring some charities from getting involved in this exciting new field.

UK charities currently hold assets of over £80 billion, but they have made social investments of about only £100 million. We think that with the right support that market could double in the next few years. The Bill will ensure that more charities have a chance to take full advantage of social investment should they so wish. It removes the existing uncertainty by providing a specific new power to make social investments. It also sets out trustees’ duties to ensure that all social investments are made in the best interests of the charity. That will allow charities to make investments with the dual aim of fulfilling their mission and achieving a financial return. It is the way of the future and it is happening here in Britain. We want to support it to go further.

The work charities do transcends politics and unites hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want all charities to enjoy the very highest levels of public trust and esteem, and the generosity that brings. By delivering a more effective regulator, by tackling unscrupulous fundraising and by unleashing the power of social investment, the Bill will strengthen that trust and allow charities to do more with that generosity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

2. What steps his Department has taken to improve transparency in government.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

Over the past five years, we have opened up 20,000 Government data sets to the public and made expenditure data covering more than £188 billion of Government spending available for scrutiny. Through our leading role in the international Open Government Partnership, we will continue to be one of the most open and transparent Governments in the world.

[Paula Sherriff]

The Minister has admitted to me in a written answer that his so-called freedom of information commission is not itself subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Now he has reported that it will not commit to publishing evidence or minutes and that it may meet in private, ban journalists from naming its press spokesperson and even refuse to consider enforcing the Act on privatised services. Is it not time to end this farce and start again?

[Matthew Hancock]

No, the commission that is looking into how the Act has operated over the past 10 years is, rightly, independent, so it deals with the question of how it operates. Private organisations have not been subject to the Act, because it is about government information, so it is entirely appropriate for them to make the decisions.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

How will transparency in government be improved by the alteration of the code of conduct for special advisers, which now says that they shall be entitled to give instructions to communications staff in Departments?

[Matthew Hancock]

The transparency of Government information is absolutely aided by a combination of our open data and the use of press officers and communication teams to explain to the public what is going on. Making sure that that happens in an orderly and organised way, subject to Ministers’ wishes, is a very important part of it running effectively.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I make a genuine offer to the Minister: we would like to build on the progress of the past decade in opening up government to more scrutiny. But we are very concerned that the commission on freedom of information may roll back the FOI Act. It is not subject to the FOI Act and it has recently held a secret briefing to invited-only journalists, off the record. It is not very transparent, is it? Is there a reason for that?

[Matthew Hancock]

First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on his resounding victory in the deputy leadership election? On this question, I also welcome his tone. I am a great supporter of the Act, but 10 years after its introduction it is reasonable to see how it is operating and to make sure, as the Justice Committee said in the last Parliament, that there is a “safe space” for policymaking, so that people can be confident about giving frank advice to powerful people safe in the knowledge that that will remain private. It is about how this operates; it is not about the principle of having freedom of information in the first place.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

How can we have transparency in government when I, as an MP, cannot get a straight answer to a simple question? Let me give an example of that. I submitted a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking how many meetings he had had with the Treasury on a specific subject. The answer I got was that there had been many meetings; I did not get a number. I therefore asked a supplementary question requesting the dates of the meetings, because I thought that would flesh it out, but the answer I got back was, “I have had many meetings”. That seems to be the opposite of transparency, and we need to start here with ministerial answers to MPs.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know when those meetings were or how many there were—but I do know that by the sounds of it there were many meetings.

[Mr Speaker]

Put a note in the Library and everybody will be satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

4. What his plans are for the future of the Government Digital Service.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The world leading Government Digital Service will continue its vital work to make public services simpler, clearer and faster for users.

[Chi Onwurah]

The GDS are the crown jewels of digital transformation globally, but now we have headline resignations, with a fifth of all staff leaving. Is it not true that Ministers are cutting back on their ambition to impress the Chancellor ahead of the cuts in the spending review?

