Summer Adjournment

Graham Allen Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

My elation at being called first from the Opposition Benches is matched only by the slight annoyance that I felt yesterday when I spent six hours in here without being called. But I am delighted and really grateful to be called to speak today.

In the first of my three brief points, may I ask whether it is possible, in this day and age, for the Procedure Committee to consider having a list of speakers for a debate on the back of the Speaker’s Chair, so that colleagues can have some way of managing their day sensibly? Although Members will obviously be in the Chamber well before they speak and well after they speak, they will be able to plan their days more effectively.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

That is an absolutely excellent point. In a modern Parliament, there should be no reason why we cannot have more control over who speaks and when they speak. I wish to put it on the record that I am delighted that the Deputy Speakers are not hiding the lists as well as they may have done in the past. At least we can get some information, but having a list on the back of the Speaker’s Chair will be even more helpful.

[Mr Allen]

Indeed, that is a welcome development. Communication channels, even informal ones, should be established. We could take this a little further and ensure that this place attracts Members more seriously, rather than have them undergo this sort of endurance test before they can make a point of importance in a debate.

Going from the micro to the macro, my second point is about English devolution. Colleagues in the House—I look to some of those on the SNP Benches—will no doubt vouch for the fact that I have served my time on the Scotland Bill and I hope I made some helpful contributions. For me, that was really a warm-up for English devolution, which affects an even larger number of people in the Union than the Scotland Bill, important and essential though that is.

The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill is in the other place at the moment. It has been scrutinised carefully on the Floor of the House, which means that everyone has been able to contribute to what is, arguably, the most important Bill that will come before this House over the next five years.

I do not wish to get sidetracked on to English votes for English laws, which is a relatively straightforward and perhaps minor procedural matter that has very little to do with the devolution of power to the localities, cities, regions and councils of England. The proposal is misnamed. It is in fact English MPs’ votes for English laws, which is yet another Westminster bubble issue. Devolution is about how we all exercise power in the localities and about how electors and members of the public can see that they are in control of their politics. That is where we need to get to. I hope very much that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill will come to this place briskly in September, that colleagues from all parts of the House will consider it and work on it, and that it goes as far as we have gone with our Scottish friends on the Scotland Bill.

What is good about devolving power to Scotland is that Scottish people can rightly take control of their own destinies and lives as much as is humanly possible within a Union and a federation of nations. I would welcome that 100%. I have sat through the proceedings on the Scotland Bill to learn all the lessons. One of the lessons for England is to do with financial devolution. We need to ensure that there is income tax assignment so that local government—whether it is based on combined authorities, regions or whatever people in England wish it to be—can go forward and people can take control.

What unites Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish people and their representatives on this issue is the fact that Whitehall has had its day. It is a massive over-centralised beast that tries to control everything. Unless we put it beyond change or entrench it, which is one of the many issues that I raised in the debates on the Scotland Bill, it will inevitably get sucked back to the centre. The gravitational pull of one Government or another to control will be so strong that unless we are clear about entrenching it—and there are lots of way to do that—we will find that the power that we would like to give will inevitably go back to the centre. That is why Labour’s posture going into the 2015 election was not adequate. Suggestions of beefing up the amount of money that the centre gives to the localities and creating super local enterprise partnerships rather than genuinely devolving power to England meant that people felt that we were not differentiated from other parties, and we paid a very dear price for that.

If we are not clear about what we stand for in 2020 and beyond and if we do not have a vision, then those who do—even if it is a vision with which I do not necessarily agree—will seize our territory in England as certainly they have done in Scotland. It is a lesson for all of us. Essentially, to EVEL I wish to add DEVIL—devolved English voices in local government. Let us have more DEVIL about our debates and a little less EVEL, because then we will have all four nations of the Union being able to master their own fate—not in a way that is decided by Whitehall. We do not want Whitehall saying, “You have got to do it this way; otherwise we won’t let you.” No, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need organically to grow how they wish to devolve and exercise power. There is that most beautiful concept described by the ugly word, “subsidiarity”—doing these things at the most appropriate level. Ultimately, there must be a federal answer, which will also lead to federal parties within the United Kingdom. That is my hope and my aim. Indeed, along with other colleagues in my party, I have written to the four leadership challengers to ask their views on that, so that we can learn the lessons and have devolution in England.

My last point is more specific, and relates to the fact that I am a Member of Parliament for the constituency that sends the fewest number of young people to university in the United Kingdom. We all have great records that we wish to boast about; this is one that I bear as a cross and think about every single working day of my life. The young people in my constituency deserve as much of a chance as anyone else, but, because of the demography, that is rather difficult to achieve. We can do stuff about that.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

On that point, the whole House knows the wonderful work that my hon. Friend has done on early intervention. Does he agree that the biggest thing that we can do to help more young people from his constituency, and other disadvantaged young people, is to concentrate on the early years and early intervention?

[Mr Allen]

I am trying to be brief, because I wish to retain my place in the pecking order of being called early, so I am keen not to go into a topic that is very dear to my heart. Obviously, the idea of helping every baby, child and young person grow up with social and emotional capability is the key to everything—to relationship building, getting a decent job, and avoiding drink, drug abuse and all the rest that comes with that. My hon. Friend is very generous in her comments about a matter that is dear to my heart.

When young people get to the point of thinking of going to university, particularly when that is not in the culture and tradition of their area, they need a bit of a hand. I have to say openly in this Chamber that having gone to work after school, I would not have gone to college and then to university had there not been a full grant to get me there, and many other people can say that. I am one of those who benefited from that system. Over recent years there has been a fantastic effort by people, especially headteachers, in my area, my city and my locality, Nottingham North. Although Nottingham North is way off the pace—an outlier from all the other areas—we have closed the gap massively, but still the rate of young people going to university, instead of being one in three, which is the average throughout the United Kingdom, is one in eight in my constituency.

I finish with one final point related to that, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your generosity. Just last week, those who have worked night and day—the headteachers, the teachers, the parents and those young people who are in a minority in trying to get to university—received a devastating blow in the Budget, which said that low income families who get a grant to help those young people take that first step on the higher and further education ladder will no longer get it. As my area is quite a low income area, 93% of families in my constituency, according to the last figure, can get a full or partial grant.

That was ended by the Chancellor last week. I am sure it looked okay when he was going through the list of things that might save a little bit of money here and a little bit there, but it is a devastating blow to the motivation, the drive and the aspiration that the Government talk about so much. I will raise this issue again in full if I secure an Adjournment debate. I will not take the time of the House to go through it all now, but I hope very much that, amid all the billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at his disposal, the Chancellor will allow people in my constituency who, perhaps as in my case, will not be able to go to university without that small help.

It is no good replacing the grant with a loan when dealing with families who regard the current sum of £45,000 as a mountain to repay. If the figure goes up to £55,000 or £60,000, it will not be in their compass even to consider helping their young daughter or their young son go to university. I ask the Chancellor to think again, and I ask colleagues across the House to support any move that we can bring forward to restore the grant to low income families, so that people who are capable of going to university are not prevented from doing so by a lack of funding.