On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the debate on The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. The crux of the Bill, introduced by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, revolves around measures designed to phase out, through a variety of different means, hereditary peers from the House of Lords. It also includes proposals for scrapping by-elections for hereditary peers.
As one would expect from the Chairman of the Cornerstone Group I am strongly opposed to the Bill. The logic of a democratic country states that we should have a democratically elected second chamber in tandem with the elected Commons, but if we put everything down to logic then the rich traditions and history of our country would be swept away. For example, the Royal family makes no logical sense, but they are part of what makes Britain great. As my Hon. Friend Gerald Howarth put it in the debate, “If they (hereditary peers) went, it would expose the monarchy as the only hereditary institution in the land. [Do I] believe that that would endanger the monarchy? I certainly do.”
The history of the Lords demonstrates that what we have ended up with is an example of a great British compromise. As so often happens with the law of unintended consequences in our historical development, we have ended up with a pretty good system. We have found ourselves in the enviable position of having members with vast amounts of expertise, who have worked all their lives in the professions or in business and who are not politicians. They speak only when they have to speak and vote only when they feel strongly. In short, they do a good job. And we mustn’t forget that there are only 92 hereditary peers, a mere 13% of their total number.
If one looks for a precedent for an appointed second chamber one need look no further than Canada. Do we really want to follow their lead and model our second chamber on the least effective second chamber in the Western world? I think not.
I worry that if we did get to the stage where there was a fully elected Lords then it would be stuffed with inferior Members looking for ministerial office. After all, Parliament is already stuffed with people looking for ministerial office, so why would the elected second chamber be any different?
What this debate boils down to is the agenda of some to push for reform for reform’s sake. The House of Lord’s is an institution which provides an important balance for legislative process of Parliament. It does, and will continue to do, an excellent job and any reform of its entry procedure would not result in better legislation. The phrase, “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” comes to mind.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death"
I have a tendency to read two or three books at once and have once again fallen into this bad habit. I am reading George Orwell’s 1984 once again and Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (about the life of Thomas Cromwell) for the first time. The later is a study of the past, whilst the former was written as a study of the future that has now become the past.
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Monday, 18 January 2010
I Believe
Education
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
I Believe
Social Security
If I am going to ask the people in my constituency to vote for me over the next four or five months, I think they have a right to know what I believe in and what I would like to see a Conservative government achieve.
I am delighted that the Party is focusing on aspiration and responsibility. Years ago during the last Tory government I wrote a paper entitled Responsible Individualism. I know that this is an untidy phrase but by it I meant empowering the individual not to be selfish and self centred, and by improving his lot to help society at large, particularly in education and social security.
I am a Tory because I believe in our history, our traditions. Some may argue that it was the eighteenth century rational enlightenment that was the cause of our liberal tolerant democratic society, but in my opinion so many of our institutions and our society as a whole grew slowly over centuries. It is important therefore to place an emphasis on our history and traditions if we are to keep developing as a nation.
I believe that reason, science and progress can march side by side with the personal reassurance given by religious belief and that religious participation (although worryingly in decline) and ethics has contributed to the undeniable advances against poverty. And it is the decline of religion that has made Western society a less happy place in terms of personal fulfilment and supportive family, despite the immense advances made against poverty. The point here is that despite the huge economic advances and the population being better off why aren’t people happier?
Despite this however, there has been a decline in the supporting structure of the family. Of course, families can take many forms and any one of them can be valid in itself, but for most people the model of a man and a woman making an honest attempt at commitment to each other for life is best. Tax and benefit policies should reflect this.
In truth tax and benefit policies on their own are not going to make people stay together, but they send out a message.
One thing is certain. Benefits can influence behaviour enormously for lower income groups.
If you are faced with marginal tax rates, greater than anything faced by the very rich, and you increase your earnings but end up receiving fewer benefits, leaving you less well off overall, then that is a powerful disincentive to work and aspire to self reliance.
For many years I have argued for a much simpler tax and benefits system.
One of the most successful benefits is child benefit. The level of fraud and error is minimal. This is because it is modest and non-means tested.
During the years of which I have been the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we have published numerous reports outlining the worrying cases of fraud and error in the current system.