[Matthew Hancock]

No, we increased the funding to the GDS in the latest Budget, and the rate of turnover in the GDS is lower than in the Cabinet Office as a whole. The GDS has been brilliant. It continues to be brilliant whether we are talking about the platforms for registering to vote, which now takes less time than boiling an egg, finding an apprenticeship, or even registering for Lloyds shares earlier this month.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that we have made appointments within Departments to embed the work of the GDS not just at the GDS but across government?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, as well as building a digital service that is cutting edge, we now have more than 200 digital leaders across Whitehall to drive forward digital transformation. It would be good to have cross-party support for that rather than to hear sniping.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Given that the speed of technological change has been increasing over the past few years, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that compatibility and accessibility are increased as opposed to decreased as a result of what has happened over the past three years?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that compatibility and interoperability must be at the heart of everything we do. They are at the heart of the digital standards that we require to be adhered to right across Whitehall. For a citizen, it does not matter what the acronym is of the organisation that they are trying to deal with, they just want their Government service delivered quickly and easily.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) is absolutely right that the levels of turnover in the Cabinet Office and the GDS are unacceptably high, and over the summer we saw the exodus of senior leadership amid concerns that the future of the service will be downgraded from a delivery service to a policy unit. We also note that businesses are losing on average 33 working days a year because of outdated Government digital services. Will the Minister reassure the House today that his Department is resisting cuts in the comprehensive spending review, as those cuts will seriously damage the prospect of thousands of businesses across the country?

[Matthew Hancock]

I can repeat the facts that I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) before the hon. Lady read out her question. The turnover in the GDS is lower than in the rest of the Cabinet Office. Furthermore, we put more money into digital services in the Budget. Perhaps she should look into the facts before asking questions.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

5. What assessment he has made of the cost to date to the public purse of the Chilcot inquiry.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

It is £10,375,000.

[Gavin Newlands]

It certainly appears as if the budget has been limitless up to this point. Members of this House will be deeply concerned about the reports of a White House memo allegedly showing that the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave his support for the shameful Iraq war a full year before this House voted on it, despite his claims to the contrary. For the first time, the cost of delay to the inquiry offers an opportunity. Will the Minister assure the House that Sir John Chilcot will include that memo in his final report?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am afraid that I cannot give any such assurance. This is an independent inquiry, and rightly so. Were I to give such an assurance, I would rightly be criticised.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that he remains committed to the independence of the Chilcot inquiry and that he will provide any resources that the inquiry needs to complete its work without further delay?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, we have offered extra resources to the Chilcot inquiry in case they are needed. We now have a timetable for a timetable for the release of the inquiry, and Sir John will write to the Prime Minister by 3 November to set out that timetable.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

We all know that the inquiry is independent, and we are not asking that the Cabinet Office interfere in the processes of the inquiry, but the budget and the timetable are within the Secretary of State’s remit. Does he not accept that this never-ending budget and this completely indefinite timetable are beginning to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the inquiry? When he speaks to Sir John, will he ensure that there is a firm timetable for the report and a firm figure for the final budget of the inquiry?

[Matthew Hancock]

We now have that commitment to a timetable by early November, but crucially we want to ensure that the inquiry is effective, is completed and can be published as soon as possible. We do not want resources to stand in the way of that happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The Cabinet Office is responsible for efficiency, reforming government, transparency, civil society, digital technology and cyber-security and for delivering the Prime Minister’s agenda.

[Mark Menzies]

My constituency faces the issue of shale gas extraction—the issue runs across many Departments. What steps are being taken by the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate efficiency across the Government on this important matter?

[Matthew Hancock]

There are many occasions when multiple Government Departments are involved in different parts of a single issue. I well remember visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency to discuss shale gas, and I would be delighted to meet him further to take these issues forward.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

T5. Given that in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) the Minister seemed to suggest an endless budget for the Chilcot inquiry, how much does he think it is reasonable for the public to spend finally to get the answers they desire?

