Devolution and the Union

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Now that the Scots have had their say, now that there is a London Mayor and a London Assembly, now that the Welsh have their Assembly, and now that Manchester is to get a metro mayor with new powers, people in the west midlands are asking, “What about the rest of us?” I want to argue that in this new era of devolution, the west midlands and other English regions should be granted a fairer share of public spending, as well as new powers and greater freedoms.

The truth is, first, that people in England clearly do not think that the current arrangements are fair. Secondly, the fact that our economy is so unbalanced—with business, finance, the professions and, as a result, growth and wealth concentrated so heavily in London and the south-east—shows that the arrangements do not work for most of Britain. Thirdly, there is clearly a crisis of trust in politics and government.

I think that changing one part of the system, as has happened so far, causes all sorts of problems elsewhere—tugging at one thread of our constitution risks unravelling the whole thing—which is why we need a proper constitutional convention to examine all these matters. The response to greater powers for Scotland is devolution to the English regions, with more decentralisation, more services being delivered and run by local communities, local councils and people themselves, and a fairer share of public spending.

In the west midlands, we have world-beating businesses, such as Jaguar Land Rover and JCB, and world-beating universities, but we have too many people out of work and we have real problems attracting investment for the new industries and jobs that we need to replace the ones we have lost. Output in the west midlands has lagged behind the national average since 1976. If output in the black country alone matched the national average, our economy would be £8 billion bigger. That shows that the current situation is not working for people in the west midlands.

I want the west midlands and other English regions to have wide-ranging new powers, and responsibility for public spending on strategic regional issues, such as regional transport, regional planning and regional economic development and skills. Public spending on services such as housing, regeneration and infrastructure—they are currently delivered in the region, but often by officials accountable to Whitehall—should be decided in the west midlands. I want a Minister for the west midlands with the same powers as the London Mayor, so that decisions that affect the people of the region are taken by people in the region.

I would decentralise further still. I want more services devolved to regional cities, towns and boroughs, and then to communities and individuals. Next, I want Departments moved out of London completely. Why not base the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in Manchester, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in East Anglia and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in the west midlands?

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

I am very sympathetic to the idea of having a Minister for the west midlands, but why should such a Minister be appointed by a Westminster Prime Minister, while the Mayor of London, with the same powers, is elected by the people of London?

[Ian Austin]

We can look at all those arrangements, but at the very least we should start by having someone in the region who is responsible for all such powers. I must say—I would say this—that when I was the Minister for the region, I thought the arrangements worked quite well, but let me make a bit of progress.

Moving Departments wholesale to the regions would not just save the taxpayer a fortune, but would mean that civil servants were a lot closer to the communities that their decisions affect, that the economic impact of public spending and civil service jobs was spread more evenly across the country, and that pressure on public services and the overheated London property market was reduced.

We need a review of the way in which public spending is distributed, and a new system that guarantees fairness across the country. Official figures show that public spending is £8,498 per head in the west midlands, compared with £10,100 in Scotland, £10,800 in Northern Ireland, almost £10,000 in Wales and £9,000 in London. The national average is £8,788, so public spending is higher in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber than in the west midlands.

I recently sent a detailed survey on all these issues to thousands of my constituents. The responses showed that there is huge support for dealing with decisions about England in a different way. Eight out of 10 people said that we need a new system. Two thirds of them supported the idea of having directly elected mayors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) will be pleased to hear, who are responsible for greater powers in regions such as the west midlands, while just four out of 10 were in favour of having new English Ministers.

The clear point is that the vast majority of my constituents feel that if it is right for Scotland, right for Wales and right for London, then the 5 million people in the west midlands and its cities, towns and boroughs should also have a greater say over public spending and public services in their region. They are asking why people in Westminster who have never lived or worked in the west midlands should make decisions about our priorities.

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I hope that at some stage we can have a debate on how to encourage further volunteering. My hon. Friend speaks up very well, as always, for his constituents and for that project helping with autism in his constituency. There is, as he says and as I said earlier, a very clear rise in the number of people volunteering and trying to make a difference in so many ways. I am pleased that he is encouraging that too.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House and make an urgent statement on the extent to which police stations should be open to the public? Despite the Prime Minister promising that there would be no cuts to front-line services, spending cuts are forcing West Midlands police to close to the public police stations right across the west midlands, including in my constituency. Dudley would be the biggest town in the country with no open police station. My constituents are furious about that, because they want to be able to speak to police officers face to face.

