| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I believe that we are in great agreement on this amendment. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is saying about ensuring that nobody gets short-changed or overlooked. I could not agree more with that. It is really important that the commission takes on board the need to serve each strand as effectively as possible and maintains a focus on the needs of each strand. We hope that the commission's duty to consult on the plan will address that issue, because it ensures that there is a culture of openness and engagement. That goes back to what we said early on in our discussions this afternoon about the need to build confidence among stakeholders and others that the commission is doing the work that it should do.
Where we disagree is only about where we should do this. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, should know from conversations that we have had earlier in the
6 Jul 2005 : Column 723
Chamber and outside about my desire not to be too prescriptive. I am keen that the cross-cutting work that the commission has to do is not affected by having to use resources in a particular way. I can tell the noble Lord that there is nothing between us in terms of outcome. I shall reflect on how we might ensure that that aim is achieved, in how the Secretary of State talks to the commission, and so on. But I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I am reluctant to put the amendment in the Bill and thereby constrain the commission in how it operates—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made as well. On the basis that we are in agreement on the principle, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord De Mauley: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his contribution and supportive words. I also thank the Minister for her response. I am grateful to her for her comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 pm
Lord De Mauley moved Amendment No. 68:
"( ) The strategic plan shall include a detailed budget of the Commission's anticipated expenditure for the duration of the plan."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 68 seeks to place an obligation on the commission to include a detailed budget in each strategic plan. The Explanatory Notes estimate an annual budget for the commission when it is fully operational of £70 million a year. They explain that for the funding year 2002–03 the current three commissions received combined funding of about £43 million. In the same paragraph it is stated that the total staff numbers are expected to increase by between 20 per cent and 50 per cent over those of the existing commissions.
Leaving aside the size of the range of 20 per cent to 50 per cent, I should like to draw attention to the fact that, in her winding up at Second Reading, the Minister is quoted as saying, in col. 1300 of Hansard, that this represented a 40 per cent increase. By my calculations, 70 minus 43 is 27, and 27 divided by 43 is 63 per cent, not 40 per cent. By any stretch of the imagination, the difference between an increase of 40 per cent and one of 63 per cent is enormous. I very much doubt that the Minister has made a mistake. I look forward to her explanation of it. But it is mistakes and misunderstandings that cost taxpayers money.
In any analogous private-sector merger, the resulting merged entity is generally expected either to do the same amount of work as its predecessors with fewer resources or more than them with the same resources. Shareholders demand it. In the case of the commission, it is acknowledged that it is going to be expected to do more than its predecessors. It is taking on, among other things, responsibility for the three additional areas of age, religion and sexual orientation. But the public, like shareholders, demand efficiency and at least have a right to expect to be told in detail how their money is to be spent.
6 Jul 2005 : Column 724
There is the added complication that there is a delay until 2009 for the merger of the CRE into the commission. The public might expect the cost of the commission to be less in the mean time as the cost of the CRE has also to be borne. There is therefore a strong case for a detailed budget, breaking down all the costs of the commission by year to be included in the strategic plan. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It seems to me that there are two different questions. One is whether the Government, or the taxpayer, will provide adequate funding to enable the commission to perform its functions properly, and the other is how the commission, having got the funding, decides to spend the resources at its disposal.
On the first question, I perfectly agree that it is essential that the commission's funding is commensurate with the importance of its duties. If I may for just a moment go back again 30 years, I remember when we set up the Equal Opportunities Commission. I do not think that I am breaking the Official Secrets Act in saying that the amount we thought the EOC would get, before Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and I left office, was considerably more than the amount that it in fact received. We expected it to have regional offices, for example, and not only a Scotland and a Wales office. Unfortunately that never happened, and so the EOC was not very generously funded from the outset. It is vital that prudence and generosity are combined in that respect.
The amendment, as I understand it, is concerned not so much with that question as with the strategic plan of the commission itself, having got the funds from government. Looking at Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill as it stands, I see that the commission has to prepare the plan, it has to consulted on the plan and it has to publish the plan. There are also provisions for it to report to Parliament on outcomes of what it is doing. It seems to me that, in view of those duties, and the safeguards regarding those duties, one should leave the matter to the commission. It will have responsibility for satisfying government, Parliament and the public that it is spending its money wisely. Although it will have to do what is stated in Amendment No. 68—it will certainly have to have a detailed budget anticipating expenditure, and the accounting officer will insist upon it—I do not think that it is necessary to state that in the Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord raised two important points, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated. The first is whether the calculation of 40 per cent is right or not. The calculation comes from my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. I have to assume that it is correct. If it is not, I shall write to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord makes the important point that we have to get the figures right—that is something about which I feel very strongly—to gain the confidence that we discussed earlier, not least that taxpayers' money is being used effectively.
6 Jul 2005 : Column 725
The critical point is that we have taken the combined budgets of the commissions and added to that. I refer to the additional strands of money that are being put forward. I am told that the money constitutes an extra 40 per cent above the combined commissions' spend for 2005–06. Some 63 per cent is based on the spend of the commissions in an earlier year, so the commissions' spend has risen to reflect extra responsibilities. If when the noble Lord reflects on that matter it does not quite answer his question, I am more than happy to correspond with him to ensure that we get the matter right. I agree with him that figures are very important.
The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the further point of how we look at the commission's work in the context of a detailed budget. We have said that the detail of how the commission will set out its planned expenditure and accounting will be set out in the financial memorandum that will be agreed prior to the commission becoming operational—as I understand it, that is entirely consistent with the usual practice for non-departmental public bodies and accounting procedures—and that that will ensure that the commission is fully accountable for its expenditure. That goes back to the point about the best use of taxpayers' money.
If the commission decides in its strategic plan that it wants to put forward a detailed budget, it is absolutely free to do so. The Disability Rights Commission follows good practice and has produced a headline statement on resources in the plan. It recognised that detailed information on resources will be subject obviously to external factors such as spending reviews or perhaps changing priorities, and that therefore going into too much detail in the strategic plan is perhaps not appropriate. However, one should ensure that that detail is available for scrutiny in appropriate financial documents.
We are not questioning the principle behind the amendments; we are merely saying that clarity, transparency and accountability are vital. One should ensure that these matters are appropriately dealt with but perhaps not in the strategic plan in view of the fact that priorities may shift and factors may emerge which the commission will not be able to control. On the basis of what I have said about ensuring that the financing details I have given to the noble Lord are correct and about our desire to ensure proper accountability, but perhaps not quite in the way that that noble Lord has suggested, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |