Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Serious Fraud Office.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Serious Fraud Office.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate has been asked to carry out an inspection of the Serious Fraud Office. It is intended that the inspection should assist the new director, and it has been timed accordingly. In my superintendent’s role, I have regular meetings with the director and other senior officials.

[Phil Wilson]

The Attorney-General has said that he does not plan to publish the results of the current review into the operation of the Serious Fraud Office. Will he give his reasons for that and reconsider his current plan to keep us and the public in the dark on this issue?

[The Attorney-General]

It is not accurate to say that I have indicated that the report will not be published. The position is that such reports are not normally published, but due to the unusual and understandable level of interest, I think it important that as much as possible should be put into the public domain. I will make it my business to ensure that that happens. I should explain that the reason it may not be possible to publish all of it is that there have to be safeguards to prevent prejudice to ongoing investigations, but subject to that, I would wish to see the results made available.

Regional Pay

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Perhaps those 10,500 public sector workers can give their verdict at the ballot box. Yes, we do need a private sector recovery, but we will not achieve that by cutting the pay of the people who deliver our public services.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Can we put to bed the idea that public sector jobs crowd out private sector jobs? Between 2003 and 2008 the number of public sector jobs increased by 4.1% and the number of private sector jobs went up by 9.2%. That belies the case that the Government always make that public sector jobs crowd out private sector jobs.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Gentleman has failed to listen either to what the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor said, to what his own Government introduced or to what we have said, which is that this is not about regional pay, and nor has it ever been.

[Phil Wilson]

I think the Minister has been a bit selective in quoting Treasury Ministers in the previous Government. Treasury guidance notes put out by Ministers in 2003 also stated:

“At the extreme, local pay in theory could mean devolved pay…to local bodies. In practice, extremely devolved arrangements are not desirable. There are risks of workers being treated differently for no good reason. There could be dangers of leapfrogging and parts of the public sector competing against each other for the best staff.”

In other words, the previous Labour Government were never going to do what this Government intend to do now.

[Mr Maude]

Given that the hon. Gentleman has not given me the chance to talk about our plans and approach, perhaps he will be patient and contain himself until that moment.

As I was about to say, nothing has yet been decided. Any proposals for each work force must be based on strong evidence. We want to hear from everyone with a contribution to make, and we are committed to making any future decision on the basis of evidence, which is the right way to approach the matter. That is why we have invited the various pay review bodies to consider the matter on that basis.

However, as I said earlier, we are not the only Government to think that there is a case for looking at this issue. The case was recognised by the last Government, and they gave it, I presume, serious thought. Indeed, in 2003, the then Chancellor announced a stronger local dimension to pay review body remits, noting that there was significant scope to increase the flexibility and responsiveness of public sector pay. He told the House:

“With this national framework for fairness in place, it makes sense to recognise that a more considered approach to local and regional conditions in pay offers the best modern route to full employment”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 412.]

Does anyone on the Opposition Benches disagree with that? It seems a considered and sensible approach to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burley]

I want the private sector in the west midlands to flourish. One of the most astonishing facts I have learned since becoming an MP is that between 1997 and 2007 the number of jobs in the private sector in the entire west midlands region fell. During the boom years of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, private sector employment went down, and I do not want to crowd out private sector growth in the west midlands. That is why this regional pay debate is so important.

I read an amazing article on the ConservativeHome website, with which I totally disagreed. It stated:

“Many Tory MPs with small majorities need to keep as many public sector workers onside as possible in order to keep their seats at the next election…For this reason, expect Lib Dems and low-majority Tory MPs to have grave concerns about any regional pay proposals—and expect the plans to be significantly changed or dropped altogether.”

Well, I am a low-majority Tory MP, and I believe this House is at its best when it is at its boldest, and I would be greatly saddened if everything we did was driven by narrow regard for our own majorities and saving our own skin and seats.

The fact that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), read out the number of state workers in each of our constituencies says all we need to know about Labour’s approach: stuff their mouths with gold and buy votes. That is the approach of the Labour party, and the hon. Lady did precisely that tonight.

We must do what is right for the country, and what is right for the country is for the Government to do everything they can to enable the private sector to flourish, so that it can pay the taxes that fund the vital public services that all our constituents rely on, not just fund the pay of the public sector workers who happen to live in our constituencies.

[Phil Wilson]

What advice would the hon. Gentleman give to his party colleague, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has a substantial majority and who has said that there is no economic case for regional pay?

[Mr Burley]

I am sure we will hear from my hon. Friend in due course, and I will let him make his own arguments, but in the very short time I have left I want to focus on the principle behind this debate, which is whether there are different costs of living in different parts of the country and, if so, whether that should be reflected in state pay. The simple answer to both those questions is yes.

Someone commented in response to the ConservativeHome article to which I have referred:

“Perhaps an experiment over a 2 year period to prove Regional Salaries are such a great idea? Begin with MPs and their staff. No doubt they will jump at the chance to lead by example?”

I propose to do exactly that. I have to hand the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority bandings for accommodation expenditure—the amount that can be claimed by MPs to live in their constituency. Guess what? Yes, they vary by constituency. As MP for Cannock Chase I could claim £10,950 a year to pay my rent and bills, if I were to claim expenses for living locally, which I do not. The Member for Cambridge can claim £15,150—nearly 50% more than I can claim. The Members for North Somerset and North West Hampshire can claim £13,750, whereas the Member of North Swindon can claim just £12,350. So there we have it: there is regional variation in what MPs can claim to live, based on the cost of living in their area. If it is good enough for MPs, why should it not be reflected in the pay packets of other public sector workers?

