Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate and on the eloquent way in which she introduced the subject. She went through the eye-watering costs, and she powerfully made the point that the costs are there week in, week out, until the defects are removed.

I state for the record my co-chairing of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and I am a patron of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which brings its expertise to the APPG and has helped to secure many of our experts, who between them have put together what I consider to be credible and fair proposals to try to deal with many of the issues that have been raised today. As things stand, what the Government are proposing is not credible or fair, and it will not deal with the plethora of building safety issues that leaseholders have been lumbered with.

When the Secretary of State made his announcement in the main Chamber, we were told that the Government’s plans would give certainty to leaseholders, but anyone who heard the Minister’s evidence before the Select Committee on Monday will have been left with the impression that certainty is one of the things that is clearly missing at the moment. We still do not know who will be the legally responsible body for the remediation, and it looks like there is still a huge risk that leaseholders will find themselves saddled with a debt that they have not consented to and should not be responsible for.

The reality is that we have moved from statements that Ministers have made in the past about the strong expectation on freeholders to put matters right, to the shameful position that we are now in, which is frankly a bit of muddle. However, it is looking more and more likely that freeholders will have their assets invested in and brought up to scratch at no cost and at no risk to themselves. I cannot put any other interpretation on Lord Greenhalgh’s statement on Monday to the Select Committee. He said:

“We are not asking any of the building owners to make any contribution to the remediation costs.”

I cannot take that to mean anything other than innocent leaseholders will end up picking up the bill. If that is where we end up, it surely means that the thousands of pounds that leaseholders are paying out to help keep themselves safe will be theirs alone to meet.

Despite two updates to the waking watch guidance and recommendations that interim alarms are installed, we have sites that have needed both a waking watch and interim alarms for years, costing the leaseholders a huge amount of money, which it seems they will never get back. After 44 months, there has been no impact assessment of the costs and benefits of such interim measures. Despite the Government producing data that they say would allow leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of the costs, there is no evidence that leaseholders have been able to do so in the tribunal.

It is also worth pointing out that, in addition to the extra costs, leaseholders have found that their insurance premiums—even in buildings with no history of fire safety issues—have skyrocketed by an average of 400%, which is financially devastating. The money has to be paid by leaseholders every week, and they currently have no prospect of recovering it. These are people who, through no fault of their own, have been left in an impossible position. They deserve our support, and they deserve a solution. At the moment, they are having to pay three times: once for the property, once for the defects that we are talking about at the moment, and also for interim measures in the meantime. When the Minister responds, I want him to tell us where else people pay three times to get the same thing.

Covid-19: Workplace Protection

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The last year has seen extraordinary changes in the way we live our lives, with enormous hardship, enormous heartache and enormous sacrifice for many. As has been demonstrated in this place, the way that many people work has changed. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House staff and Mr Speaker for everything they have done to ensure that Members can still do their jobs remotely and safely.

But not everyone has had that choice. For many, their jobs have not only continued as before, but the dangers and pressures associated with them have increased tenfold. Those working in health and social care are the most obvious example of that, with over 800 people sadly losing their lives so far after contracting covid, but many others have also had to face new pressures and dangers as a result of the pandemic. The Government have been too slow to recognise those challenges, so I want to use tonight’s debate to highlight those issues.

The matters that I intend to raise are a combination of issues drawn to my attention by individual constituents and by trade unions, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not all the issues raised with me are new deficiencies in workplace protection. In fact, they all follow a familiar pattern that has been given an extra dimension by covid. What they add up to is a difficult environment for workers where legitimate concerns are not addressed or, worse, are met with detrimental treatment.

I will start with self-isolation. This time last year, the Opposition identified a real issue with any strategy to deal with the pandemic that involved requiring those who tested positive to self-isolate. For many, the financial consequences of not going into work are significant. Many people do not get company sick pay, and statutory sick pay is not enough for people to live on, but perhaps more relevant to the debate is the fact that many people are working in jobs where they do not even qualify for SSP. It was not until six months into the pandemic that the Government finally recognised that by introducing the self-isolation payment. However, seven out of eight people do not qualify for it. That remains a huge hole in our defences.

I would like to focus on some of the issues that people have experienced with their employers when they have had to self-isolate. They do not have any protection from their employer for detrimental treatment. That detriment could be refusal to pay sick pay if they are entitled to it, or it could even be dismissal. I have heard from constituents of cases where a period of self-isolation was used by an employer to trigger a sickness absence review or was used as part of a process that was already under way. I am sure we can all understand the genuine anxieties that people might have if they have to tell their employer that they need to self-isolate—even more so if it is for a second or third time—so why do they have no protection for doing the right thing?

The Government could, either through guidance or regulations, state clearly that a period of self-isolation should be classed as “other leave” that cannot be called unauthorised leave, sickness absence or annual leave and cannot be used as part of any disciplinary or capability process. What of those suffering with long covid? Will the Government add that to the list of conditions classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, or will they expect people to prove that they are protected by the Act every time they want to raise an issue?

In terms of those with long-term medical conditions, we know that people with diabetes are at increased risk. Many with diabetes have been able to shield, but what workplace protections will be in place to support people who are clinically extremely vulnerable when shielding ends on 31 March? Are the Government confident that workplace risk will have significantly reduced after that date? Diabetes UK’s research shows that 69% of people with diabetes working outside the home felt unsafe in their workplace. Covid-19 is not going to go away, and neither are those concerns.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

A half-hour debate is probably not enough for the issues that could be raised. I know that the hon. Member has been contacted on numerous occasions by people who feel that their health has not been properly protected since the outbreak of covid-19. Does he agree that the information provided by public health agencies was slow in surfacing and that lessons need to be learnt even at this stage about the guidance given to small and medium-sized businesses on workplace protection, which is very important?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he makes an important point. In the early stages of the pandemic, it was difficult for everyone to know exactly what the right thing to do was, but there is no excuse for that now. We have a lot more detail on how covid operates, and we know that it will be with us for some considerable time.

I turn to fire and rehire. This is not a new development—it has been around for as long as people have had jobs—but that does not make it acceptable. In fact, it shows that our employment protections are as antiquated as they are inadequate. GMB and Unite in particular have been involved in a number of high-profile examples of fire and rehire, and there is no doubt that the pandemic has seen the number of examples of this increase dramatically. The current crisis has shone a light on the imbalance of power in the employment relationship and how many people feel totally exposed to the whims of their employer. Their powerlessness does not just manifest itself in people losing their jobs. The imbalance is endemic across many workplaces. Look at everyone on zero-hours contracts, in the gig economy or in agency work—they are literally at their company’s beck and call.

Insecurity is baked into the workplace. It is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness. When ruthless employers use the cover of the pandemic to push home their advantage, it is time for the Government to step in. That people have job security in this country is an illusion for many. Even for those who are in what we might consider stable employment, any pretence of job security has been cruelly exposed by fire and rehire, which, I am sorry to say, has become almost as widespread as the virus in the last 12 months. People who face a dismissal and re-engagement, to give it its proper legal terminology, are often concerned that they are in this situation at all. Yes, they might have been employed by the same company for many years. Yes, their terms and conditions have remained largely unchanged. They may even have had them collectively agreed by their trade union. The job itself has not changed. It still needs to be done. They perform well and the company is still making good profits, so why are they suddenly being asked to come in and do the job for 20% less pay?

The answer to that lies in the destructive combination of weak employment laws, an indifferent Government and an opportunistic employer who is seizing the moment to chip away at hard-won rights. What then follows is a consultation period that amounts to nothing more than a box-ticking exercise, followed by an impossible dilemma of losing your job altogether or coming back into work the following week on less money. It is a race to the bottom that coronavirus has accelerated. It is time that race was stopped.

Of course, plenty of employers have struggled this year. We know that. That is why the furlough scheme was created, but there are some employers out there who, despite taking advantage of furlough, have still pushed ahead with fire and rehire tactics because they saw an opportunity to make a few more quid for their shareholders. I personally do not think that employers should be taking taxpayers’ cash with one hand only to be giving out dismissal notices with the other. I would like to see the Government saying to those companies that they take the money on the basis that they will support and protect people in their existing jobs, not chip away at them.

The law on unfair dismissal and “some other substantial reason” needs to be fundamentally strengthened so that the onus is on the employer to show that any such changes were essential to secure the survival of the business. That would raise the threshold for employers seeking to justify dismissal from the current test of “sound or good reason”, which we know tribunals do not examine in detail. It adds insult to injury that those who choose not to succumb to the financial blackmail of fire and rehire do not even get a redundancy payment. The Government should be looking to enhance job protection. The furlough scheme is the start of a recognition by the state that it has a role to keep people in work and keep them secure. Let us not abandon that principle now. Let us build on it.

One of the main problems has been people being asked to go into work despite being able to work from home, which is, of course, contrary to the Government’s “stay at home” message that has been in place for much of the past year. Thanks to the marvels of technology, many more people have been able to work from home, but some employers seem to have a very old fashioned attitude that unless they can see the person in front of them, even if they are just sat in front of a computer screen, they cannot be sure that they are working.

Many people have been forced to go into work unnecessarily, including people with underlying health conditions. I even had a constituent who had to go into work when they were supposed to be shielding; what was particularly of note was that the individual had been shielding from home during the previous two lockdowns and had performed their duties from home without any problem. In the third lockdown, however, that was suddenly not acceptable. That is a pattern we have seen with a number of other employers. Their willingness to support those shielding seems to have dropped off a little bit this year. It is almost as if their patience has worn thin. That has also manifested itself in the number of complaints I have had about staff without any health issues who have also been asked to go back into work contrary to the work at home instruction.

Sadly, we have come across someone who was made redundant after complaining about being required to go to work when they could have easily carried out those duties at home. They did not have two years’ service, so they could not claim unfair dismissal. It was difficult to see how they could use other health and safety-related protections, given the difficulties with that law. It is to be welcomed that the Government have just published new regulations which will extend protection to those classed as workers when raising health and safety issues, but it is disappointing that that is not due to come into force until 31 May. People need that protection now; they needed it 12 months ago. It is good that it is being extended to workers, but there are still too many people who are not classed as workers, or, in the case of Uber drivers, who had to fight a five-year court battle just to get that recognition. The Government really need to clean up and strengthen the rules in this area so that everyone in work has basic protections and we do not have the unfair, uneven and exploitative lottery that it is at the moment.

We are also getting more complaints about businesses that are not adhering to covid-19 measures and, sadly, some constituents are too afraid to tell us where they work because they are fearful of reprisals. They have raised concerns about their employer not applying social distancing, not allowing people to stay at home when they display symptoms, asking staff to come in while waiting for test results and telling staff not to disclose close contacts when they test positive. These are all real examples, and they completely undermine the Government’s attempts to restrict transmission of the virus. People need better support, and they need greater reassurance that when they raise concerns they will be addressed and, critically, that there will be no reprisals for them as individuals.

I spent 15 years before I came here representing people who had been victims of workplace injustice, and very often the reason they had been on the receiving end of that treatment was that they had raised a legitimate concern with their employer. Sadly, it seems that things have got worse rather than better in the past few years. In the past year, those concerns have increased tenfold because the number of issues an employee might reasonably raise with their employer about the inadequate level of protection they get when they go into work has increased considerably.

