Elected Mayors and Local Government

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Marcus Jones

Thursday 9th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

What the hon. Gentleman refers to is not necessarily the situation that we are discussing. We are considering authorities coming together and taking additional powers and funding from the Government; we are not considering adding to the precept that people will have to pay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, I think, that we should go for the jugular. I am afraid I must disappoint him. We are not into top-down solutions; we are very much into bottom-up solutions and local areas coming together to put their packages of ideas to the Government.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) was looking for a game-changing deal for the west midlands. If that is what he is looking for as a local MP, I urge him to speak to his local leaders and encourage them to put forward a game-changing package to the Government. As I said, local areas must bring solutions to the Government, not the other way around. We would welcome an ambitious package from the west midlands, because we want it to move forward.

I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the west midlands; I think that it is a place on the up. Things are going in the right direction. Unemployment is decreasing, and £5.2 billion in funding for infrastructure is going into the region at the moment. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull backed up that view and was willing to speak up for the west midlands and shout about our achievements in the area. He also mentioned, with some enthusiasm, that he would support such devolution arrangements if they were ambitious and related to skills, infrastructure and the like. That seems to be the type of proposal coming from the west midlands, which I hope will please him.

I was slightly disappointed by the tone of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey); it did not seem to correlate with the tone of local authority leaders in her area, which is extremely positive. She asked about the structure of health services and how they would work. That will come from her local area in the proposals that it is making to the Government. Obviously, there will be a negotiation process with officials and Ministers; the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Health must both be satisfied that the arrangements are strong on accountability. On whether mayors are elected and how much credibility they will have, the hon. Lady will know that although they will be appointed on an interim basis, they will have to stand for election at the end of that period.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson]

It is still not clear to what extent an elected mayor is an absolute precondition. The Minister mentioned the key phrase “additional funding”. That is what it all seems to be about. In a period of tight local government expenditure—everybody in the House accepts that—the Government are promising additional funding if local authorities come together as single authorities and if we have a metro mayor. Can the Minister confirm that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills are open to considering alternative interim accounting authorities rather than metro mayors, while still making the additional responsibilities and funding available on an interim basis as we bring the authorities together and work out a sensible, workable, long-term solution—on the basis of a metro mayor if necessary?

[Mr Jones]

As I said, it is clear that if the west midlands wants to put together a package as extensive as Manchester’s, for example, it will certainly need a metro mayor. I think local leaders realise that if the west midlands is to be as ambitious as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill wants, a metro mayor is required. However, it is up to them to decide exactly what they want in that sense.

It was interesting that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) mentioned that he wants things to be bottom-up. They certainly will be, so I am sure that he will be glad that his party is not in government, because it seems to want to impose a situation on local areas by making them come together.

I was heartened by the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who seems to be on the same page as the enthusiastic cross-party leaders in Manchester. I welcome his comments, and I pay tribute to the leaders who are coming together to take forward an ambitious devolution deal.

I say to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), that this is certainly not a one-size-fits-all situation. It is for each individual area to come forward with proposals that it thinks suits that area, which the Government can then consider. We need to ensure that in considering any proposals, we consider carefully how governance is managed.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

West Midlands Economy

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve—for the first time, I think—under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley? I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for inviting me to take part in it. The debate is timely, given the dreadful news that came in the autumn statement, the downgrading of the Government’s forecast, and the implications that has for continuing poor economic performance throughout the country and in the west midlands in particular. Sadly, we have yet to see a pick-up there.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robinson]

No, I will not. If I had the remotest hope of the intervention being intelligent or relevant to what we are talking about, which is the west midlands and Coventry, in the way that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) was, I would. However, we know that it would be a recital of what the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) believes are the great Government accomplishments. That is not what we are here to do. Nor are we here to criticise the Government point blank—there are one or two things that I am pleased to say that they have done well on. If he will forgive me—I will not expect to be invited to intervene in any of his speeches; I can give him that reassurance—I will not, on this occasion, give way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South gave us a tour d’horizon. In 15 minutes, he drew us through every aspect of Coventry’s activities, particularly the interface with the Government and the impact of Government cuts on the city. I want to pick up on one point, initially: the cuts to early intervention, to which he referred. Over two years, Coventry’s receipt from Government for early intervention has been halved from £22 million to £11 million. That is a massive cut by any standard. Those figures are from the council; I am sure that they must be pretty accurate.

I am not trying to say that that is the direct consequence of my next point, which is a sad fact: in Ofsted’s latest rankings, Coventry’s primary education has been ranked the worst in the country for giving opportunity to its youngsters. It is always argued by people who are much more knowledgeable about education than I am that early intervention in the primary stage is key to the child’s whole chances in life. In my opinion, education is the vital provider of life chances to all children. If, at that early stage, we are offering the worst possible opportunities in the country for youngsters, that is clearly a matter of great concern to Coventry and its Members of Parliament.

I have made some criticisms in that regard. Using the rather grand BBC euphemism, I suggested that the director of education should follow the director-general’s example and step aside. It was not well accepted, but I still say it. If someone asks me what that means, I will say, “Resign.” If someone has been in a position of public trust for so many years, as the director has been, but local children are judged to have the worst life chances at a key stage in their education, they have to ask themselves, “What am I here for?” I make no excuses for saying that, but nor do I say that we are in this situation just because the Government have cut the funding in half. I am not sure how far the correlation can be pushed; I do not think it can be pushed all that far. I think that what we are up against—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South agrees—is an acceptance of poor standards, a belief that we cannot do better.

For that reason, the first thing that I want to say today, pursuing the initiative that I have already taken through the local press and media in the city, is that much stronger, much more powerful pressure is needed on the education establishment in Coventry. Fortunately, we now have as a councillor—this was well timed, in that respect—a former head of a secondary school in my constituency who, after 21 years, can proudly say that his school was top in Coventry every single year, and was within the top 10% for performance in the whole country. He is now a Labour councillor; I am pleased to say that he is the council member for education. Again, I make no excuses for saying this: I pushed for him to be encouraged to take on the responsibility of replacing the director, and for much-improved status, quality and priority to be given to the education department in the council. I think that I am within my time limit, if there is one. Perhaps it will be indicated to me if I am not.