Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman could have made a much better intervention about funding. If the intervention that he made was intended merely to back up his party’s crib sheet, I do not think that that was very sensible. He could have pointed out that yesterday the Department said that it would remove the reference to S4C from schedule 4 and give it a clause of its own, but, unbelievably, no additional funds and no commitment to funding after 2015.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I would love to, but I am conscious that from now on there is no more injury time.

The Select Committee concluded that

“S4C provides value for money.”

This is no sweet little niche cultural project that is propped up out of the kindness of taxpayers’ hearts. The channel is already cutting costs, and has overheads of only 4.5%, compared to 12% at the BBC. It is popular and well watched. According to the Select Committee, its

“share of the viewing audience during peak times”

is holding up “remarkably well”, and viewing figures for key programmes compare favourably with those for their English language equivalents.

On top of all that, the channel supports 2,000 Welsh jobs and contributes £90 million to the Welsh economy. This is not an institution in desperate need of top-down reform. The Bill, however, will impose catastrophic changes that will not even comply with its own aims. Ministers talk the language of sustainability, but they refuse to guarantee S4C’s future beyond 2015. They talk about accountability and transparency, but this move will take S4C’s funding out of direct Government control and hand it over to an arm’s-length body. They talk about maintaining S4C’s independence—where have we heard about the independence of the media before?—but they have announced no change in the law on BBC Trust responsibility for every penny of the licence fee. The whole plan was drawn up on the back of an envelope by people with no knowledge of S4C or the language that it promotes, who wanted to cut costs without worrying about the consequences. S4C deserves better.

I am not saying that we cannot have a debate about improving S4C. Indeed, we appear to have been engaging in such a debate for the best part of the last year, and I think that that is right, as is the independent review. The first step, however, is to remove S4C from the Bill altogether. I will vote for its removal as soon as I get the chance, and I hope that the whole House will join me in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend recall the Welsh proverb “Mae allwedd arian yn agor pob clo”, which can be translated as “The key of money opens every lock”? It is both a suitable motto for the Murdoch empire and a warning that the money going to the BBC might be used to take over S4C.

[Mr Williams]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that quotation. I concur with the sentiment behind it, and I will say something about S4C in a moment. I also associate myself with the spirited defence of the channel presented by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones).

The Bill still gives rise to concern on a number of grounds. We might expect that from a Bill that abolishes and reforms a significant number of public bodies, all of which will have their defenders—I shall defend two Welsh organisations later in my speech—but it is worth reflecting on the Government’s reasons for proceeding with it. Under Governments of all parties there has been a huge increase in the number of public bodies in the past 30 or 40 years, and the present Government face the need to reduce the deficit. I was relieved to hear the word “accountability” from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office as frequently as I did.

Afghanistan

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not want us to jeopardise the success achieved so far. From my many conversations with our service personnel, many of whom are going back to Afghanistan for a second, third or, as he said, even a fourth time, it seems to me that morale is extremely high, and that there is a sense that we are achieving good things in Afghanistan. However, I think that we need to focus on what is effective. One problem has been that we should have applied earlier the effective measures of counter-insurgency that we are now pursuing—protecting the larger population centres and ensuring that the main transport routes are open. Some of what we have done in years gone by might have had important symbolism for Afghans, but the real symbolism lies in protecting large population centres so that people can go about their daily lives.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister support the campaign by his own constituents and many families of the bereaved for the processions that bring the bodies of the fallen back to this country to be rerouted through urban areas so that local people can publicly express their respect, the families can express their grief and the country can be reminded of the true cost of war?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. Obviously, as the constituency MP, I take a close interest in it. I have tried to allow for the greatest possible consultation with the armed forces, the MOD and local councils in Carterton town and across West Oxfordshire district council. I believe that we have arrived at a sensible route with a far better centre for families within the airbase. Money is also being spent on a proper memorial garden where families will be able to show their respects to their loved ones. A lot of thought has gone into this, and of course we must keep it under review and ensure that it is done in the right way. However, there is sometimes a great danger—whether it is the local MP or the Prime Minister—of stepping in without allowing people to determine what is a good outcome that will be well done. Let us see how it works in practice before we jump to conclusions here.