[Matthew Hancock]

Until the end of the year 2014-15, the amount spent on the Chilcot inquiry was £10,375,000. We have said that budget is available to make sure that this inquiry can be brought to a swift conclusion.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

T2. What steps is the Minister taking to improve access for our small and medium-sized enterprises to Government procurement, not least for our businesses in Mid Dorset and North Poole, such as Cobham in Wimborne and Tradewind in Wareham?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that a huge contribution can be made to Government procurement by small businesses. In the previous Parliament we hit our target of a quarter of Government procurement going to small business, and in this Parliament we have a new goal that a third of Government business should go to small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

T6. A council candidate who is also a parliamentary candidate on the same day has an unfair financial advantage over their council opponents because they have additional candidate spending in that ward. What is the Minister going to do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T7. How is the Cabinet Office implementing the family test and monitoring its implementation across Government?

[Matthew Hancock]

The family test is routinely applied and considered when all policy is developed. Government policy as a whole has to go through a series of checks, and one of the things we do to make sure that the family test is passed is to stick to the strong economy that our families in Britain depend on.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

T8. Will the Minister please tell the House what protocols will be in place to ensure civil service neutrality during the EU referendum, with a view to avoiding another situation like that in the Scottish independence referendum, when impartiality was seriously compromised?

[Matthew Hancock]

As the hon. Lady knows, the issues surrounding the running of the EU referendum have been clearly debated in this House. The decisions were then taken and passed through this House, and that is what we will stick to.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

T9. The manifesto of Canada’s new Government said that they would scrap the purchase of F-35s. Given that the Cabinet Office was responsible for the consideration of the new F-35s, how does it expect unit cost to rise and will the contract be cancelled?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am afraid I did not catch the whole of the question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can repeat it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Chapman’s question will be heard.

[Douglas Chapman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The manifesto of Canada’s new Government said that they would scrap the purchase of F-35s. Given that the Cabinet Office is responsible for the strategic defence and security review, have the Government given consideration to the unit costs, which will increase, given that other nations such as Canada might cancel their orders for F-35s?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question about making sure that we can protect our national security long into the future. For a detailed answer he will wait for the SDSR to be published, but I can assure him that it will be published soon.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Bone, you have never had any trouble making yourself heard. Let us hear from you.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T4. Members on both sides of the House will be concerned about the steel crisis. Last Friday, at the steel summit, three taskforces were set up to help the steel industry. One of them is headed by the Paymaster General, so will he update the House on what progress has been made?

[Matthew Hancock]

I very much look forward to meeting the working group on procurement for steel later this week. It is absolutely critical that we make use of the new EU rules, which are only in place because this Government brought them in, to ensure that we consider not only the financial cost, but the wider economic benefit of buying British steel for British projects, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T10. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to safeguard the right of elected Governments to run the national health service democratically as a public service in the light of the threat of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?

[Matthew Hancock]

As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has long asked questions about this—there is no threat to the national health service from making sure that Britain has trade deals with the whole world which make us more prosperous, more secure and more economically forward-looking, and that is what we are going to make sure happens.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Ministerial Responsibilities

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The new “List of Ministerial Responsibilities” has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be sent to each hon. Member’s office in this House.

The list can also be accessed on gov.uk at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-ministers-and-responsibilities

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements

[HCWS169]

Freedom of Information

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

We are committed to being the most transparent Government in the world.

To deliver that goal we are opening up Government to citizens by making it easier to access information and increase the volume available, with a record 20,000 datasets now on www.data.gov.uk , while protecting a private space for frank advice. We are strengthening accountability and making public services work better for people. The World Wide Web Foundation’s open data barometer and Open Knowledge’s global open data index ranked the UK as the world’s leading country on open Government.

We are proud of these achievements and are committed to going further. Our next open Government national action plan will develop an offer on transparency that further strengthens this Government’s commitment to open Government.

Our aim is to be as open as possible on the substance, consistent with ensuring that a private space is protected for frank advice. To that end as a Government we must maintain the best environment for policy makers to think freely and offer frank advice to decision-makers. The most effective system is when policy makers can freely give advice, while citizens can shine a light into Government.

We fully support the Freedom of Information Act but after more than a decade in operation it is time that the process is reviewed, to make sure it is working effectively. The Government have therefore today established an independent, cross-party Commission on Freedom of Information. The commission’s terms of reference are as follows:

“The Commission will review the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) to consider whether there is an appropriate public interest balance between transparency, accountability and the need for sensitive information to have robust protection, and whether the operation of the Act adequately recognises the need for a “safe space” for policy development and implementation and frank advice. The Commission may also consider the balance between the need to maintain public access to information, and the burden of the Act on public authorities, and whether change is needed to moderate that while maintaining public access to information.”