[Mr Hague]

People want to be able to speak to police officers, and the latest prediction is that the proportion of police officers working in operational front-line roles will increase from 89% at the beginning of this Parliament to 92% by early next year. Victim satisfaction with their experience with the police has also gone up, from 82% to 85%. The number of neighbourhood police officers is up by nearly 6,000 under the current Government. These are all important improvements. Of course, when the Home Secretary is here answering questions, the hon. Gentleman will be able to ask about the particular issue he has raised.

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I absolutely will. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with the Canadian Foreign Minister and, of course, our high commission in Ottawa has been closely engaged in and well informed about what has happened. Several hon. Members have raised this issue and our strong solidarity with the people of Canada, so I will certainly send such a message to the Leader of the House of Commons in Ottawa.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

People are furious about today’s news that the notorious police killer, Harry Roberts, is due to be released, and the police say that it is a betrayal. The Home Secretary promised that life would mean life for anybody convicted of killing a police officer. What will the Government do to ensure that that evil criminal is kept behind bars where he belongs?

[Mr Hague]

There will be much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. As I understand it, the decision has been made by the Parole Board, but of course people will be concerned by it and agree with what he has said. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and the concern in the House about that decision.

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Youth unemployment is down by 43,000 this quarter and 60,000 since last year, and I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend says about additional youth employment in Croydon, which is important. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the Opposition could always take up the issue in the Opposition day debate next Wednesday.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I know the Leader of the House will not want to upset millionaire moonlighters and parliamentary part-timers on the Government Benches, but I think being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job. Given the brilliant speech made earlier this week by the Leader of the Opposition, may we have an urgent debate on how we can ensure that Members of Parliament spend their time in Parliament serving their constituents, not outside lining their pockets?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might not have had a chance to read IPSA’s report this morning. Although it says that additional employment and outside earnings are not strictly in IPSA’s remit, it does offer views on the subject. One of the crucial things that IPSA says is that relatively few Members of this House have any significant earnings from outside and about only 10% have second jobs. He might remember that the Committee on Standards in Public Life looked at this issue and reached the conclusion that there was no reason to place any bar on outside employment for Members of this House.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why I attempted to obtain some clarity from the Leader of the House when he made his bombshell announcement at the beginning of this debate. We would appreciate some certainty from Government Front Benchers on how we can deal with the issue.

The Leader of the House and I have something important in common: we were both Members prior to the introduction of the routine programming of business, and we both know that it is possible to scrutinise effectively a Bill that does not have a programme motion attached, because we used to do so all the time. The Government, following their climbdown today, will have to come forward with new proposals, and the Opposition look forward to seeing what they are, but let me confirm for the record that, after adequate scrutiny, we want the Bill to go to the other place.

Labour has a proud record of reforming the Lords. We have been responsible for all the major changes to the other place over the past 100 years: the removal of hereditary peers, the introduction of an elected Speaker and the creation of the Supreme Court. We wanted to go further and tried in the previous Parliament to pass legislation in favour of an elected Chamber, spending extra time trying to forge a cross-party consensus.

This Government seem to spend so much time on inter-coalition diplomacy, however, that they keep forgetting to work with Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and on issues of constitutional change, that is an insult and a mistake. We will support the Bill’s Second Reading, but the Government’s proposals give us cause for concern in a number of areas that we will need to explore further, so I thought that it would be helpful to the House if I set some of them out.

I was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum on House of Lords reform. That is why the Prime Minister’s and Deputy Prime Minister’s argument—that a referendum is not needed because reform featured in all three party election manifestos—is so disingenuous. Our manifesto offered people a choice. It is the Government who are seeking to deny the electorate a say once the new arrangements have been forged and decided here.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

If all three manifestos proposed House of Lords reform and the electorate had no choice, does that not strengthen the case for a referendum, rather than diminish it?

[Ms Eagle]

All Labour Members stood on a manifesto that promised a referendum, and my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I shall be working hard in Dudley next week, but given that we are back in recession, and given the other huge challenges facing the country, is it not completely wrong that the House is not sitting then? That may suit our chillaxing—whatever that means—Prime Minister, and it may suit the part-timers and moonlighters on the Government Benches who prefer to line their pockets as barristers and business men instead of doing the full-time job that their constituents sent them here to do, but I think that it reflects really badly on the standing of the House that we shall not be here for another week. And while we are on the subject, is it not about time—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying “Is it not about time that we sat next week?” I have got the gist, and I think that the Leader of the House has as well.