What a Conservative government must do is gradually simplify the system and reduce means testing. It will take enormous political will to implement and carry this out but given the £100 billion bill from social security, the harmful effects to the economy of not doing so would be harder to bear in long term.
Next week I shall share my views and beliefs on the subject of education.
If I am going to ask the people in my constituency to vote for me over the next four or five months, I think they have a right to know what I believe in and what I would like to see a Conservative government achieve.
I am delighted that the Party is focusing on aspiration and responsibility. Years ago during the last Tory government I wrote a paper entitled Responsible Individualism. I know that this is an untidy phrase but by it I meant empowering the individual not to be selfish and self centred, and by improving his lot to help society at large, particularly in education and social security.
I am a Tory because I believe in our history, our traditions. Some may argue that it was the eighteenth century rational enlightenment that was the cause of our liberal tolerant democratic society, but in my opinion so many of our institutions and our society as a whole grew slowly over centuries. It is important therefore to place an emphasis on our history and traditions if we are to keep developing as a nation.
I believe that reason, science and progress can march side by side with the personal reassurance given by religious belief and that religious participation (although worryingly in decline) and ethics has contributed to the undeniable advances against poverty. And it is the decline of religion that has made Western society a less happy place in terms of personal fulfilment and supportive family, despite the immense advances made against poverty. The point here is that despite the huge economic advances and the population being better off why aren’t people happier?
Despite this however, there has been a decline in the supporting structure of the family. Of course, families can take many forms and any one of them can be valid in itself, but for most people the model of a man and a woman making an honest attempt at commitment to each other for life is best. Tax and benefit policies should reflect this.
In truth tax and benefit policies on their own are not going to make people stay together, but they send out a message.
One thing is certain. Benefits can influence behaviour enormously for lower income groups.
If you are faced with marginal tax rates, greater than anything faced by the very rich, and you increase your earnings but end up receiving fewer benefits, leaving you less well off overall, then that is a powerful disincentive to work and aspire to self reliance.
For many years I have argued for a much simpler tax and benefits system.
One of the most successful benefits is child benefit. The level of fraud and error is minimal. This is because it is modest and non-means tested.
During the years of which I have been the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we have published numerous reports outlining the worrying cases of fraud and error in the current system.
What a Conservative government must do is gradually simplify the system and reduce means testing. It will take enormous political will to implement and carry this out but given the £100 billion bill from social security, the harmful effects to the economy of not doing so would be harder to bear in long term.
Next week I shall share my views and beliefs on the subject of education.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
From Leigh to You
A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by a constituency parish newspaper. They posed some relevant and important questions so I thought I would take this opportunity of giving them a wider readership, through the Gainsborough Standard and via my website.
The first question referred to my ‘independent streak’ when voting against the war in Iraq and asked for my position about our role in the continuing conflict in Afghanistan.
I have always been opposed to the war in Afghanistan, but I believe that a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan must include clear, tightly drawn, realistic objectives that are regularly reviewed. I believe that Afghanistan can be stabilised if a reasonably honest government is established and tribal structures supported. I feel sure that this can be achieved with a much smaller allied force. The use of NATO special forces to train the Afghan army and Police force will be necessary, but it is inevitable that there will always be some level of insurgency in Afghanistan. A larger effort must be made in buying poppy crops thus compensating and appeasing the Afghan people and making them less likely to turn towards the Taliban. These objectives are, given political will and realism achievable. They would also bring great savings of British lives and money.
On the issue of abortion I was asked why I was in favour of its restriction or even its abolition?
My personal belief is that life begins at the moment of conception. An abortion is a premeditated act through which life is taken. As far as I am concerned the 24 week time frame in which it is possible to have an abortion is too long. My personal preference would be for twelve or fourteen weeks. I appreciate that this is unlikely and I will therefore push for abortions to be limited to eighteen weeks after conception.
On the subject of tighter control / restriction of the banking and financial sectors - would I support a future government’s attempts to restrict a free financial market?
I believe the decisions that led to the banking crisis represent a policy failure of historic proportions. We believe we now need deep, wide-ranging reform that matches both the magnitude of the crisis and the scale of the hardship inflicted on the British public. If we can bring stability to our banking system, and reward long-term returns over short-term bonus chasing, then we will have put in place a key foundation stone of an economic recovery.