Ninetieth Birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The supreme achievement of the Duke of Edinburgh is that he is working at the age of 90. This is a magnificent example and one that has been followed by a constituent of mine, Mr Harry Polloway, who is working as a toastmaster at the age of 97. I last saw him in the Jewish cemetery in my constituency, where we were commemorating the death of May Mendleson, who died last year at the age of 108. Continuing work into that period of life is a wonderful example to set, and one that we can look at with some embarrassment and shame in the House, where I believe the oldest Member—a distinguished Member—is just 80 years of age, and we have only five Members over the age of 76.

This group of people are disgracefully under-represented in the House. If we are to have a proper reflection of senior citizens, we must look to have all-80-year-old shortlists at the next general election. In the light of the heroic examples set by Prince Philip, Harry Polloway and May Mendleson, that fault needs to be corrected.

However, my purpose in speaking today is to make another point. As someone who is not a royalist and is happy to say that I am a republican and always have been, I want to ask why on earth, in this age, the address is to be “humble”. Are members of the royal family superior beings to the rest of us? Are we inferior beings to them? Is Prince Philip superior to Harry Polloway and May Mendleson? That was the feeling of the House seven centuries ago, when we accepted the rules under which we speak now.

We live in an egalitarian time when we recognise the universality of the human condition, in which royals and commoners share the same strengths and frailty. In the House, when we speak of the royals—not just the monarch, but all the family, without any limit—we are denied the chance of making any derogatory comment. That might extend to first cousins who are a long way distant from the monarch. There is no question but that the monarch—the Head of State—should remain above the political fray. We have been well served by this, particularly recently.

However, if these occasions are to be greatly valued, it should be possible for Members to utter the odd syllable that might be critical. I do not have anything to say in this case, but the sycophancy described by the Prime Minister when he referred to someone asking Prince Philip a fairly obvious question when he came off a plane must sicken the royal family. When they have an excess of praise of this kind, it is devalued.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

No one would accuse me of being an ardent royalist, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the most terrifying dictatorships—terrorist dictatorships—of the last century, including Germany, Russia and China, have been republics?

[Paul Flynn]

I was coming to the final sentence of my speech, but I would be happy to discuss that at some length. If my hon. Friend is asking whether the Queen has been a monarch of whom we should be proud, a monarch who has served this country in a way that is probably unparalleled, and whether she has maintained political neutrality throughout those years, I would say yes. We particularly appreciated her work in Ireland recently, where she has done much to restore the link. That is not the point of what I am saying today.

I am saying that the House has allowed itself to be infantilised by our own history into a position in which we are not allowed to make any criticism—not just of the person whom we are talking about today, but of other members of the royal family as well. It stretches to all of them. By accepting today that the address is a humble one, we demean the honour of our elected office. We were elected by the first-past-the-post system, but those with hereditary offices are in their place as a result of what Tony Benn once called the first-past-the-bedpost system. We should be free in this House to tell the whole truth as citizens, not gagged as subservient subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be better if we could elevate this issue above party politics. Indeed, when we voted to go ahead with Trident it was on the basis of a Labour motion that was supported by most Labour MPs and almost all Conservative MPs. However, I have a feeling that my hon. Friend would never be satisfied, even if I placed a Trident submarine in the Solent, opposite his constituency, and handed him the codes—something, I am afraid, that I am simply not prepared to do.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why continue to waste billions on a national virility symbol that has played no part in any of the military operations that we have taken part in over the last seven years, and is unlikely to play any part in the future? Does it not give justification and encouragement to other countries in acquiring their own nuclear weapons?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept either part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. First, we are signatories to the non-proliferation agreement and are strong supporters of it. Secondly, the point of our nuclear deterrent is just that—deterrence. It is the ultimate insurance policy against blackmail or attack by other countries. That is why I believe it is right to maintain and replace it.