This is not just about workplace protections now. It is in all our interests that people can go about their business and go to work safely. Those who are in a trade union are able to raise concerns collectively, and one such example is from the GMB. It has raised concerns about the guidance on working in other people’s homes, which has changed during this lockdown. The union believes this is creating greater risk. The guidance now mentions meter reading specifically as being a permitted reason for someone to enter a home. The concern is that those meter readers could become super-spreaders and that they are putting themselves and the householders at unnecessary risk just to get a meter reading, which could be done in a number of ways. Unlike a plumber or an electrician, who might enter a handful of properties each day, meter readers can enter hundreds of homes each day, putting themselves and the public at risk. That really needs looking at again.

I want to say a few words on retail. Those working in supermarkets and other essential retail have been working throughout the crisis and have at times faced incredible pressure. They have played a critical role in keeping the country going and I pay tribute to them, but unfortunately not everyone appreciates the work they do. The shop workers’ trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, surveyed its members and found that 76% of them said that abuse had been worse than normal during the pandemic, that 57% had been threatened by a customer and that 9% had been assaulted. We should not be surprised that abuse has increased, given that enforcing social distancing and face coverings were reported in the survey as being two of the biggest triggers for abuse from customers, and these were not issues before the pandemic started.

This highlights a disconnect between what has been decided in this place—regarding face coverings, for example—and the reality on the ground as to how those rules, which were introduced for a very good reason, are enforced. The police cannot be everywhere, and after a cut of 20,000 officers in the last decade, handing them a plethora of new laws to enforce was never going to be realistic. This is placing those who work in retail and hospitality, to name but two, in a difficult and potentially dangerous position.

When we pass laws in this place about important safety measures to stop the spread of the virus, we also need to look at ourselves and ask whether we are setting the right example. I am sorry to say that there have been a few recent high-profile examples of Government bodies not taking the lead. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea has been in the headlines a lot recently due to the number of cases contracted in the workplace there. I understand that work was commissioned in June 2020 to look at home working at the DVLA, but that the recognised trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, has not been granted sight of that report and has instead been told to go through the freedom of information route to see it.

I appreciate that this does not involve the Minister’s Department, but as the Minister responsible for the workplace, can he please have a word with the Department for Transport and point out that discussions about safe workplaces are not a matter to be pursued through FOI requests? This should involve both parties sitting down and engaging in constructive dialogue. I understand that 300-plus desks have recently been removed by the DVLA to ensure that social distancing is possible, but if that is right, how can it also be right that staff had been working in those conditions since last August? Is this lack of distancing the reason that there have been more than 550 positive cases at the DVLA since September last year? The Government and their agencies should be setting an example to other employers on how to operate safely and responsibly.

On that note, perhaps the Minister could also speak to his colleagues in the Department for Justice about the fact that court staff in London and Liverpool have balloted for industrial action because their union, PCS, says that its safety concerns have not been taken seriously, with not even a risk assessment process having been agreed between the employer and union. We really need to be doing better than this.

It is not an understatement to say that workplace health and safety, far from being a regulatory burden, is now a fundamental part of our return to normality and, indeed, key to wider economic success. That means that we need stronger regulatory interventions, and in this regard the decision to recognise covid as a “significant” rather than a “serious” workplace issue limits the options open to inspectors. I hope that that is something the Minister can look at again. A safe workforce is a productive workforce. It is good for employers and the economy. If this pandemic has taught us anything about the workplace, it is that it is too often characterised by insecurity, imbalance and indifference to basic protections. It is time we changed that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing a debate on this important topic. I echo his thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the staff of the House, who have allowed us to continue our business to the best of our abilities. I add my condolences to all the friends and families of the people who have lost their lives and suffered throughout this pandemic.

There is no doubt that the pandemic is one of the greatest challenges that the UK has faced, and as Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, I see daily the difficult choices that individuals and businesses have had to make as we manage the threat to public health. One of my priorities has been to support businesses in making their workplaces covid-secure to ensure that they are able to operate as safely as possible, to keep our economy going and to protect workers and customers.