A Conservative government will
• Abolish the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the tripartite regime it operated with the Bank of England and the Treasury
• Create a strong and powerful Bank of England with the authority and powers necessary to ensure financial stability
• Create a powerful Consumer Protection Agency that will bring together in one place the consumer powers currently split between the old FSA and the Office of Fair Trading
• Demand that banks set aside much more of their own money for their risky lending as a form of insurance policy
• Appoint a Treasury Minister with special responsibility for fighting our corner in Brussels so that European regulations are right for the City of London
• Ask the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to conduct a focused examination of the effects of consolidation in the retail banking sector.
Further questions covered Europe, pensions, and the ‘broken society’ and I will write about those next week.
The first question referred to my ‘independent streak’ when voting against the war in Iraq and asked for my position about our role in the continuing conflict in Afghanistan.
I have always been opposed to the war in Afghanistan, but I believe that a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan must include clear, tightly drawn, realistic objectives that are regularly reviewed. I believe that Afghanistan can be stabilised if a reasonably honest government is established and tribal structures supported. I feel sure that this can be achieved with a much smaller allied force. The use of NATO special forces to train the Afghan army and Police force will be necessary, but it is inevitable that there will always be some level of insurgency in Afghanistan. A larger effort must be made in buying poppy crops thus compensating and appeasing the Afghan people and making them less likely to turn towards the Taliban. These objectives are, given political will and realism achievable. They would also bring great savings of British lives and money.
On the issue of abortion I was asked why I was in favour of its restriction or even its abolition?
My personal belief is that life begins at the moment of conception. An abortion is a premeditated act through which life is taken. As far as I am concerned the 24 week time frame in which it is possible to have an abortion is too long. My personal preference would be for twelve or fourteen weeks. I appreciate that this is unlikely and I will therefore push for abortions to be limited to eighteen weeks after conception.
On the subject of tighter control / restriction of the banking and financial sectors - would I support a future government’s attempts to restrict a free financial market?
I believe the decisions that led to the banking crisis represent a policy failure of historic proportions. We believe we now need deep, wide-ranging reform that matches both the magnitude of the crisis and the scale of the hardship inflicted on the British public. If we can bring stability to our banking system, and reward long-term returns over short-term bonus chasing, then we will have put in place a key foundation stone of an economic recovery.
A Conservative government will
• Abolish the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the tripartite regime it operated with the Bank of England and the Treasury
• Create a strong and powerful Bank of England with the authority and powers necessary to ensure financial stability
• Create a powerful Consumer Protection Agency that will bring together in one place the consumer powers currently split between the old FSA and the Office of Fair Trading
• Demand that banks set aside much more of their own money for their risky lending as a form of insurance policy
• Appoint a Treasury Minister with special responsibility for fighting our corner in Brussels so that European regulations are right for the City of London
• Ask the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to conduct a focused examination of the effects of consolidation in the retail banking sector.
Further questions covered Europe, pensions, and the ‘broken society’ and I will write about those next week.
Edward challenges the Chancellor on efficiency in the Queen's Speech Debate: Business and economy - 26th November 2009
I am just about to refer to the Chancellor, so, as he is leaving the Chamber, I hope that he will not mind if I take issue with what he said earlier this afternoon. My point relates to the very serious matter of the loan that was made to HBOS and RBS. I am not arguing with the principle that the Government wanted to keep it secret so as not to destabilise the markets; I am saying that there are clearly established protocols, whereby, when the Government decide to give an indemnity in secret-for instance, on a matter affecting national security-they must inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury.
There is a very good reason why. It is not my amour-propre, or that of the Treasury Committee Chairman, who is equally upset about the matter; it is because if I, as the Chairman of the PAC, had been informed of the matter, I would have told nobody. I would not have told anybody from my party's Front-Bench team or anybody else. I would, however, have discussed it with one person-and one person only: the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is the auditor of the Government, an independent figure, and he would have checked matters out and ensured that the whole thing was kosher. That is why he is there, and he would have done so in complete confidence.
