Full Report of Leicester South Question Time

Sir Peter Soulsby (Labour) was the only candidate in attendance. Ross Grant (Conservative) informed us the morning of the meeting that he had to attend an ante-natal class instead. Parmjit Gill (Liberal Democrat) and Dave Dixey (Green) had indicated they were going to attend, but did not.

Sir Peter gave an introductory speech. He believed that the true choice in the election was still between the Labour and Conservative parties. Trade Union members should remember the “savage” cuts the Conservative Party represents. He urged those in attendance to see through the rhetoric, and recognise that they are “itching” to take £6 billion out of the economy as soon as they are elected. There remains a deep difference in philosophies between the two parties.

Referring to Parmjit Gill, Sir Peter said that when he was last in Parliament (For ten months between the death of Jim Marshall and Peter Soulsby’s election) he was rarely seen, either in Leicester or in Westminster.

Sir Peter reiterated that nationally, he believed the choice had to be for the Labour Party. He pointed to Labour achievements over the last thirteen years; the minimum wage, the climate change act, pensions credit, investment in schools and the NHS, and their effect on employment and inflation. He also believed that the Labour Party had made the right choices over the recent economic downturn. He believes that the cuts proposed by the Conservative Party will “torpedo” the fragile recovery.

Sir Peter went on to say that he was ashamed of the war on Iraq, which he referred to as a “criminal blunder”. Although he wasn’t in Parliament when the war began, he has since voted strongly for the inquiry into the war, as well as troop withdrawal. He also broke Labour ranks to vote against 90 day detention.

Questions were then taken from the floor. The order of questions and replies has been altered slightly in places, in order to make these notes easier to read.

What extent do you believe the public sector should be privatised? Can you point to an example of privatisation actually improving anything? Should things currently privatised be bought back into public ownership? If your views differ from the Labour Party line on this and other subjects, what influence do you have?

Sir Peter replied by saying that he could not think of a single example of privatisation improving the public service it took over. He went to say that he does not believe it’s necessary for everything to be done “in house”, but core services should always be public. He made the point that pay and conditions of staff always suffer when privatised, and did not believe there was an argument in favour of it.

In his opinion, privatised jobs in the NHS should be renationalised with no further privatisation allowed. The “crazy” current situation on the railways should also be reversed. He also stated that he was sure there were many examples within PCS branches that should also be reversed.

Sir Peter made the point that New Labour were “the smallest party ever elected”, but his differing views are tolerated and debated within the party more than they have been in a long time. He believes that the New Labour project was “misguided”, but remains proud of the party’s achievements while in power.

Mapely, who own the HMRC estate, have been overpaid more than £520 million and don’t pay UK tax. How can the government claim they cannot act over Mapely because they have a contract, whilst tearing up the contracts of civil servants by cutting the Compensation Scheme? Where do you personally stand on the changes to the CSCS?

Sir Peter said that he sympathised with PCS’ position over the Compensation Scheme, and agreed it was incredible that the government felt they could change civil service contracts but not Maplely’s. He included this as a “dodgy deal” along with many PFI initiatives and “rip off” consultants.

He went on to say that cuts would be necessary following the election, but those made by the Conservative Party would be far worse. Labour will try all they can to minimise cuts and protect jobs. On the CSCS, Sir Peter said it was “crazy” that the government has not negotiated again with the union, especially considering how strongly they called for negotiation in the recent British Airways dispute. He could clearly see why the union had gone on strike and promised to press for more negotiations.

The talk of public sector cuts always ignores that, in HMRC, we currently have and estimated £120 billion of uncollected tax. Rather than staff cuts, shouldn’t we be properly funded to pursue this money? The idea of cuts not reaching “frontline” staff is often heard. Can you really draw a distinction like this amongst public service staff?

Sir Peter replied that he believed the distinction of “frontline” staff was “ridiculous”. he pointed out the false economy in staff cuts; it’s easy to reduce the bottom line, but you have to take into account the effect it will have. Conservatives complain that hospitals have become less efficient under Labour, but in reality we are spending more money per patient in order to deliver a better service. Public services require investment.

The Labour party still attempts to project a socialist face in some senses, yet legislation like the anti-union laws persist. Do you see the party moving to the left in the future?

Sir Peter answered that he was “hopeful” that the party would begin to turn back towards the left. He acknowledged it wouldn’t be a sudden change, but said he was committed to reclaiming the party.

The media are quick to paint public servants as having the advantage over the private sector; in reality, we are not as well paid. Shouldn’t the focus be on bring up the levels of those who are low paid, rather than the reverse? With all the talk of public sector pay restraint, why has there been no mention of pay restraint for the bailed-out bankers, or our MPs?

Sir Peter replied that he sympathised with the plight of public sector workers and acknowledged we had suffered. He went on to say that the public sector, in general, are not well paid when compared to the private sector. The attraction of working for the civil service was traditionally job satisfaction, a good pension, and the CSCS. These must be defended, and pay should be improved.

Sir Peter commented that civil service management seemed to run things according to the latest fashion in business, with fundamental ideas of working together ignored.

With the highest unemployment for eighteen years, young people in particular will suffer. What does your party plan to do about youth unemployment and do you support them?

Sir Peter agreed that young people are disproportionately effect by high levels of unemployment. He said that Labour was committed to giving young people a decent start, and had invested in Job Centre Plus, created many new jobs, and guaranteed work or training to everyone between 18 and 24. The Tories opposed all these measures, voted against them, and would be quick to cut them if they were in power. However, these measures still don’t go far enough, and we have only invested 10% of what is needed to aid youth employment.

Labour, despite thirteen years in power, have not reversed the Conservatives mistakes on education. Is there a material difference in the two party’s education policies?

Sir Peter made it clear that he does not support the academy system, but what the Conservatives are proposing will devastate the education system to a whole new level. Money will go from education budgets to unregulated, privately owned schools.

The meeting closed 19.00.

After the meeting Sir Peter signed up to the PCS’s 5 pledges.