Office for the Impact Economy

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I did not quite understand the Answer the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rook. I have gone to the website and I understand that the Office for the Impact Economy is going to act

“as a ‘front door’ for … impact economy relationships and general strategic relationships and … delivery relationships”,

all through a “huband spoke model”. Can the Minister explain in plain English what it is going to do?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I praise the civil servants that are genuinely communicating well in this space. With regard to the hub-and-spoke model, the Office for the Impact Economy is based in the Cabinet Office, working with civil servants across the departments that will be able to help deliver it. We are trying to create a one-stop shop for philanthropists, social enterprises and social purpose-driven businesses so they know one place to come, and then it is up to government to be able to facilitate what they need. We are talking about potential investment— as was established by the report published last month— of £106 billion of assets; £42 billion is already being spent on government priorities. This is to make sure everyone is swimming in the right direction by providing a one-stop shop. I hope that provides a level of basic English for the noble Lord.

Ministerial Code

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. I seem to remember that, when the previous Government were in government and since, they have accepted donations from supporters. It seems to be normal that people would want to support a political party; it is a normal part of our politics. My noble friend is absolutely right: to my knowledge, there has been no such representations from the Conservative Front Bench criticising Mr Kogan’s appointment based on his ability to do the role.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, is there not in place an automatic system within government that, when a public appointment is being made by a Minister, checks whether a donation has been made to that Minister or to their political party in general?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a system in place. The Commissioner for Public Appointments undertook a report to find out what has happened in this case and found that the Secretary of State acted in good faith. However, the processes have since been strengthened.

Youth Mobility Scheme

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

There has not been a Labour contribution yet, so it is the turn of my noble friend.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, in this wide-ranging debate, I will focus my remarks on the need for good and competent government. I start with one example where I believe government failed to rise to the occasion, the implications of which we are seeing today. I am referring to last year’s European referendum.

In a general election, the voters elect a Parliament and Government and so delegate to politicians the responsibility for taking complicated decisions. In a referendum, it is the other way round. Politicians delegate to the voters the responsibility for taking a complicated decision. Let me be clear that I am not for a moment criticising the decision to hold the referendum, but I am criticising the failure of the then Government to set out for the voters in a clear way the practical implications and challenges of remaining in the EU and of leaving the EU. More lamentable still was the failure of the Government to undertake any contingency planning, even though the option of leave was put on the table as a deliberate act of government policy, so there was a 50:50 chance of the country voting leave. Towards the end of a Parliament, the Cabinet Secretary initiates discussions with the main Opposition party to carry out preparatory work on that party’s programme were it to form the next Government. That is rightly done in the interests of good government. In the case of the EU referendum, no such work was done for leave.

Last Thursday, my noble friend the Leader of the House and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister both spoke of the need for government to consult and listen. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister winds up he will complete the sentence and assure us that, having consulted and listened, the Government will then respond and act. I welcome that there will be more Green Papers and discussion papers on, for example, the thorny question of social care. One positive by-product of so much Brexit legislation in this two-year session of Parliament is that it provides the Government with plenty of time for thinking and consulting, ready for well-developed policies to be introduced in year three of what I hope and expect to be a full five-year Parliament.

I make one short plea about consultation. It should be more than a box-ticking exercise. What matters is the quality of the responses and getting input from people with the relevant expertise. That brings me to how the Government could benefit more from the expertise in this House. I am thinking in particular of the many excellent reports produced by committees here. These are often debated on the Floor of the House and the Minister will of course be unfailingly courteous, but the substance of the speech will often be formal and formulaic. I have always thought that it would be far better for the relevant Minister, whether from the Commons or the Lords, to appear before the committee and be asked which proposals have been followed and which have been ignored. A little bit of pressing and prodding would be good because it is, after all, to Parliament that Ministers are responsible.

I want to say a final word about the role that special advisers can play in creating good government. Their job is to oil the wheels of government and to be a lubricant in the system, not grit. A good special adviser can help officials better understand and achieve the Minister’s policy objectives, but special advisers should never overreach themselves. The dictum should always be this: advisers advise and Ministers decide.

I believe that the gracious Speech is honest and straightforward. It sets out practical and achievable objectives, and I welcome it.