Over the eight years that I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been told in confidence of many instances, particularly concerning national security, when the Government have had to issue indemnity. I have never leaked a single thing. In the 150-year history of the PAC, no Chairman has ever leaked anything that has ever been given to them of that nature. It is a serious matter-that, contrary to all those protocols and conventions, the Government decided not to inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairmen of those two Committees.
Even more seriously, I believe that the reason why I was written to this week, 13 months late, is that the National Audit Office was closing in. The NAO's report on the banking support measures is imminent, and earlier the Treasury Committee Chairman spoke, on a point of order, in much stronger terms than myself. He said that he believed that the NAO was closing in and the Government decided that they had to release the information now, 13 months late. That is a serious matter, and I shall not let it go.
I shall keep pursuing it, because this is why Parliament is set up-to protect the interests of the taxpayer and the people of this country. Occasionally Governments have to do things in secret and to protect the markets, but if they do they have to observe the protocols. They did not do so, and for the Chancellor to tell me yesterday that he was absolved from doing so by the Banking Act 2009, which by the way came into force months after the indemnity was given, is not good enough. I shall leave the matter there, but we must return to it.
Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to express extraordinary concern about the fact that, as of 31 October, total public sector debt stood at £829 billion. That is 59 per cent. of total national output. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made the point that there is now a very real danger that the ratings agencies-Moody's, Standard and Poor's and so on-may start to question the UK's ability to pay its debt and downgrade the triple A rating that we currently enjoy. That would make it more expensive for all of us to borrow. For the UK and for corporations, lower investment in the UK and higher unemployment could result, leading to a disastrous double-dip recession.
Let us forget party politics for a moment. There is no choice: we have to address the deficit. The Government tell us that they are, indeed, going to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the next Parliament, but they have offered only broad clues about what they intend to do, with hints at tax increases and spending cuts. They are only hints, however; there are few detailed policies. There was one detailed policy, which would have saved only £300 million, and that was a pay freeze for top public sector earners. That is £300 million; it is nothing. Surely the people of this country, or Parliament, must have some idea of what the Government, if they are re-elected, will do to try to deal with public sector debt of £829 billion.
I shall not get involved in great macro-economic arguments with any ideas that I might have; I shall go right down to the micro level. I have now chaired the best part of 400 PAC sessions, in which we have looked at Government efficiency, and one way in which we can climb out of this black hole-it is only one way in which we will achieve only part of the object-is to carry out Government programmes much more efficiently.
I am worried that if a new Government are elected in May, or even if this Government are re-elected, Ministers, for instance at the Ministry of Defence, will be under Treasury instructions to cut x per cent. off their budget. So, the number of new aircraft carriers may be reduced from two to one; there may be a question mark over the joint strike fighter; or the number of Trident submarines may be reduced from four to three. In other words, the MOD will get up to its old tricks of moving programmes sideways and delaying them. But what about the efficiency of the procurement executive? New Ministers will have to get to grips with that issue on day one, and they may have to bring in outside help. We cannot allow the public sector, particularly the civil service, to continue with layers of management which simply do not exist in the private sector.
The PAC has, I think, made some progress in the past eight years. We can make only so much, but we have identified proven savings-I wrote to the Chancellor earlier this week on the matter-of £4 billion. However, we have now gone further and identified another £9 billion that we can save without changing a single policy. I know that this is the detail of the debate and that it is not as exciting as the party political debate, but £9 billion is a serious amount of money and it can be saved. The savings have all been audited by the National Audit Office, representatives of which come to our Committee. If any of the recommendations we have made in the past eight years had been carried out, we could have saved not only the £4 billion, but another £9 billion.
I shall give a few examples. Some £1.4 billion could be saved by Departments sharing back-office services such as finance and human resources; and £2.5 billion could be saved by all Departments matching the level of staff cost reductions achieved by the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. Even a relatively simple twist of the hellishly complex benefits system could save a staggering £110 million, which would be a start. If the whole of Whitehall matched the example of some Departments in reducing running costs such as those for accommodation and IT, more than £1.3 billion could be saved. There is more. Improving how the public sector contracts and manages construction projects could save more than £2.6 billion, and developing the commercial skills of those who wield the Government's significant buying power could realise potential savings of more than £700 million, through cannier procurement of goods and services. Better use of consultants-the Committee has done a lot of work on them-alone could save £400 million. That is £9 billion just there.
