Examination of Witnesses (Questions 289
- 299)
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2007
RT HON
ED MILIBAND
MP AND PHIL
HOPE MP
Q289 Chairman: Let me welcome
our witnesses, as we have to call them, this afternoon. We are
delighted to have Ed Miliband, who is the Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, and Phil Hope,
who is Minister for the Third Sector. Thank you very much for
coming and seeing us. As you know, we are doing an inquiry into
third sector commissioning and that is predominantly, obviously,
what we want to talk to you about, although we may want to ask
some general Cabinet Office questions as well. Ed, would you like
to say something to get us started?
Ed Miliband: Chairman, thank you
very much. It is a pleasure to be before the Committee today.
I would like to start by thanking you for your inquiry, which
I think has produced some very interesting evidence and testimony
from people. I thought I would just say, by way of short introduction,
four things about our approach to the third sector which might
help inform our discussions today. The first is that I take, and
I think the Government takes, a broad view of the role of the
third sector. It has a role in designing and delivering public
services, but it also has an equally important role campaigning
and building stronger communities through small local organisations
and, indeed, embarking on social enterprise, which is a very exciting
area of the third sector. The second thing I would say, and in
a way this is reflected in some of your evidence, is that I do
not think we see the third sector delivery as a panacea for the
issues that we face in public service. We think it can make an
important contribution, but what I would be very keen to get away
from is the notion that the public sector is bad or the private
sector is bad and the third sector is somehow good. The third
point I would make, which in a way follows from the second, is
that, therefore, our approach is about transforming public services,
not about wholesale transfer of public services. It is not about
saying: let us just transfer out a branch of public services because
it will automatically be better in a different sector. The final
point I would make is really the key one, which is that I think
this is about partnership. It is about government saying: it is
our responsibility to adequately fund public services, but there
are new ways of delivering them, and the third sector can make
a contribution to doing so and can bring its innovation and its
skills to helping improve the lives of citizens in this country,
and that is what the added value of the third sector can be. I
have with me Phil Hope, the Minister for the Third Sector.
Phil Hope: I would just say, I
have inherited this role from an excellent predecessor, who is
sitting beside me. We have published in July, as you know, the
Third Sector Review, which was based on the largest ever consultation
among third sector organisations and directly reflects many of
the views that were expressed during that consultation. That spells
out, in fact, I think I can describe it as my job description
for the next period, on where we want to go with campaigning and
for the users to have people that speak for them and speak with
them and have a voice themselves on strengthening local communities
through new grant programmes, which we spell out in that review,
to support the grass roots, frontline organisations to promote
improvements to public services, transforming those public services
and around social enterprises. Last week was Social Enterprise
Day. I do not know if any of you got involved in that, but that
was a great opportunity to celebrate many social enterprises of
all shapes and sizes up and down the country, but, ultimately,
it was about the Government supporting and enabling a thriving
third sector at national, regional and local levels. That is my
job description and that is what I am here to try and carry on
over the next few years.
Q290 Chairman: We shall get
stuck into all those issues in a moment. We said that we would
have a few minutes talking generally about the Cabinet Office
and being the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Over the years
this Committee has had quite a succession of Cabinet Office ministers
sitting in front of them and it is not clear to me that they have
all been doing the same job. What do you see the job as?
Ed Miliband: I have read some
of that testimony. I think you or Michael Heseltine described
the Cabinet Office as a bran tub, I think I am right in saying.
I see my job in five main areas: firstly, social exclusion (where
we have a public service agreement that we are driving across
government working with other colleagues), secondly, the third
sector (which we are here to talk about today), thirdly, public
service improvement (and we now have David Varney working with
us and Alexis Cleveland who has come from the Pensions Service
working on service transformation), fourthly, civil contingencies
(which is an important area and has kept us busy over the last
few months and obviously we have the Civil Contingencies Secretariat
in the Cabinet Office which is responsible for some of the co-ordination)
and, fifthly, Civil Service issues (where, obviously, there are
plain local issues but also we have the Constitutional Renewal
Bill, which will be published in draft early next year). Essentially
my role in the Cabinet Office is to drive forward, in particular,
and my focus is on those five issues, as well as providing more
general support for the Prime Minister and the Government.
Q291 Chairman: So if I asked
you whether you think you are working for the Prime Minister or
for the Cabinet, you would probably say for both, would you not?
Ed Miliband: I would, yes.
Q292 Chairman: Without any
order of precedence?
Ed Miliband: The Prime Minister
is first among equals, is he not, but I work for the Prime Minister
and the Cabinet, and I think that is important.
Q293 Chairman: You mentioned
the Constitutional Renewal Bill that we are going to see after
Christmas. Which bits of that are you concerned with?
Ed Miliband: The two parts in
particular that fall to us: there is the incorporation of elements
of the Civil Service Act into the Constitutional Renewal Bill
and there are issues which I know this Committee has taken evidence
on, I think have even been to the United States to discuss, which
is public appointments and the idea of people who are appointed
to public appointments going before select committees. They are
the two particular parts of the Constitutional Renewal Bill that
we are responsible for, as well as some other miscellaneous parts
too.
Q294 Chairman: Does that latter
part, the public appointments part, require legislation?
Ed Miliband: I believe that it
will require legislation. That is my impression. I can come back
to the Committee precisely on that, but I believe it does require
legislation.
Q295 Chairman: Everyone wants
their favourite things to be inside this Constitutional Renewal
Bill, which is going to be an omnibus measure with all kinds of
things inside it, and I am sure we will have our own proposals
to put. Do you think there is a case for fixed-term parliaments?
Ed Miliband: I think, obviously,
the debate will continue in earnest from early next year when
we publish the Bill in draft. I personally do not particularly
see the case for fixed-term parliaments. I think in a parliamentary
system it is harder to operate on that basis. It tends to be the
case, I think I am right in saying (but you would know better
than me), that it is presidential systems that tend to operate
more with a fixed term mandate.
Q296 Chairman: You do not
think, after recent events, the case for fixed terms has grown
immeasurably?
Ed Miliband: I personally do not
particularly see that. Obviously, it is a matter for the Prime
Minister, not for me, but I am not necessarily convinced that
the case for that is proven.
Q297 Chairman: I was elected
in 1992, as was Gordon here and I think Phil—
Phil Hope: 1997.
Q298 Chairman: I am sorry
about that. ---on a manifesto which said, and it does not sound
entirely unfamiliar, "This General Election was called only
after months of on again, off again dithering which damaged our
economy and weakened our democracy. No government with a majority
should be allowed to put the interests of a party above government
as the Conservatives have done. Although an early election will
sometimes be necessary, we will introduce, as a general rule,
a fixed parliamentary term." What is wrong with that.
Ed Miliband: I think what is interesting---.
You are obviously referring to the election speculation that has
taken place in the last—
Q299 Chairman: No, I am just
quoting our 1992 Manifesto.
Ed Miliband: Sure, but its relevance
today might be that in the past couple of months there has been
a bout of election speculation. I tend to find that while people
in Westminster tend to get very obsessed with these minute by
minute issues of whether there is going to be a general election,
actually people outside Westminster tend to get on with their
lives. If the implication of your question is that somehow this
has had a destabilising effect, I would not recognise that. I
think most people in the country have carried on with their business
in the last couple of months.
|