The commission will be chaired by Lord Burns, and will comprise the right hon. Jack Straw, Lord Howard of Lympne, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Dame Patricia Hodgson.

The commission will report to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and will publish its findings by the end of November.

The Prime Minister has also confirmed that policy responsibility for freedom of information policy will transfer from the Ministry of Justice to the Cabinet Office. This change will be effective from 17 July 2015.

[HCWS153]

Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

I can confirm that the Review of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments will report later this year. The review will consider the role of the Commissioner and the processes around public appointments. The terms of reference for the review are as follows:

Terms of reference

The role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments was created by the Public Appointments Order in Council 1995 on 23 November 1995, following recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan). We are now twenty years on, and this provides a suitable opportunity to review the role of the Commissioner and the processes around public appointments. In the light of the range and diversity of public appointments, it is important to ensure that the procedures are both effective and proportionate and to review whether procedures as practised fit within the intentions of the Nolan principles. The review will be led by Sir Gerry Grimstone and will report to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

[HCWS82]

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to improve the administration of civil service pensions.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

We have reformed the delivery of civil service pensions by setting up MyCSP, which is part-owned by employees who administer the scheme. That will reduce costs and ultimately deliver a better service.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. I know from corresponding with him on numerous occasions that he is aware of certain problems with MyCSP, but I am still receiving letters from constituents who feel that they are being let down. Will he assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure that MyCSP offers a good service to those who rely on it for the administration of their pensions?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for bringing the matter to the House’s attention. Work is under way to improve the performance of MyCSP. There has been a year-on-year productivity improvement of it since it started in 2012, but there is much work to do to ensure that we get everybody’s pension administered in exactly the right way.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The problem is that these problems have been going on for a long time. I have written to Ministers over the past 12 months about problems with my constituents and only last week I had a constituent who was given a pension estimate that proved to be completely inaccurate. They had based their future plans on that estimate. May I ask the Minister again to try harder to ensure that we get this sorted out? It has been going on for far too long.

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I agree that this needs to be sorted out. When we brought the delivery of civil service pensions from an external provider in 2010, there was a larger backlog than anticipated. That means that there is an awful lot of work to do, but we are pushing it through.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure that people from all social backgrounds are able to become senior civil servants.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

Background should be no barrier to success and we are committed to ensuring that the most senior ranks of the civil service can be reached by all.

[Rehman Chishti]

Although 10% of the civil service are from a black and minority ethnic community, only 4% are in senior positions. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that each and every one of them can achieve their true potential without their background being a hindrance?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is true not just about ethnicity in the senior civil service but about gender and people with disabilities. We need to ensure that the senior civil service represents the country that it serves. Steps are under way to ensure that that happens and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to reach that conclusion.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

We welcome the Minister to his place and the Opposition support genuine efforts to increase the diversity of the civil service. He will be aware that 58% of permanent secretaries were privately educated, as were 53% of senior diplomats and 45% of public body chairs. Would he therefore support targets to increase the numbers from state education at the top of our civil service?

[Matthew Hancock]

I certainly strongly agree that it is important that as well as considering gender, ethnicity and other characteristics we ensure that people from all backgrounds—whichever school they went to and whichever part of the country they come from—can get to senior levels in the civil service. We have a programme under way to ensure that that happens.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Minister for the civil service and assure him that the now Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will look forward to working with him on civil service reform, as we did with his predecessor, who did so much during his term of office. May I also give my fullest support to his objective of achieving diversity? That is a vital part of having an agile civil service and requires the challenging of attitudes and habits of behaviour as much as setting targets.

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his re-election—unopposed—to the Chair of the Select Committee. I very much look forward to working with him, although I say that with some trepidation, knowing his depth of understanding of these issues. I entirely agree that this is about culture and agility in the civil service as much as it is about tick-box targets.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

One of the biggest barriers to accessing some senior civil service jobs is where they are located. What more can be done to ensure that jobs are located outside the south of England? Why not start by moving the Department for Transport to the north, which might bring some of the money it spends down here up there, as well?