I am not making a sales pitch for the PAC. I believe that there must be a total change in attitude in the public sector; that Ministers and civil servants should assume that when they are spending public money, it is as if they are spending from their own personal bank accounts; and that the days of rapid rises in spending are now over.
Actually, in a way, the days of targets may be over, because targets work in a growing budget. Typically, in the past 12 years, the Government have come out with a worthy objective and required the civil service to carry it out. When that did not happen, the Government had to impose targets. It is going to be very difficult to impose targets on a shrinking, contracting budget. The Government are going to have to trust professionals and cap their budgets in the health and education services, and they are going to have to ensure that our civil servants and managers deliver services to the front line, and not cut them while protecting their own jobs. That is not a good enough attitude from our public servants.
There is a very good reason why. It is not my amour-propre, or that of the Treasury Committee Chairman, who is equally upset about the matter; it is because if I, as the Chairman of the PAC, had been informed of the matter, I would have told nobody. I would not have told anybody from my party's Front-Bench team or anybody else. I would, however, have discussed it with one person-and one person only: the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is the auditor of the Government, an independent figure, and he would have checked matters out and ensured that the whole thing was kosher. That is why he is there, and he would have done so in complete confidence.
Over the eight years that I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been told in confidence of many instances, particularly concerning national security, when the Government have had to issue indemnity. I have never leaked a single thing. In the 150-year history of the PAC, no Chairman has ever leaked anything that has ever been given to them of that nature. It is a serious matter-that, contrary to all those protocols and conventions, the Government decided not to inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairmen of those two Committees.
Even more seriously, I believe that the reason why I was written to this week, 13 months late, is that the National Audit Office was closing in. The NAO's report on the banking support measures is imminent, and earlier the Treasury Committee Chairman spoke, on a point of order, in much stronger terms than myself. He said that he believed that the NAO was closing in and the Government decided that they had to release the information now, 13 months late. That is a serious matter, and I shall not let it go.
I shall keep pursuing it, because this is why Parliament is set up-to protect the interests of the taxpayer and the people of this country. Occasionally Governments have to do things in secret and to protect the markets, but if they do they have to observe the protocols. They did not do so, and for the Chancellor to tell me yesterday that he was absolved from doing so by the Banking Act 2009, which by the way came into force months after the indemnity was given, is not good enough. I shall leave the matter there, but we must return to it.
Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to express extraordinary concern about the fact that, as of 31 October, total public sector debt stood at £829 billion. That is 59 per cent. of total national output. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made the point that there is now a very real danger that the ratings agencies-Moody's, Standard and Poor's and so on-may start to question the UK's ability to pay its debt and downgrade the triple A rating that we currently enjoy. That would make it more expensive for all of us to borrow. For the UK and for corporations, lower investment in the UK and higher unemployment could result, leading to a disastrous double-dip recession.
Let us forget party politics for a moment. There is no choice: we have to address the deficit. The Government tell us that they are, indeed, going to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the next Parliament, but they have offered only broad clues about what they intend to do, with hints at tax increases and spending cuts. They are only hints, however; there are few detailed policies. There was one detailed policy, which would have saved only £300 million, and that was a pay freeze for top public sector earners. That is £300 million; it is nothing. Surely the people of this country, or Parliament, must have some idea of what the Government, if they are re-elected, will do to try to deal with public sector debt of £829 billion.
I shall not get involved in great macro-economic arguments with any ideas that I might have; I shall go right down to the micro level. I have now chaired the best part of 400 PAC sessions, in which we have looked at Government efficiency, and one way in which we can climb out of this black hole-it is only one way in which we will achieve only part of the object-is to carry out Government programmes much more efficiently.
I am worried that if a new Government are elected in May, or even if this Government are re-elected, Ministers, for instance at the Ministry of Defence, will be under Treasury instructions to cut x per cent. off their budget. So, the number of new aircraft carriers may be reduced from two to one; there may be a question mark over the joint strike fighter; or the number of Trident submarines may be reduced from four to three. In other words, the MOD will get up to its old tricks of moving programmes sideways and delaying them. But what about the efficiency of the procurement executive? New Ministers will have to get to grips with that issue on day one, and they may have to bring in outside help. We cannot allow the public sector, particularly the civil service, to continue with layers of management which simply do not exist in the private sector.