Let us examine the arrangements for employing our staff. If I employ a senior caseworker in the London area, I have to pay him £23,000 to £31,000. If I employ him in my constituency, I have to pay him only £19,000 to £28,000. A senior parliamentary assistant can be paid up to £42,000 in London, whereas they can start on just £30,000 in my constituency. So the answer to the blogger is that MPs and their staff are already subject to regional variations in pay and allowances, and are living proof of the established principle of regional pay born out of different regional costs of living.

Let us put it the other way round: if the Opposition truly believe in national pay bargaining and public sector salaries being set nationally, will they intervene on me now to say that my staff in London should have their salaries reduced to match those of my staff in Cannock? Or should I be able to claim as much to live in a house in Cannock as to live a house in Cambridge? Of course not. Today’s debate is about whether public sector pay should be relative to private sector wages, and the simple truth is that it must.

The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that regional pay will

“prove costly to the public purse and exacerbate regional inequalities”.

On the contrary, crowding out the private sector in the regions of our country is what will exacerbate regional inequalities, and setting a higher than locally appropriate wage bill means that public sector money is not allocated as effectively as it could be within local areas. I noted that she did not reply to the quote in my intervention, so I will repeat it to her now. Unison has said in its location-based pay differentiation paper of September 2011 that

“location-based pay systems offer increased flexibility and a systematic approach to addressing recruitment and retention issues at a local level.”

Government Members agree with Unison in that analysis, and I shall be interested to hear whether any Labour Members, many of whom will doubtless be taking donations from Unison to their constituency Labour parties, also do.

The Government are right to look at more local, market-facing pay and to end the anomaly of national pay bargaining—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden]

We are pushed for time, and if I give way, I will prevent someone else from getting in, so I will kindly say no.

We have had 9,000 public sector job cuts in Wales, and there are 39,000 more to come, according to the TUC. The stock argument for the Government’s proposal is that it would allow the private sector to grow by enabling it to compete with the public sector for staff. This is clearly nonsense in constituencies such as mine, where any move on regional pay would hurt the economy, including the private sector.

[Phil Wilson]

rose—

[Jessica Morden]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, because he will not get a chance to make a speech, whereas the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) has already spoken.

[Phil Wilson]

I hope that the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) understands that Opposition Members know about globalisation and its effect on the private sector. Hitachi, a big global company, is coming to the north-east of England, but it is not considering local pay; it is considering sectoral pay rates and skills, and looking across the train-building industry. It is not looking locally.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am sorry he has not had a chance to make his contribution. He is exactly right.

The TUC has estimated that a 1% reduction in public sector pay could result in £97 million being taken out of the Welsh economy. In constituencies such as mine, the public and private sectors are inextricably linked, and money taken out of the public sector hurts the private sector. Members should not just take our word for it; over the past few weeks, the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales has come out in opposition to regional pay. We saw this firsthand in Newport, when the Government were forced to concede over closing Newport passport office with the possible loss of 300 jobs. The Government conceded then that the closure would have a huge impact on our local economy, and many small local businesses were right at the heart of the campaign to keep the passport office open, because they knew full well that their livelihoods depended on it.

There are 23,000 public sector workers in Newport. It has a lot of public sector jobs precisely because of the previous Government’s policy, following the Lyons review, of moving jobs from the south-east to rebalance the economy. As a result, our major employers, as well as the NHS and the local authority, are the Office for National Statistics, the Prison Service and the Intellectual Property Office, to name but a few. This has been a boost to our city and is a real success story. As an ONS worker said to me recently, however, does paying him less mean that the private sector in Newport will suddenly be clamouring for statisticians? We both thought not.

Of course, regional pay is plain unfair. I have a border constituency. If I have two teachers in my constituency, one working in Caldicot, the other in Bristol, with the same skills and experience but paid differently, that is clearly unfair. Let us remember that these people are not hugely well paid—they are often on wages of about £20,000—and would find it difficult to move jobs if this measure was implemented.

Finally, comparing private and public sector pay is not comparing like with like. There are more people with higher qualifications in the public sector than in the private sector, and women, who make up 64% of the public sector work force in Wales and 87% of part-time workers, have very much benefited from the previous Government’s efforts on equal pay. I ask the Government please not to target these women and roll back progress on them. Regional pay, local market-facing pay, or whatever the Government want to call it, will be a race to the bottom on lower pay, and create higher unemployment and more business failures. It is a real pity that we do not have a Secretary of State for Wales willing to stand up and say that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that generous offer.

We have heard from Government Members that, on the one hand, we introduced regional pay, yet on the other hand that we have a one-size-fits-all system, making it either one or the other. As far as I am concerned, this is not about public sector versus private sector; it is about what is fair for people in whatever sector they happen to work in. Let us think about the situation in County Durham. Unemployment in Sedgefield has risen by nearly 25% in the last year, and the number of people out of work for more than six months has risen by 100%. Moreover, 120,000 households in County Durham will be hit by benefit changes which will take £151 million from the local economy. The average wage is £418 a week, which is well below the national average. Regional pay will not benefit local businesses, because there will no longer be any drive for people to buy anything that is manufactured or created in the area. As for the idea that there are no national pay schemes in the private sector, Tesco has one and so has Nissan. They will not be looking only at local pay rates; they will be looking at the sector in other parts of the country as well, and also at skills.

I believe that this proposal is ideologically driven, and that it makes no economic sense whatsoever. I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). Early-day motion 55, which I sponsored, was signed by Members on both sides of the House, and it is clear that there is a great deal of cross-party opposition to the measure. I strongly urge the Government to withdraw it and to think about what is fair to not just the public sector but the private sector, because this measure will damage both sectors if it goes ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions he has had on the types of Government funding models available to the voluntary and community sector.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

13. What recent discussions he has had on the types of Government funding models available to the voluntary and community sector.

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

We want to help the voluntary and community sector to become more resilient by developing three pillars of funding: traditional giving, income from the state including more opportunities to deliver public service and a new pillar, the emerging market of social investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Phil Wilson. No? Can I simply say—

[Phil Wilson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is here. We are grateful. Good.

[Phil Wilson]

Question 13, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No. The hon. Gentleman asks his supplementary question now, although it would have been helpful if there had been advance notification of the grouping to my office, which there was not. Very regrettable. The Minister must do better in the future, I am afraid.

[Phil Wilson]

A survey commissioned by Charity Bank has revealed that more than 20% of charities have suffered from the cancellation of contracts with businesses and Government bodies in the past year. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s refusal to recognise the needs and benefits of charities and voluntary organisations in policy formulation is preventing such organisations from getting vital funding to which they are entitled?

[Mr Hurd]

First, Mr Speaker, I apologise to you formally for that oversight by my office.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Any commissioner in the public sector needs to engage with stakeholders in communities before commissioning services—not least in the voluntary and community sector, whose stakeholders tend to have, on the whole, a much better understanding of the needs of the people we are trying to help.

Trade Union Officials (Public Funding)

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Burley]

I will give way in a minute.

In addition, union learning representatives are entitled to paid time off for duties including analysing learning or training needs, providing information about learning and training matters, arranging learning or training or promoting the values of learning and training. I ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who is chuntering, is not all that the job of the human resources department?

In 2004—[Interruption.] Just be quiet. In 2004, the Labour Government made a commitment to boost the number of union learning representatives in the work force to 20,000, a threefold increase. The upshot is that a significant number of union representatives—nearly 2,500 full-time equivalents—are fully paid for by public funds. That means that the trade unions themselves do not bear their own representation costs.

[Phil Wilson]

Speaking as somebody who in the early 1980s was a member of the Civil and Public Services Association and received facility time to work as a trade union representative, may I say that where I worked was 90%-plus union organised, and we did not have any strikes? We had a great working relationship in the building, because we could sit down and talk through problems with the management, who enjoyed it. If we started where the hon. Gentleman wants, we would end up where part of my union ended up. In 1984, the CPSA was banned from GCHQ—

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should Opposition Members declare their interest if they have received union funding in their capacity as Members of this House, or for political campaigns, before making interventions? I would be grateful if you could clarify the rules on that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

One of the virtues of individual voter registration—the reason, I assume, why the previous Government were keen to introduce it as well—is precisely that there will be an individual responsibility on voters in the future, including students, to make sure that they are properly registered. As long as we make sure that there is still, as I said there will be, face-to-face household canvassing, there is no reason why this experiment and this introduction of individual voter registration should not lead to an increase in the registration of students.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

How did the Government make the calculation that the new police commissioners should earn £120,000 a year?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Police commissioners’ pay is still to be finalised, but the key thing is that the elections, which will be held next autumn, will give people a real sense of accountability over policing in their local areas.

Open Public Services White Paper

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

My hon. Friend makes a good and interesting point, and there may well be cases in which that is the appropriate method. I know that he is a serious student of these matters. Perhaps when he has had time to read the White Paper, he would like to discuss where that idea might apply. We are certainly more than willing to entertain it.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The Minister said in his statement that the White Paper “sets out the most radical programme of transparency for Government and the public sector anywhere in the world.” Will that apply to private sector companies and other organisations that might end up running public services?

[Mr Letwin]

It will apply to every public service provider, regardless of sector. We are interested not in who the provider is, but in whether the service provided is a good one. In every instance we will be totally transparent about the quality of services, and will enable people to make choices on that basis. If the private sector cannot match the voluntary or public sector, people will choose to take the offerings of one of those sectors, and that is as it should be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the European budget. The idea of a 5% increase at a time when member states are having to make reductions in difficult public spending programmes at home is completely unacceptable, and we will make sure it does not happen.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Q5. On the proposal to build the largest wind farm in England in my constituency with 45 wind turbines 100 metres or more high, just less than a mile away from two big conurbations and on beautiful landscape in the area, can the Prime Minister tell us what influence my constituents will have under the Localism Bill on the planning decision concerning this massive intrusion on the landscape? Will he ask the relevant planning Minister to meet me and a delegation of constituents to discuss it further?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to arrange that meeting. I think it important for local people to have a greater say in planning decisions, and that is what we are enabling them to do. However, I also believe that when wind farms go ahead, local people should see a greater benefit in terms of the finance that goes into the area, and our plans will achieve that as well.

