Speeches by Gilbert.

“What job have these people been asked to apply for? Have they been given a job description? If there is no structure in place, and they do not know what Department or role they are going to cover, how can anyone say whether they can do the job that they have been appointed to do?”

“Yes, that is the problem. You have an outcome without any understanding of how you are trying to achieve that outcome. Normally, the process would start the other way around if there was a restructuring: they might say, “We know we’ve got an overspend, so let’s see how we rationalise that.” But here there is no rationa…”

“Am I right in thinking that the 1,885 number is arbitrary and is based on applying the 25% overall cut to staff? They know what their outcome needs to be, but there is no plan for it. The overall outcome they want to achieve is a 25% to 30% cut, which equates to 1,885 full-time posts. Normally it would be the other way…”

“What are the potential impacts on the lives of the extremely poor, should these cuts materialise?”

“You have touched on some of the risks in this strategy. Could you give some specifics where you think there are risks to the accountability of UK ODA under the circumstances? How could we mitigate some of that if that goes ahead?”

“Gideon, what risks are there to the UK’s ability to deliver effective humanitarian and development work from a 20% reduction in staff?”

“If they have announced the compulsory redundancy, potentially, of 1,885 staff, there is a legal requirement for them to share that information with you, and to give you the rationale for the business case, for the trade unions to agree it. Otherwise, you are in legal territory, which will ultimately be your fundamental…”

“It would be good to see that structure—where vacancies currently exist, what they have managed to fill and what is still available—so that we can at least get a sense of what whoever is making this vision intends.”

“And has that happened?”

“Is there something in your agreement about freezing other recruitment while that goes on?”

“And from an internal FCDO point of view, whose desk does it end up on? Is it just higher up in HR?”

“What job have these people been asked to apply for? Have they been given a job description? If there is no structure in place, and they do not know what Department or role they are going to cover, how can anyone say whether they can do the job that they have been appointed to do?”

“On a point of clarification, you were talking about that escalation in the internal dispute system. At whose door does that eventually end up?”

“Am I right in thinking that the 1,885 number is arbitrary and is based on applying the 25% overall cut to staff? They know what their outcome needs to be, but there is no plan for it. The overall outcome they want to achieve is a 25% to 30% cut, which equates to 1,885 full-time posts. Normally it would be the other way…”

“Yes, that is the problem. You have an outcome without any understanding of how you are trying to achieve that outcome. Normally, the process would start the other way around if there was a restructuring: they might say, “We know we’ve got an overspend, so let’s see how we rationalise that.” But here there is no rationa…”

“I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this important debate. The Minister may be aware that Scottish Ministers are waiting to see the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, following the Supreme Court ruling. Does she believe that it is tenable for Scottish Ministers to not imple…”

“Peter, you have spoken a little about your experience of hustings; in your view, what kind of person is the best person to conduct hustings, to keep the integrity of the debate and the hustings process fair?”

“Do any other factors beyond the person conducting them need to be considered in the arrangements for regulating hustings?”

“How does that work in practice?”

“You mentioned the nations within the UK. What is your experience of working with the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd?”