The PAC has, I think, made some progress in the past eight years. We can make only so much, but we have identified proven savings-I wrote to the Chancellor earlier this week on the matter-of £4 billion. However, we have now gone further and identified another £9 billion that we can save without changing a single policy. I know that this is the detail of the debate and that it is not as exciting as the party political debate, but £9 billion is a serious amount of money and it can be saved. The savings have all been audited by the National Audit Office, representatives of which come to our Committee. If any of the recommendations we have made in the past eight years had been carried out, we could have saved not only the £4 billion, but another £9 billion.
I shall give a few examples. Some £1.4 billion could be saved by Departments sharing back-office services such as finance and human resources; and £2.5 billion could be saved by all Departments matching the level of staff cost reductions achieved by the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. Even a relatively simple twist of the hellishly complex benefits system could save a staggering £110 million, which would be a start. If the whole of Whitehall matched the example of some Departments in reducing running costs such as those for accommodation and IT, more than £1.3 billion could be saved. There is more. Improving how the public sector contracts and manages construction projects could save more than £2.6 billion, and developing the commercial skills of those who wield the Government's significant buying power could realise potential savings of more than £700 million, through cannier procurement of goods and services. Better use of consultants-the Committee has done a lot of work on them-alone could save £400 million. That is £9 billion just there.
I am not making a sales pitch for the PAC. I believe that there must be a total change in attitude in the public sector; that Ministers and civil servants should assume that when they are spending public money, it is as if they are spending from their own personal bank accounts; and that the days of rapid rises in spending are now over.
Actually, in a way, the days of targets may be over, because targets work in a growing budget. Typically, in the past 12 years, the Government have come out with a worthy objective and required the civil service to carry it out. When that did not happen, the Government had to impose targets. It is going to be very difficult to impose targets on a shrinking, contracting budget. The Government are going to have to trust professionals and cap their budgets in the health and education services, and they are going to have to ensure that our civil servants and managers deliver services to the front line, and not cut them while protecting their own jobs. That is not a good enough attitude from our public servants.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
A Welcome Grant
In my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I recently chaired a hearing into the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s campaign aimed at Promoting Participation with the Historic Environment.
One of the hearings witnesses was the Chief Executive of English Heritage Dr Simon Thurley. With my final question I took the opportunity to enquire about his organisation’s decision to cut funding for our historic cathedrals. Aside from the potential damage caused by a lack of funding this has caused our cathedrals to charge more for entrance and therefore potentially cause a reduction in participation.
Dr Thurley replied that English heritage was in the process of conducting a survey entitled The English Heritage Cathedrals Fabric Condition Survey 2009 which had the remit of deciding which cathedrals had significant problems and therefore needed help. The results of this survey were to be published on December 1st and he suggested, as I am a member of the Lincoln Cathedral Council, that I would not be disappointed.
Yesterday the results of the survey were announced. It concluded that despite our cathedrals having spent over £250m on repairs since 1991, it was still necessary to spend another £100m over the next ten years. Significantly Lincoln Cathedral was granted £250,000 for urgent work, and according to Dean of Lincoln, the Very Revd Philip Buckler, this money means “that the current works program can continue”.
I have spoken to the Dean and he has provided me with a breakdown of what the investment will be used for once it commences in the new fiscal year. It will be primarily used for work on the south side of the cathedral between the two transepts. Here the team of in-house craft and tradesmen will work on stone repair, refurbishment of the stained glass windows and roof and lead repair. They will also repair the damaged wood.
The announcement of the grant is encouraging and greatly welcomed. It is tangible recognition of the work which still needs to be done in order to maintain not only Lincoln, but the other sixty cathedrals in England for ourselves, and for future generations. After all, our cathedrals are our greatest architectural heritage. But they are still pathetically under-funded in comparison to some of our continental neighbours. For instance the French Government has just announced it is putting 100m Euros into its own Cathedrals. That said, English Heritage’s announcement is at least a step in the right direction.
Readers may be amused by the pathetic daub that I attempted of the Cathedral, which accompanies this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)