Community Cohesion

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I called this debate because I am deeply concerned about the communities in which I live and in which I grew up. At a time of public sector cuts, declining rates of growth are exacerbating the efforts of the north-east to help rebalance the economy. In County Durham, Sedgefield could suffer the same fate this decade that it did in the 1980s. There was hope, because the previous Government drew up a plan to halve the deficit, but that has now been replaced by a strategy to eradicate the deficit. As a consequence, unemployment is rising, economic confidence is damaged and growth is starting to stall.

When we left power, unemployment was falling and home repossessions and business bankruptcies were only half what they were in the 1980s and 1990s. The previous Government were acting in the spirit of the big society. In the 1980s, unemployment in Sedgefield stood at 5,500, 40% of whom were out of work for 12 months or more. Then the figures were massaged, so people were taken from the unemployment register and put on incapacity benefit and whole communities were closed down. If you met someone in the street, you never asked them if they were well; you asked them whether they had a job. Lessons are being learned. As the Government cut deep into public services with a fury, we do not want their mantra, “There is no such thing as society”, thrown back in our face. Some argue that the Government’s notion of the big society is a cover for the cuts, but it is, I believe, worse than that. I accept that the Government believe in a big society—after all they cannot be against fresh air. However, their deep cuts into the grants awarded to the third sector will inevitably prevent them from building such a society. Those who want to build a big society will not be able to do so, because they are denied the proper tools.

Charities have always had a role in society. People have always volunteered, but the need for charity and for volunteers becomes more acute when society fails its people. You only need to look at the coal mining traditions of County Durham in the late-19th and 20th centuries to prove the point. As A. J. P. Taylor said:

“Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state beyond the post office and policemen.”

Perhaps some would like to return to such an age, but let us look at what it meant to the mining communities of that time.

Colliery owners provided housing from which colliers could be evicted at any time. Thousands of miners died at their jobs—sometimes hundreds of them died in a single incident, because of the lack of mine safety. Education was provided by charities, the Church and sometimes by colliery owners. At the opening of his school in East Hedleyhope colliery towards the end of the 19th century, Sir Bernhard Samuelson said:

“If elementary schools were being built for the working population, colleges and secondary schools were also being erected for those who employed them.”

Life expectancy for miners was poor. In the 20th century, 27% of miners were disabled before they retired. Health care, which was provided at the county hospital in Durham city, was funded by miners’ subscriptions. It was a time of great volunteering, of banding together and of mutual help. It was driven not just by altruism, but by enlightened self-interest.

In the 1890s, some 52% of the adult population—the highest figure of any county—belonged to a co-operative and were known as co-operators. Some 130,000 miners in Durham joined together to form the Durham Aged Mineworkers’ Homes Association, which built homes for miners, so that they could live out their retirement in dignity. They were able to live in a “haven of rest” rather than go to the workhouse.

The miners also formed a trade union and, as we all know, the trade union movement itself helped to form the Labour party. Keir Hardie, one of our founding fathers, believed in “a communal consciousness”, which is what we today would call a big society. It is this belief in community that has always driven my politics. I am proud of what the miners did for themselves and I am proud of their heritage, but you could argue that they were practising the big society.

It is obvious that the miners did not live in a big society and that they did what they had to do. They risked their lives every day of the week, and there was no one there to help. As they left the pit, they had to run charities and raise funds to look after themselves. They put into practice the belief that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone. To me that is what a society that is fair, big and good should be doing.

For the big society to work, there must be more than just volunteering and charity, because there must be a democratically elected Government who act on behalf of the people and the community. People will be able to live secure in the knowledge that society will work with them to provide the environment for health, work and education.

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

With respect, the hon. Gentleman’s seat is very different from the one that I represent. None the less, I have some big problems in my own area, too. He makes the case for the history of Sedgefield and brings it up to the current day. Did he not agree with the Prime Minister when he said that there was such a thing as society, but it was not necessarily the same as the state? That is not to say that the state has no role, but that it should not have an exclusive role.

[Phil Wilson]

I do not think for one moment that anyone is saying that there is no place for charity or for volunteering, but both must work in hand with the state if we are to have a fair and just society. We cannot have one without the other. I use the miners as an example, because what they were practising is what we would see today as the big society. Self-interest made them behave in such a way, because there was no one there to help them and the state would not take part. As A. J. P. Taylor said, the state was nowhere. The only time you came across it was when you went to the post office or when you met a policeman in the street. A strong society is what we need, and it is something that the Labour party has helped to build over the years.

The big society cannot only be about you and what you do for yourself, because it is also about what you can do for others, which is something with which we can all agree. The greatest acts of volunteering and charity will come where there is the greatest need, such as in the coalfields of County Durham in the 19th and 20th centuries, and I do not want to return to those times. The Government thought not only that they did not have a role but that they should not have a role either. A lot of volunteering and charitable work goes on today, which the Government have acknowledged. Volunteering levels have remained stable since 2001 with 40% of people volunteering once a year and 27% of people volunteering once a month.

Citizen Survey, which has been quoted by the Government, also states that 83% of people perceive their community as cohesive and agree that their local area is a place in which people from different backgrounds got on well together, which is an increase on 2003.

When people are content, there is little likelihood of their feeling the need to volunteer. It is a testament to the efforts of the previous Government that they put so much into community cohesion.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I welcome you, Mrs Main, to the Chair. I apologise that I cannot stay for the full debate, because I have to attend another meeting, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that in order to have proper community cohesion, there needs to an adequate amount of funding in working-class estates to provide the projects that are so badly needed? Although we understand that there is a difficulty with funding per se given the economics of the country, to withdraw it or reduce it dramatically knocks confidence. People are left feeling that they might as well have never received it in the first place, because if it is cut in mid-stream, they are left in limbo.