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I am sorry to say that a student present at a lecture given yesterday by a holocaust survivor has complained about the conduct during that lecture of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). Is it not about time that the Government sorted this whole affair out by publishing the outcome of the inquiry and organising a debate on the investigation that the Prime Minister announced into the hon. Gentleman’s involvement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase will be silent—I will brook no contradiction of that point. I assume that the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) notified the hon. Member for Cannock Chase—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I require no interference from the hon. Gentleman, who will behave himself and that is the end of it. I asked the hon. Member for Dudley North for an indication of whether he contacted the hon. Gentleman in question.

[Ian Austin]

My office contacted his.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it is preferable that there should be direct contact—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Dudley North will finish his question, there will be an answer and we will proceed.

[Ian Austin]

I attempted to phone personally, but the answerphone was on and so I asked my office to call. Is it not about time that this whole affair was sorted out, so that we can get to the bottom of the hon. Gentleman’s involvement in a party at which people chanted “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler” and toasted the Third Reich?

[Sir George Young]

I have to say that that is not a matter for the Government—it is a matter for the party—and it would not be appropriate for me to respond to that question at this Dispatch Box.

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend raises an issue that is important not only to Londoners but to others who would benefit from the proposal. It would be an important infrastructure investment and I agree that it should be subjected to appropriate debate in the House. If he will leave it with me, I will see what would be the most appropriate forum for that debate. If certain issues were raised, there would have to be a debate under the Localism Act 2011. He should leave it to me to find an appropriate avenue for that debate.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are keen to see justice, self-determination, peace and prosperity for people in Kashmir. May we have a debate on that issue, because it would enable the relevant Minister to update the House on the Government’s work to encourage talks between Pakistan and India and to encourage economic development and better education and health care systems? Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be a good idea for a Foreign Office Minister to come to constituencies such as mine, where there are constituents who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise on how Britain could help in this area?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for extending a generous invitation to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which I will of course pass on. There was an opportunity on Tuesday, when we had Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter. I will pass on his concerns to the Foreign Secretary and ask my right hon. Friend to write to him.

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

We would welcome such a debate. This year, pensioners will see the biggest cash rise they have ever seen, and under our triple lock the state pension will always be increased, year on year, in line with average earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. This year’s increase of more than £5 a week contrasts, as my hon. Friend has just reminded us, with the 75p that the Labour Government gave pensioners in 1999.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The west midlands was hit hardest during the downturn and is taking longest to recover, so it beggars belief that £185 million of European regional development fund money—designed to boost the economy, attract investment and create employment—that has been earmarked for the west midlands is lying idle, along with £1.1 billion nationally. Will the Leader of the House get the Minister responsible for this shambles to come to the House of Commons to explain to us why this money is not being spent in the regions where it is needed?

Business of the House

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The House has found time to debate matters relating to Europe: we recently had a debate on the referendum, and the Government provided a whole-day debate on the Council of Europe, so it is not the case that Europe has been entirely absent from our agenda. I have announced that there will be a debate on the accession of Croatia to the European Union. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has put his request to the Backbench Business Committee. He will know from the business I have announced today that the Government are providing time for general debates—there is one today on armed forces personnel and one on security on Monday week—so I do not rule out at some point a debate along the lines he has suggested.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Is it not obvious to all of us that the reason the House of Commons is not going to be sitting next Wednesday and Thursday is so that the Prime Minister will not have to stand at the Dispatch Box on the day the new unemployment figures come out? If we are not here next week, I will be working hard in Dudley. I am sure the Prime Minister has already booked another one of his fancy foreign holidays. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Conservative Members might not be interested in unemployment, which is why they all voted to skive off next week, but I would much rather be here working out how we can deal with the record levels of unemployment that this Government have inflicted on Britain.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman is obsessed by some conspiracy theory. The Prime Minister spent two or three hours before the Liaison Committee this week; he comes before the House regularly on Wednesdays; and he has made more statements than his predecessor. I think the person who will be most relieved that there is no sitting next Wednesday is the Leader of the Opposition. We take unemployment seriously. We had a debate yesterday, when the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning set out what we are doing to address the high level of unemployment that we inherited from the Labour Government.