[Matthew Hancock]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are investing a huge amount in transport systems across the nation, not least in the north of England and in his area. It is crucial that we proceed in an efficient and cost-effective way. There are civil servants who work across the land, and we should not forget that, and we must ensure that they represent the whole country, too.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect of the inclusion of EU citizens in the franchise for elections to the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London on voter engagement; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The Cabinet Office is responsible for efficiency and reform, transparency, civil society, digital technology, cyber-security, constitutional matters and the delivery of the Government’s agenda.

[Danny Kinahan]

I and many others are concerned about the Union. A convention or congress has been ruled out quite emphatically. With Scotland wanting more and more and Wales and Northern Ireland excluded from the process and, indeed, England threatened by it, too, what mechanism is the Minister’s office putting in place to properly preserve and plan the future of the Union?

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s passionate support for the Union, which we on this side of the House wholeheartedly share. Like him, we seek a lasting settlement that strengthens the United Kingdom, and I look forward to further eloquent contributions from him to that debate and to working with him to make it happen.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

T5. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on his plans to deliver efficiency savings across Whitehall?

[Matthew Hancock]

As we try to bring the books back into balance and reach surplus, making the Government more efficient is crucial in ensuring that as much money as possible gets to front-line services where it is needed. We have a widespread efficiency and reform plan, which we are driving through as part of the spending review to ensure that every taxpayer pound is spent as wisely as possible.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I welcome the new ministerial team to their places? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is being a little sheepish and, if he does not mind me saying so, a bit disingenuous about the numbers on the electoral register. We all know that the last election was the high-water mark with people automatically put on the register, but with the Electoral Commission saying that nearly 2 million people will fall off that register, will he say today whether he will accept its recommendations on the early bringing forward of the IER scheme? Does he really want this Government to go down in history as the first to reduce the franchise in this country?

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T6. A new cyber-security institute in Nelson in my constituency, sponsored by Training 2000, is due to be launched in the autumn. What support is the Cabinet Office offering to education providers to ensure that Britain is equipped with the cyber-security skills we need for the future?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. To defend Britain from cyber-attack, we need to ensure that we have the cyber-skills in the future. That involves not only university-level skills, which we are putting money into expanding, but cyber-apprenticeships and entry-level schemes to ensure that, at all levels and from all parts of our country, we can recruit people to work in that important defence of our nation.

[Mr Speaker]

It would assist us if the Minister looked towards and spoke into the microphone. That tends to assist amplification in these circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

T7. With the help of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), on St George’s day this year I launched a petition calling for English votes for English laws. I am therefore delighted to see a firm commitment by the Government to right this historic inequality once and for all. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on when we can expect the Government to introduce that important constitutional change?

[Matthew Hancock]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. As she says, we are absolutely going to right this wrong, and there will be further details shortly.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

T3. A report published today by Children’s Rights Alliance for England points to a dismal failure by the Government when considering the best interests of children and young people in their decision making. Bearing that in mind, does the Minister agree that giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the EU referendum would be a first, positive step towards greater inclusion of young people in the democratic process?

[Matthew Hancock]

We have improved the life chances of millions of children by introducing 2 million apprenticeships in the previous Parliament, by having 2 million more jobs and by turning our country around. The consideration of whether voting should start at 16 or 18 is a balanced one. We think 18 is the right age, but, frankly, the best thing we can do for the future of the children of this country is improve and strengthen our economy.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister for the Cabinet Office undertake to visit the Major Projects Leadership Academy in Oxford and see the excellent work being done to develop senior civil servants?

[Matthew Hancock]

Not only will I undertake to visit the academy—I have heard very good stories about it—but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has visited it, and he has just told me that I had better go too, so I will get there pretty shortly.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Leveson Inquiry

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The cost of support provided to Government witnesses to the Leveson inquiry though the Government Legal Department (formerly Treasury Solicitors) is £287,491.10.

[HCWS55]