[Phil Wilson]

There is much truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said. He comes from an area which has pockets of deprivation and working-class communities that rely on this funding to ensure that they can go ahead with charitable work.

The previous Government more than doubled the amount of money in the third sector, which increased from some £5.5 billion to more than £12 billion. There are now about 62,000 social enterprises in the UK, contributing at least £24 billion to the economy. It has been estimated that social enterprises employ about 800,000 people. At the height of the recession, we used the hardship fund to give £17 million to local charities, for example those working in health and social care, housing support, and education and training.

What we and the Government must be careful of—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has corrected himself, but he has referred to me on several occasions, by saying “you”. I have let it go, but if he were to refrain from using the word “you”, I would be grateful.

[Phil Wilson]

I will not do it again. Thank you for pointing that out, Mrs Main.

I am worried that the Government are raising expectations about what the third sector should deliver, but they are about to embark on cuts that will damage the capacity of civil society to deliver. That brings me to the nub of my argument. How can the Government fulfil their big society agenda when they are cutting funding and dismantling the infrastructure within which a big society can flourish? Because the cuts force people into volunteering, as they have no other choice, what we have left is not a big society but a coercive society. That is the kind of society that the miners of Durham found themselves in because the community at large had abrogated its responsibilities, which is what this Government are doing.

I am not the only one saying that about the funding cuts; the charities are too. From what I understand, a recent press release from the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations estimated that the voluntary sector

“will lose more than £1 billion in the 2011-12 financial year and more than £3 billion a year by 2014-15 as councils terminate grants or buy fewer services.”

As the Government try to push their big society programme, the ACEVO warns that:

“if the scale of the spending cuts to councils were passed on to charities the voluntary sector would be ‘decimated’. Charities are already facing pressure from VAT rises and the loss of Gift Aid relief.”

If the charities themselves are saying that, is it not time that the Government listened to what they have to say?

Before we on this side of the Chamber are lectured by the Government on the economy and their belief that they need to cut as deeply as they are cutting because of the deficit, I just want to say that I do not think that we can be lectured on those things any more, especially as the Chancellor gave a three-minute interview on the BBC yesterday in which he blamed the weather for the economy’s problems 24 times. If the Government want to build a big society, they need to re-examine how they are going to fund charities and the third sector.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. Surely, however, he will acknowledge that his own party, when it was in power, had identified that it would make £44 billion—I think that was the figure—of savings or cuts. Is he saying to hon. Members today that none of those cuts would have affected the voluntary sector in any way?

[Phil Wilson]

We would have done two things. First, we would have made sure that, as far as possible, we did not damage front-line services. Secondly, we would not have raised expectations, as I believe this Government are doing by saying that they will create a big society while at the same time undermining that big society by slashing and burning all the grants and facilities that provide for the third sector. We would not have done that.

We also need the Government to consider what they can do other than providing for charities and the third sector, because the big society involves more than doing just that. For example, one of the issues in my constituency is that some private landlords are neglecting the properties that they own. Those properties were owned by the National Coal Board many years ago. They were then sold off, and people bought them to get on to the property ladder, before selling them on. Private landlords came in and bought them. Now we have a problem, and I believe that, if we are not careful, whole centres of communities will be sucked out and the community spirit will be sucked out too by the behaviour of some of those landlords.

Labour introduced selective licensing schemes, which I am pleased to say the Government have allowed to continue. However, we were also going to introduce a national register for private landlords, which would have meant that you had to register in communities such as mine before you could go on to rent out properties. The Government are not introducing that register. I know that private landlords are not necessarily the Minister’s responsibility, but he has responsibility for the big society. He needs to discuss this issue of private landlords with the Department for Communities and Local Government, because it is ripping the soul out of some of our local communities and needs to be sorted out.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I totally endorse the point that my hon. Friend is making about the lack of registration of landlords and what I think is a lack of consideration by this Government of the need for communities to know who landlords are, so that if problems with rented properties emerge, they can be tackled at local level.

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend and I worked together a lot on this issue with Durham county council. Many of those private landlords are absentee landlords, and a lot of them live abroad, so what do they care about what is happening in the villages of Sedgefield or elsewhere in the country? It is an issue that needs to be tackled nationally and, if need be, internationally, too. I say that because if you are not careful what you will have in these areas is not a big society but a non-society, because the community spirit will be taken out of them.

If we really want a big society to flourish, and if we are “all in this together”, we must look internationally to secure a future for our communities that is protected from unstable international financial systems. We need a big society that is not underpinned by abolishing the future jobs fund or the education maintenance allowance, and by the Prime Minister basically reneging on his pledge to send back to the drawing board any Minister who came up with a proposal that affected the front line.

Finally, I want to leave you with this example of the kind of society—

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I came along because I was intrigued by the title of the debate, “Community Cohesion”. Obviously I have listened to what you have said. I believe that our Localism Bill very much embeds all the charities and all the volunteers within what we are trying to do, whether it is HealthWatch, the Work programme, community groups or community centres. The big society is everything that you are talking about, just seen from a different viewpoint, and I have people coming to me locally and saying, “Thank goodness we’ve been liberated to go forth and develop what we want, rather than having a top-down state approach.” So I hope that you welcome this way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

You might have—sorry, the hon. Lady might have—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Both hon. Members have referred to me, by saying “you”. This is not my debate, and I respectfully remind them to try not to say “you”.