Counter-terrorism

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There are practical steps in place through the reconciliation and reintegration procedure that is available in Afghanistan through the President’s peace council. That enables Taliban fighters effectively to put down their weapons and join the political process, as long as they accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution. However, as well as that low-level reintegration, we need higher-level reconciliation, where we say to the Taliban, “If you accept the tenets of the constitution, give up violence and cut your links with al-Qaeda, there is a political path open to you,” because ultimately, insurgencies tend to end through a combination of force of arms and a simultaneous political process.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Do not the six years of treachery by powerful people in Pakistan prove that the links of blood, religion, language and ethnicity between Pakistan and Afghanistan are far, far more powerful than the friendship of convenience between us and those countries, which depends on a continuing sacrifice of blood and treasure by us? Have not our excessive optimism and trust delayed the day when we can do a deal and bring our brave boys home?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that analysis, because it can lead us to believe that the best option for Britain, and indeed America, is to cut ourselves off entirely from friendships, partnerships and co-operation with those countries and leave them to their own devices. That has been a mistake in the past. The lesson to learn is that long-term partnerships to help those countries are actually in our interests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

4. What recent estimate he has made of the number of charities and voluntary sector organisations that will be affected by reductions in public expenditure in the next 12 months.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

9. What recent estimate he has made of the likely change in the number of jobs in the voluntary sector as a result of reductions in public expenditure in the next 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

Unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune from cuts, for reasons that have been explained. That would have been exactly the same under a Labour Government. We are trying to help the sector to manage a difficult transition, while shaping what we believe are significant opportunities for the sector, not least in terms of more public service delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

Again, I am sorry to hear that that organisation is in difficulty. I am more than happy to meet representatives from the community to discuss it. The transition fund has been made available to help organisations in difficulty. I point out to the hon. Lady that many of the funding decisions and cuts are local decisions, and that many councils across the country are taking a positive approach by maintaining or even increasing spending on the local voluntary and community sector.

[Paul Flynn]

Cutting charities reduces our ability to help one another and undermines the structures of neighbourliness that form our big society. That is the opinion of the chair of the Charity Commission, who knows about these things. Is not the Government’s big society a big confidence trick?

[Mr Hurd]

Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman has been around enough to know that the size of the deficit means that the sector, which receives almost £13 billion a year of taxpayers’ money, cannot be immune from the reduction in public spending, and that it would not have been immune, as the Opposition have admitted, under the ghastly scenario of a Labour Government. We have to be realistic about that. We are trying to minimise the short-term damage through initiatives such as the transition fund, and to create the building blocks for a better future for the sector, not least through more incentives for giving and more opportunities for it to deliver public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We have already seen over the last year an increase in manufacturing output and in manufacturing exports. I was up in Bedford last week at the GM plant, which is massively expanding. It is creating more jobs and bringing £150 million of offshore contracts back into the UK. We are backing that with low tax rates, deregulation and more apprenticeships. This is a Government who are pro-enterprise, pro-jobs and pro-manufacturing and who are going to dig us out of the mess the last lot left.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Q12. Does not the nightmare of Fukushima mean that the planned renaissance of nuclear power will be stillborn? Should not the Prime Minister be planning for a future that will be free of the cost, fear and anxiety of nuclear power, and rich in renewables that are British, that are green, and that are inexhaustible and safe?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we have to learn the lessons from Fukushima but, as I have said before, that is a different reactor design in a different part of the world with different pressures. The British nuclear industry has a good safety record, but, clearly, it has to go on proving that, and doing so in the light of the new evidence, such as it is, that comes out of Japan. That is what must happen, and the head of the nuclear inspectorate will do exactly that.

West Lothian Question

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Murphy]

No, I do not accept that for one second, because the Union is not an union of shires. The Union is a union of countries and regions: the Province of Northern Ireland, the old Kingdom of Scotland and the old Principality of Wales make up the Union, together with England. I will come to that in a second. The problem of England is difficult—I have no doubt about that—but the maintenance of proper representation, weighted differently for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, helps to maintain that Union. I will come on to the issue of weight in a moment, because on the one hand the Government argue that there should be equal weight for Members of Parliament, but on the other, when we are elected, they argue that we have different weights in the House of Commons.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the resounding yes vote in the recent referendum showed that the people of Wales have accepted devolution and are very happy for the Welsh Assembly to have more powers, and that the process is irreversible? Would it not be possible, if we are looking at a future system for the United Kingdom, to have a system that would embrace not only independent Parliaments in Wales and Scotland, but, possibly, a newly forged link with the Republic of Ireland?

[Paul Murphy]

Yes, indeed. I very much accept my hon. Friend’s point about the result of the referendum. Devolution is unquestionably here to stay. People accept that devolution is the best way to deal with the issues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.

The issue that affects us at the moment, with regard to the West Lothian question, is the so-called English question—the question of English issues. Should Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs vote on what are termed to be specifically English issues in this place? I maintain that there are no such things as absolutely English issues. In the first instance, the money that comes to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is decided by Parliament, which is overwhelmingly English—85% of MPs are English. I quote, for the convenience of hon. Members, the Kilbrandon commission, which met, as many will know, in the 1970s:

“any issue at Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of course of consequence to all parts of the UK, since it may affect the level of taxation and indirectly influences the level of a region’s own expenditure”.

Every time the Barnett formula is used, in each public spending round, the amount reached depends on the amount of money spent in England on public services that are devolved to the other countries. If health spending in England goes up, or education spending in England goes down, that has complete consequences for the budgets of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Financially, there is no such thing as an English issue—they are British issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I shall speak briefly, because I know that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) on securing it, because it is important, and such constitutional issues are close to all our hearts. There are no easy solutions.

A major issue would have blown up after the last general election—the right hon. Gentleman alluded to this—if the Conservatives had tried to form a minority Administration. The coalition now has 12 MPs in Scotland, whereas the Conservative party alone has only a single MP, and has won only three contests in total in the last four general elections. The West Lothian issue would have come much more to the fore, and perhaps that would have been good thing.

I hope that the Minister will say a little about what the Government are planning to do in this regard. The past nine months have been a period of substantial constitutional change, and I share many of the reservations on the Opposition Benches, as my voting record shows. I abstained on Second and Third Readings of the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, but I voted against the Government on some occasions. I was uneasy about the Bill’s being seen as slightly partisan along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. I was one of three Conservative MPs who voted to retain the overall number of constituencies at 650, although I would try to equalise them, and we are now moving towards that.

We should consider the whole constitutional issue much more broadly, and it is regrettable that we are making significant changes to the House of Commons when we all know in our hearts that this rapid pace of change will not be represented in any of the changes that will be presented to the House of Lords. There is much speculation that the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly if the AV vote does not go the way he wants, will be given the House of Lords issue and rush ahead with it in the second half of the year. I think we all know that not only is there division in the House of Commons, there is probably rather less division that we would like in the House of Lords, and I suspect that many life peers on both sides will want to retain their position, and will stall on any fundamental reforms.

I shall explain what I would like, which is a pipe dream at the moment, but touches on solving some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman seems to measure his party’s support in Wales and Scotland by the number of MPs it has. In two of the last four general elections, the Conservative party had 20% of the vote in Wales without a single MP. Would he not be better engaged in proving that first-past-the-post is a rotten, out-of-date electoral system, and campaigning for AV to obtain justice for his party?

[Mr Field]

However much the hon. Gentleman would like to tempt me in that direction, I will not go down that path as it does not apply to today’s debate. However, he makes a serious point. In many ways, devolution was the saving of the Conservative party in Wales in the immediate aftermath of 1997, or at least after 1999 with the Welsh Assembly elections. We now have a stalwart group of Welsh MPs, roughly one quarter of whom are present today—that is until the boundaries change. [Laughter.] I will not be unkind to my colleagues. The Minister is blanching at the prospect of a cross-border Welsh-English seat if some people have their way.

Japan and the Middle East

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I did not know about my hon. Friend’s brave record in flying for the Air Force in a no-fly zone. He brings great personal expertise, so it is good to have his backing. The frozen resources belong to the Libyan people, and we should bear that in mind when we start thinking of different and ingenious ways of spending their money.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Should we not avoid a rush to complacency on nuclear safety? The pictures from Fukushima have already churned up people’s deep-seated fears of a nuclear catastrophe and reduced the acceptability of nuclear installations, which are uniquely dangerous in cases of human error, terrorist attack or natural disaster. Should we not look again at our rush to nuclear?

[The Prime Minister]

We have to put aside our personal preferences and prejudices about nuclear power and ask some tough scientific questions about what recent events demonstrate and what we should learn. There are big differences between Japan and Britain. We do not yet know the full extent of what has happened at the reactors, and, as the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party said, we should not rush to judgment in considering these issues.

Big Society

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House supports the Big Society, seeking stronger communities where power is decentralised and social action is encouraged.

I place on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, particularly its Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who has been such a great advocate of Back-Bench business and so encouraging in the process of bringing forward this debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who cannot be with us today because she is on official business, for her assistance in making the case to the Committee, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman). It is a great thing to have secured this debate. The big society has been much discussed in the media, and yet this is practically the first proper occasion on which it has been discussed on the Floor of this Chamber.

It is traditional when discussing the big society to start talking about the invention of the telegraph, the growth of centralisation, and the invention of the internet, and then to wind up with a discussion of something called the post-bureaucratic age. That is fascinating to those of a philosophical bent and technocratic in nature, but it does not mean much to my constituents. What I want to talk about is the sense of annoyance that everyone has when an individual feels put off from simply sweeping the snow from the pavement outside their house for fear that they will be sued, or when they are scared to jump into a pond and rescue a drowning child.

How have we got to the situation where individuals do not feel that they can take responsibility, and that rules and procedures stop them doing so? It is important to encourage people to take more action and more responsibility for their own lives and for their communities. People in communities are frustrated, such as the head teacher who cannot decide which children are in his school and feels that he is being told what to do by diktat, and the hospital worker who wants to take responsibility for his area, but who has to follow detailed rules and procedures.

Communities as a whole—big communities such as mine in Dover—want a greater sense of being able to chart their own destiny and future direction, but feel hampered by central Government saying, “No, these are the rules. This is how it is going to be. It is all going to be top-down and what you say doesn’t count for much.” It is that sense of annoyance and frustration, which stalks the land up and down the country, that the big society aims to counteract.

The Prime Minister put the case succinctly in The Daily Telegraph on 21 February 2011, when he said:

“The idea at the heart of this—the Big Society—is about rebuilding responsibility and giving people more control over their lives. But that doesn’t just apply in areas like volunteering. It’s as relevant when it comes to public services and the decentralisation of power. Indeed, I would argue that our plans to devolve power from Whitehall, and to modernise public services, are more significant aspects of our Big Society agenda than the work we’re doing to boost social action…In the past decade, stories about bureaucracy over-ruling common sense, targets and regulations over-ruling professional discretion, and the producers of public services over-ruling the people who use (and pay for) them—became the norm, not the exception. This might have been worth it had it led to dramatic improvements, but the evidence shows otherwise. Whether it’s cancer survival rates, school results or crime, for too long we’ve been slipping against comparable countries.”

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am doing my best to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If there are people who will not jump into a pond to save a drowning child, will he explain how the big society will persuade them to do so?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The central point I am making is that people who want to take charge and responsibility feel put off from doing so by the concern that they will somehow be held liable. The law on rescuers used to be very clear: if a person attempted a rescue but completely messed it up, they would not be held liable. That position has changed in recent years. There is a fear that if one clears the snow on the pavement, one will be sued by someone who slips up because one has done it ineffectively. The balance needs to change so that the individual who takes responsibility, acts and steps up to the plate for the wider social good is encouraged and given the maximum possible latitude to do their best. That is at the heart of my point about individuals.

I will move on and warm to my theme of decentralisation. Something is slightly overlooked in discussing decentralisation. It is often seen as just being, “Oh, let’s get rid of big government.” That point is important because if things are too top-down, they tend to squash the vitality of communities. The benefits from decentralisation and from enabling communities to take more responsibility are not simply social. It is not simply about making people feel that it is worth looking out for their neighbour, or about giving them a sense of belonging and a sense of enthusiasm that they can change things around them in their lives. It is not simply about giving people more of a sense of responsibility and well-being. Decentralisation is also important in the growth agenda because of its economic effects.

If we allow greater decentralisation, allow communities a greater sense of confidence and allow communities to take charge of their direction, they will develop. That has economic benefits. As all Members know, the more confidence, energy and buzz a community has, the greater the economic effects. That is not only true of the private sector. There is evidence from the European Central Bank that the countries with the most efficient public sectors are much less centralised than the UK. The United States, Australia, Japan and Switzerland enjoy an average efficiency lead over the UK of some 20%. To put that in context, if Britain could match those efficiency levels, spending would be cut by £140 billion with no diminution in the standard of public services. That is not un-equidistant with the size of our budget deficit today. We should consider carefully whether decentralisation can be captured in order to produce positive effects on the economy and the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

In listening to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), I had great difficulty in finding any connection between what he was saying and the subject of the debate. He cited three splendid initiatives, but presumably they all took place under the last Labour Government.

[Rory Stewart]

They are three examples from the big society vanguard project in the Eden district of Cumbria, initiated by this Government, and the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to come and see them.

[Paul Flynn]

I am glad to have heard that explanation. I was also relieved to hear from the hon. Gentleman that we are not going to have volunteers doing brain surgery.

We should all beware of Prime Ministers bearing three-word gimmick policies. I have served in this House under six Prime Ministers, and I remember “the cones hotline”, “the third way” and “back to basics”. Now, we have “the big society”. I think that the big society has most in common with the cones hotline. These were all pet subjects of various Prime Ministers who were willing to distort their own priorities to find money to plough into them over and above their general policies. There will be a degree of cynicism, when the cuts are taking place in all directions, if money is available to employ volunteers—

[Jesse Norman]

For some unaccountable reason, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the third way, which was possibly the most bankrupt of all these ideas.

[Paul Flynn]

I mentioned the third way. The hon. Gentleman has only recently joined the House, but he might know that I was not the most enthusiastic supporter of the previous two Prime Ministers. The third way was a candyfloss and vacuous policy, as is the big society, and no one ever knew what the first and second ways were, let alone the third way. I am sure that my Front-Bench team will reinforce the point, but a host of initiatives have already taken place over many years.

[Robert Halfon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, of course.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that the author of the third way idea—none other than Anthony Giddens—recently wrote for The Guardian a paean of praise to Colonel Gaddafi? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that might be one reason why the third way did not succeed?

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful for the accolade of being regarded as the hon. Gentleman’s “Friend”—we sit on the same Committee together—but he provides a fascinating insight with his comment.

Let us think about what has happened to these initiatives. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) described one of them in an Adjournment debate, in which he raised a constituency point, which he is entitled to do. If, however, he is looking for an example on which to build his “enterprise” in Dover, he should look at the Tower colliery. A group of people got together— notwithstanding the fact that everyone, including the previous Government, said that there was no chance of the pit becoming economic at any time—and provided a wonderful example of a co-operative enterprise that was successful, made money and provided employment for a long period. All that happened without Government intervention and without any top-down support from any Government body. Such initiatives have taken place.

I do not know what sort of nightmare world is inhabited by many Conservative Members. The idea that people will not jump into ponds to rescue children or that the last Labour Government, with all their deficiencies, did not want laws to encourage people to help old ladies to cross the road is absurd. This is to go along with the tabloid view of the last Labour Government: despite all his deficiencies, Tony Blair was certainly not a Ceausescu or a Joseph Stalin.

We have all advocated the outcomes of the big society; we have all supported them for many years. We have backed volunteerism, for example, and we had a year of the volunteer. I asked every Minister in the previous Government what they were going to do to volunteer, particularly how many days they were going to give for volunteering. I asked two Ministers who came before the Select Committee the other day the same question of how many days they were going to devote to volunteering. The responses were very weak, although I understand that the responsible Minister in the other place talked about giving three days a week, which he rapidly reduced to two. Anyone supportive of the big society and who is serious about the joys of voluntary work should tell us what they are going to do to lead by example rather than provide mere exhortation.

Volunteerism has always played an important part in, and has contributed to, our national life. The current danger is that the big society might send that process backwards because it is an attempt to nationalise volunteerism. Those who give out of the goodness of their hearts because they want to help their own society are suddenly going to be part of a Government scheme that will promote the aims of, and give credit to, the Conservative party. It might well act as a disincentive to those thinking of volunteering.

The Welsh Assembly Government developed a Communities First programme, which had more or less identical aims to much of what the big society is about—giving small groups some pump-priming money to assist their schemes, for example. As to whether this has been an unqualified success, some schemes were very successful, some less so. This idea is not new, however; it has been tried before, and it has proved to be a limited success. We have had no details from the Government about what will happen to the bank that is currently in an embryonic state. There is talk of it having about £200 million. I asked the Minister whether it was true that the Government’s take from the charitable sector could amount to £5 billion a year or £3 billion a year, or whether it would be £1 billion this year and then £3 billion. The amount of money that is going in each year is nothing compared to the amount that is being taken out. The Minister denied that the amount was £5 billion, but he could not give me a figure. If he does not know what the amount is, he will not be able to tell me what it is not, but I should be glad to be given a figure tonight so that we can make a comparison.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hate to obtrude on the hon. Gentleman’s fascinating speech, and I accept that he has never knowingly supported a Prime Minister for as long as he has been in this place, but is he not being a little uncharitable about the cones hotline? The big society is about a bit more than just volunteering; it is largely about rebalancing the role of the state and the role of communities. Will he not give that some credit?

[Paul Flynn]

I think we all agree that the aim of creating a society in which people are empowered is desirable. One industry has suffered chronically from the dependency culture. It has been given handouts for many years, which has resulted in a lack of innovation and a habit of expecting everyone else to solve its problems. It has looked to the Welsh Assembly, to Europe, and to the British Government. That industry is the farming industry, and I doubt that that point will meet with much enthusiasm from Government Members. It is not people in working-class areas who feel that they are part of a dependency culture. It is those who are supported by huge subsidies which have a debilitating effect on their industries.

I return to what was said by the Select Committee. We should consider the reality. For instance, the Government are destroying a quarter of the Members of Parliament in Wales. I am sure that it will cause you some distress, Mr Deputy Speaker, to know that someone in my position, on the threshold of a promising parliamentary career, may find that his constituency has disappeared. Is that part of localism, of taking power down to the people? The truth is that power is being destroyed at that level.

Let us consider the idea that a Minister who is the son of a former Cabinet Minister, and who represents leafy suburbs somewhere in Surrey or Essex, will suddenly waltz down to my constituency—where employment in the coal mines was destroyed for the senior generation and where employment for the younger generation is now being destroyed by cuts—and tell people that he will rescue them from their misery by allowing them to work for nothing. The idea of working for nothing is very much a millionaire’s view of helping society. If millionaires do not work, they still have their sustenance and their accommodation. Life does not change for them. Do they realise how deeply insulting it is to expect people to work for a long period with no wages at the end of it? It is fine if people do it because they believe that they are helping society, but if they find that they are doing it to help a Government project or advance the career of a Prime Minister, they will turn against the idea.

I believe that we are seeing nothing very new in the big society. Its aims are desirable, and we wish it well in the context of the worthwhile developments that may come of it, but it is wrong to pretend that it represents a revolutionary development in our society. I look forward to seeing—along with many other members of the Public Administration Committee—what advantages there are in it, and I am sure that we will reach a fair and balanced decision; but we may well decide that the big society is very little other than a big cop-out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I shall try to nudge him. What we want is an answer, not an essay.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Has the insight team considered an independent think tank’s judgment that the Government’s health reforms are like trying to resuscitate a corpse, which has not been done successfully since the time of Lazarus? How will the Government’s reforms help the nation when they are imposing chaos on the health service?

[Mr Letwin]

I do not think that the national health service is anything like a corpse at all; it is a living, breathing body that does a fantastic amount of good for our nation, and we are trying to improve it. The behavioural insight team has, as a matter of fact, been involved with the Department of Health—I was hearing about it just this morning—in thinking through ways in which we can nudge improvements in the health service, too, and try to make it more effective without imposing additional regulation on it.