Examination of Witnesses (Questions 53-59)
MR RICHARD
LAMBERT
30 JUNE 2009
Q53 Chairman: Mr Lambert, normally I
ask witnesses to describe who they are but that is perhaps unnecessary
this morning, unless you want to do so.
Mr Lambert: I am Richard Lambert,
Director-General of the CBI.
Q54 Chairman: I believe you were
here for much of the previous session with the TUC. We overran
slightly with Universities UK. For your benefit, I think it is
fair to summarise the witnesses so far as being content with the
new Department. That comes as a pleasant surprise to me. Admittedly,
we have heard only from surrogates for bigger sectors. As Mr Binley
would point out very forcefully, the CBI cannot speak for the
whole business sector, only its members. Therefore, you speak
as a surrogate. There are many people we could have asked, but
what is your judgment of the overall business sector's reaction
to the new Department?
Mr Lambert: I think it is broadly
content, to use your words. There is a sense of a strengthened
department and there is some logic in putting together most of
these components: innovation, research budgets, regulation, we
hope, and business. There is more uncertainty within the university
community who are also our members as to exactly how it will play,
but broadly speaking people are content with the structure and
the proof is in the pudding. It has a lot of things to prove in
the near future. I also believe that in the community that I represent
there is some sense that governments are too keen to mess around
with the machinery of government and this can be counter-productive
and expensive and lead to delays. For example, I think everybody
would recognise that in the first year DIUS was set up not much
happened and then it cranked into action and closed down. This
is not a sensible way to run it.
Q55 Chairman: As to some of the problems,
you mentioned DIUS. The agreed funding for the Department for
Children, Schools and Families is not a problem on this occasion
because its funding stream just comes across to the new Department.
Mr Lambert: Yes, but it must still
manage a cross-cutting budget with the DCFS.
Q56 Chairman: Presumably, the same
officials will do that, will they not?
Mr Lambert: They will, but the
problem will still be there. They will have to manage their relationships
well with other departments.
Q57 Chairman: There is an argument
for the creation of one spending and one tax-raising department
and leaving it at that because everything is related to everything
else, which is the trouble. For example, the business community
has said to me that consistently its biggest concern is not regulation,
strangely enough. Although that has been a very high concern skills
is always the number one issue for them; and transport is often
a major issue. Do you feel that this is the right package of responsibilities
given the fact that it is already a big department for anyone
to manage? Are there things that you would like to see there instead?
Mr Lambert: You can overstate
the importance of playing around with the machinery of government.
DBERR in its previous iteration spelt out in its interesting paper
on industrial activism the importance of bringing different departments
of state to bear on particular problems, whether it is developing
low carbon products and services or whatever. Those problems will
be there however you structure it. I think it is a good idea to
try to develop a strong economics department. There have been
attempts made to do that over the past 50 years all of which have
been crushed by the Treasury sooner or later, so we will see if
that is the case here.
Q58 Chairman: That was a point I
made to the previous witnesses in less graphic terms.
Mr Lambert: But there is a strong
secretary of state in charge right now. In all departments a lot
depends on the political weight of the secretary of state. Were
there to be a less powerful figure around maybe we would not be
so content.
Q59 Chairman: That means that in
six months' time the Department may change again. I do not make
a judgment about the political outcome of the election, but it
is quite possible that Lord Mandelson will move on to something
else.
Mr Lambert: Yes. Moving the pieces
around is fun but in the end it does not make much difference
to the workings of the economy.
| 