[Phil Wilson]

Okay. Thank you for that, Mrs Main.

The hon. Lady might have people coming up to her and saying, “Thank you for us being liberated.” I have people coming up to me and saying that they are scared stiff that their charity will not survive because of the cuts, or that they are scared stiff that they will not be able to work any more for the young people in their village or to look after the elderly, and so on, because of the cuts that they know are coming down the line. So this issue actually cuts both ways, but I am more concerned about those people who are frightened to death about what is going to hit them.

I want to end by relating a true story, which for me encapsulates the big society that is already here. A friend of mine had a couple over from America visiting him a few months ago. The Americans were out with my friend for a meal one evening and one of them was taken ill in the street. So my friend phoned 999 on his mobile and a few minutes later a paramedic turned up, administered to the lady who was ill, made her better, got back on his motorbike and drove away. The Americans were amazed by that. They were amazed that they did not have to pay on the spot and that instead this man just turned up on his motorbike, made sure that the person was made well and drove away, and they did not even know his name. My friend said to me, “If you want an example of a big society that is a big society, when that works.” That is down to the NHS, which I believe is a true testimony to the big society. The NHS makes the story of the good samaritan an everyday occurrence, but I believe that this Government want to dismantle it. The Government might believe in a big society but they will never get it to work, because they do not actually know what it means.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I read with some interest on the Order Paper that there was going to be a debate on “Community Cohesion”, because I wondered what that phrase meant. Usually, the topic that is going to be debated is clear from the Order Paper, and the policy issues that will be considered and the Department that is likely to respond to the debate are usually implied by that. The phrase “community cohesion” does not lend itself to any of that, so I thought, at first, that it might be shorthand for “the big society” and, as I have listened to the comments made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) in the debate today, that is, I think, what has so far been intended.

On this side of the Chamber, we have certainly made it clear that the size, scope and role of the Government has reached a point at which it is inhibiting rather than advancing the progressive aims of reducing poverty, fighting inequality and increasing well-being. In short, we do not believe that Government with a capital G has all the answers, and the coalition has made it clear that its alternative to big government is the big society, a society in which we all recognise the responsibilities that we owe to ourselves, our families, the communities in which we find ourselves and the nation as a whole. It is a society with much higher levels of personal, professional, civic and corporate responsibility, where people come together to solve problems and to improve life for themselves and their communities, and where the driving dynamic or progress is social responsibility, not state control. I am sure, therefore, that the concept of the big society runs, and will run, consistently through the coalition Government’s programme, which is reflected by the fact that the Minister responding to this debate is responsible for the policy on the big society.

The Government’s plans to reform public services, mend society and rebuild trust in politics are part of the big society agenda. Such plans involve redistributing power from the state to society—from the centre to local communities—giving people the opportunity to take more control of their lives. That is why the Localism Bill is so important, as are similar initiatives. It was heartening to see that so many right hon. and hon. Members wished to speak last week on Second Reading. Some 76 Members put their names forward, which I suspect was a record and which reflects the considerable interest in the localism agenda. It has occurred to me that if the hon. Gentleman wanted to have a crack at the big society, he would have tabled something on that topic at that point, and we would have found on the Order Paper a debate entitled, “The Big Society”.

The phrase “Community Cohesion” should therefore mean something, and as I reflected on that I decided to look it up on Wikipedia, which was not a particularly reassuring experience. The Wikipedia reference to community cohesion starts by proclaiming that

“this article does not cite any references or sources”,

so if there is some great sociological debate going on here, it clearly has not hit Wikipedia. The website then gives a short definition:

“Community cohesion refers to the aspect of togetherness and bonding exhibited by members of a community, the ‘glue’ that holds a community together. This might include features such as a sense of common belonging or cultural similarity.”

I cannot work out why it is necessary for hon. Members to spend an hour and a half considering our sense of common belonging, because it is axiomatic that we have a sense of common belonging.

[Phil Wilson]

The phrase is included in some of the Conservative party documentation that I have read on the big society, and community surveys in recent years also talk about community cohesion. The phrase has not just come out of the blue, and the hon. Gentleman’s own party has used it to explain what the big society is all about. My point is not that anyone is against the big society, but that because of the cuts that you are going to bring about, you will ensure that there is no big society.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not cutting anything. I also ask for interventions to be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I will not take an intervention at this point because I want to move on from that issue.

I shall address the hon. Gentleman’s main concerns about what the big society is, what the Government are trying to achieve and what we mean by it. If he wants to look at the record tomorrow, he will see that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) articulated the matter as well as anyone, when he talked about trying to promote a greater culture of social responsibility. The idea is not fresh air because, as the hon. Member for City of Durham and various hon. Members pointed out, a lot of wonderful activity is going on in constituencies across the country, where people are working together and giving up time to try to find better ways of doing things, supporting initiatives and getting things going.

The Government want to throw a bigger spotlight on that activity to try to make it easier for people to do more such things and be more ambitious. The matter should not be divisive. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) put the argument beautifully. We should all be encouraging such things. I shall put the matter simply: it is about trying to encourage more people to get involved. There is no point pretending that all is rosy in the garden, as I think both Labour Members were saying when they cited the citizenship survey. We know that the country faces enormous challenges and that there are very stubborn, expensive social problems. It seems absolutely ridiculous to continue pretending that the state, people here or in Whitehall or even local authority chief executives somehow have all the solutions.

From my constituency, I know that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of the value that residents—constituents—can bring to the idea in terms of tapping into the talent, expertise, experience, ideas, networks and skills that are out there in communities. The big society is about trying to get more people involved and engaged in traditional volunteering or in that hugely important valuable work that we all know about from our constituencies. It is about providing the opportunity to give time to help improve someone else’s life. The value of that is two-way. Of course, we want to encourage more of that, but it is by no means the whole story. The big society is also about trying to get more people involved in shaping the future of communities, in the decisions that really matter and in trying to save things if things need to be saved, such as post offices, pubs, shops or whatever. It is about trying to combat the voice that I hear from constituents who say, “It’s not worth getting involved because it’s not as if we can change anything.” That is what we want to change.

The big society goes beyond that into the reform of public services and trying to open those up and get the people who pay for them and use them more involved in them. Again, in my constituency, I get a sense that people are becoming increasingly resentful of just taking what they are given and feeling that matters are being dealt with in a very detached way. Yes, this is about encouraging more volunteering, but it is also about getting people more involved at a local level in shaping the public services that they use. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) used the powerful expression “giving the power back,” which I liked. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was entirely right: that is what people want; they would like to get more involved. The citizenship survey showed that, and we are trying to make it easier.

There is a specific, proactive, big role for Government. There is no point in pretending that suddenly Government will disappear. The Government will play a hugely important part in all our lives, whatever the scale of the spending cuts. However, when it comes to making it easier for people to get involved and making the case for that more compelling, the Government are absolutely committed and on track, and will be delivering through three strands of action.

The first strand is about transferring real power to communities. That is now moving from words to realities. The specific measure has been mentioned—the Localism Bill. I am very pleased about and encouraged by the welcome that it has received, not least from the hon. Member for City of Durham. It is raising expectations. I think that that is right. People are excited about it, which suggests that its time has come. It is a huge piece of legislation, with lots of new rights and opportunities. However, there is more to the issue than just legislation.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington challenged me to be more specific about what we are doing to get out of the way. He was entirely right. If he listens to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, he will get the sense that that is a Secretary of State who wants to do exactly that. He wants to change the whole nature of his Department so that it works for citizens.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that our approach is to send this message to communities: “Tell us what is getting in the way and we will work to see what we can do to remove it.” There is a specific barrier-busting service, of which he may be aware. That flows from a very powerful piece of legislation called the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which I took through Parliament as a private Member’s Bill. Already, communities are responding to this invitation: “Tell us what’s getting in the way and we will see whether we can remove it, but give us the specifics.” The new website was launched a few weeks ago, and I think that more than 50 proposals have come in already. That is on top of the 300 different proposals that we had for the first wave under the Sustainable Communities Act. These things are community driven, so there is a real determination on our part to get out of the way.

The second strand is about public service reform: opening up the public services to new providers, including, specifically, the voluntary and community sector; bringing those services closer to the people who use them; and liberating people who are in the front line delivering the services. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury talked passionately about schools. He will know from his experience with local heads about their desire to be liberated. Specifically in relation to public service reform, a White Paper, which I think will be published next month, will set out our stall on that and explain exactly how we intend to go about it.

The third strand is about social action—trying to inspire people and make it easier for them to give time and money to get things done locally to help people. Again, the words are now being backed up by actions. The Cabinet Office has published a Green Paper on giving, which will lead to a White Paper. We seek fresh ideas on what Government can do with partners—the charitable sector and business—to make it easier for people to give time and money.

We have announced the pilots of the next phase of the national citizen service. Again, that is a powerful, positive programme, which is designed to connect young people with their ability to make a contribution to their communities. I think that one of the biggest pilots, involving 1,000 young people, is taking place on the edge of the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I urge him to engage with it, because I have seen that that programme can be very powerful in lifting the aspirations and confidence of young people.

The hon. Member for City of Durham rightly challenged me on this important point: the big society must be open to all. We all know that some communities are in a stronger position than others to take advantage of it. I represent a relatively affluent, suburban constituency on the edge of London, a long way from Sedgefield. My communities are well networked, strong and ambitious and, I think, will respond quickly to that agenda, but other communities will need some help.

The Government are determined to be proactive in encouraging, supporting and helping those communities to help themselves. That is one of the driving forces behind our community organiser and community first programmes, which we will be announcing more details of soon. The aim will be to establish, in those communities, people who can bring people together, organise communities and start building networks—people who have the confidence to start getting people together to get things done. With that will be a neighbourhood grant programme. Again, that will be targeted on the most disadvantaged areas, where the social capital is lowest. It will put money into the hands of neighbourhood groups to help them to develop and deliver on their own plans. The hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned the big society bank. That is wholly designed to make it easier for social entrepreneurs—people who want to take a bit of a risk to get things happening and who want to do things differently in those areas—to access capital.

The Government are doing things, but things are also beginning to happen in communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was very modest about his pioneering work on developing job clubs in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham is getting a big society initiative going in his constituency. In my constituency, I am convening people in exactly the same way—in one ward, people are concerned about the future and feel that they need to come together and think about a neighbourhood plan for the area. I am facilitating that.

Last week I was in Halifax, where groups of people from the public sector—different stakeholders—were gathered round a table, talking about partnership in a way that they never had before, because they felt that that was possible and they were being encouraged to do it. One could sense that they were not going to go back to the bad old ways of sitting in their silos and just pursuing their individual targets and budgets. Something is happening and changing out there, and it needs to, because we have to find better ways of doing things.

I shall spend the time left to me on dealing with the very important issue of cuts to the voluntary and community sector, which is an emotive issue for many hon. Members. I have written to every Member of Parliament, inviting them to bring in representatives of their voluntary and community sector to talk to me about that, and many have taken up the invitation.

Of course, the voluntary and community sector is hugely important to this project, because of its ability to support and mobilise people, but it is not—we should be frank about this—the whole story. Business has a hugely important part to play, as do citizens and residents groups and as do Government. Charities are not a proxy for community, but they are a hugely important partner in the process.

There is a very difficult issue, which we should not underestimate, in relation to managing the transition. However, we need to be honest about this. Unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune from the cuts. The nation is spending £120 million a day in interest and borrowing £1 for every £4 that we spend. That is not sustainable. We have to reduce public spending on a scale that means that, unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune. That would have been a reality confronted by the Labour Government, exactly as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington emphasised, so there are cuts and there will continue to be cuts.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

No, I certainly do not. The hon. Gentleman’s point has no validity whatever. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom—of the whole United Kingdom—and every constituency in this United Kingdom should be of equal size and should have an equal number of voters. Every Member who is elected to this Parliament should come here with an equal weight of electorate behind them.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Now that we must give votes to prisoners, will we have to have equal-sized prisons?

[Mrs Laing]

Mr Deputy Speaker might say that that point is not relevant to this Bill. It is not for me to argue the matter. I do not want prisoners to have the vote, but that is not the point at issue. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) gave perfectly good responses to that this afternoon.

Labour Members have produced all the little arguments they can possibly think of to try to preserve the current unfair imbalance in constituency structures that gives the Labour party an unfair electoral advantage. Every statistic shows that, and it cannot be argued against because it is a matter of simple arithmetic. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members say, “gerrymandering”, but the gerrymandering was done by the last two Boundary Commissions under the then Labour Government. Of that there is no doubt whatever.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The only way in which we can go ahead with constitutional reform is by having political consensus across the whole House, but this Bill does not have that. The Bill is half-baked, and the part of it that is baked, so to speak, does not give nourishment to the people or help with their democratic rights; it is in place to give sustenance to the coalition. I say that because of what some of the clauses actually mean as far as a referendum is concerned. I do not agree with having it on the same day as elections in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. No elections are being held on that date next year in County Durham, where my constituency lies, so we will therefore get differential turnouts. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that our voters can work out and deal with two or three different ballots on the same day. If they can do that, surely they can go to the polling station twice in one year, once for the local and national elections next May and once later in the year to cast their vote on a referendum such as this. We should not be patronising the electorate.

The other thing that we need to take into consideration when discussing the AV referendum is that we are starting to talk about equalising the size of the electorates in constituencies and so on. If we believe in equalising the votes and the constituencies, making the size of the electorates as equal as possible throughout the country, it follows that it is only right that any MP or other candidate who stands should have to achieve more than 50% of the votes cast. Someone who agrees with equal votes should agree with taking things that far. How can we accept the introduction of safeguards for the referendum itself, whereby there must be a threshold before the vote is recognised, while accepting that, under first past the post, a candidate can get 33% or 34% of the vote and become an MP? We cannot have safeguards in the referendum without having them in votes for MPs.

Nobody can be against the equalisation of constituencies, but why at the same time should we have to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600? Why cannot we equalise the constituencies and keep the number of MPs at 650—for the many good reasons that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) put forward? The only reason for the proposed reduction to 600 is partisan gain on the part of coalition Members, especially those in the Conservative party. The proposal would not be on the table if 55% of those smallest constituencies had Tory Members, but, because 55%-plus have Labour Members, it seems to be all right to look at it and reduce the size of the House. The measure will not reduce the size of the Executive, however, and by reducing the number of MPs it will not answer the questions about holding the Executive to account.

People have drawn on spurious arguments about the size of this elected House compared with that of others throughout the world. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his speech on 5 July, drew attention to America and its House of Representatives, which comprises 435 members and has done since 1911, but there is actually a big process under way in America to increase the size of that House, because in many states it is putting a strain on democracy. Since 1911, the size of the electorate in each district has increased threefold, from about 190,000 to almost 700,000. America is obviously a bigger country with a bigger electorate, but that is more or less the size of a European seat.

Reducing the number of our MPs will save £12 million, but in America, where there are only 435 members of the House of Representatives, each member has 22 staff and expenses of more than $1 million a year. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority would have a field day if that were the case here, and cutting the number of MPs does not mean to say that we will save money.

People have mentioned the Chartists, but I always smile when I hear that they were in favour of equal-sized constituencies. Yes they said that, but they also said that they wanted annual Parliaments, and I do not think that we are going to go along with that. At that time, in the 1840s, even after the 1832 Reform Act, there were 70-plus rotten boroughs where fewer than 60 electors in each seat elected a Member of Parliament. We have come a long way since those days, so drawing comparisons between the Chartists and what we are doing today is spurious. We in this House need to establish consensus about what we want to do. We do not have that, which is why this Bill is a bad one.