Before I speak in greater depth about the practical steps we have taken, I would like to pay tribute to the businesses we have worked with to make workplace protection a reality. As we have heard, a number of businesses have remained open for the duration of the pandemic, providing us with the essential goods and infrastructure that we need in the short and longer term. I am hugely grateful to them and their incredible staff. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that safe workplaces and safe staff make a productive workforce. Those businesses have made significant efforts over the past year.

I recognise that many sectors have not been permitted to operate as usual, including, as we have heard, hospitality, personal care, tourism and the performing arts. I commend their perseverance and adaptability in transforming into covid-secure businesses at such speed. Not all those sectors fall under my Department, but I am acutely aware that they continue to face significant pressure, and some businesses have been unable to reopen at all. The road map provides a route out of the current lockdown in England, but I recognise the tremendous difficulties that businesses have been experiencing and continue to endure in the face of the pandemic. We will continue to do all we can to support the British people and businesses through this moment of crisis.

As announced last week in the Budget, and as we heard earlier today, the Budget continues to provide unprecedented levels of support for the economy, protecting jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the UK. The Chancellor announced an additional £65 billion of further measures to support the economy in 2021-22. That will take the total support for the economy to £407 billion—the largest peacetime support package on record.

Following the Prime Minister’s announcement of the nationwide lockdown measures almost a year ago, the Government have worked tirelessly to develop clear guidance on how to work safely across a range of workplace settings. We consulted numerous businesses, industry leaders, trade unions and local and central Government organisations to develop the covid-secure guidance. We did that in close collaboration with Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to reflect the latest expert advice at each stage of the Government’s response to the pandemic. The guidance gives practical considerations for how to adapt a workplace to make it covid-secure, including simple but vital measures such as completing a workplace risk assessment that factors in covid-19, cleaning more often—both hands and surfaces—maintaining social distancing and putting in place mitigations where social distancing is not possible.

The guidance also raises other practical considerations, such as considering ventilation in line with HSE guidance—something that will continue to be very important—adapting a workplace layout to facilitate social distancing, and reducing the need for face-to-face meetings, including working from home where possible. It also reminds businesses of the need to support NHS Test and Trace, and to comply with face covering and self-isolation rules and others.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister is talking about risk assessments. Will he look at the concern that I have raised about court staff, and the Ministry of Justice and the Courts and Tribunals Service not agreeing on the process for a risk assessment in their working environment?

[Paul Scully]

I noted the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave of the DVLA and the court system, and I will certainly reflect on those and take them back.

The key thing is that the guidance also reminds employers of their duty to consider those with protected characteristics, as the hon. Gentleman says—those shielding or those with other vulnerabilities—and take particular care to factor their needs into workplace risk assessments. Every organisation is different and employers must translate the guidance into specific actions to take, depending on the nature of their organisation, such as its size and type and how it is organised, operated and managed. The duty is on employers to ensure that the risk assessment for their business addresses the risk of covid-19 to anyone affected by the business. The Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and health and safety representatives within businesses—and, of course, trade unions—ensure that support is available to help businesses to implement the right control measures. So we urge businesses to continue to keep their risk assessments up to date and maintain dialogue with their workers over the measures put in place for their safety. As we have heard, it is not always the case, but we must make sure that we press that home to all businesses.

The guidance does remain robust in the light of the new virus strains, although that is continuously reviewed as new data emerges. To continue to protect the most vulnerable in our society, businesses should continue to follow the guidance, even if employees have received a negative test result or have been vaccinated.

Following the publication of the road map, at this key point in the UK’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Government have taken the opportunity to build on the collective input and insights shared by businesses, unions and representative organisations. Almost a year from its initial publication, the message we hear most frequently is that continuity is key for businesses, and that the guidance is embedded and well understood. That does not mean that there is nothing left to learn about how well the guidance has been working in practice, and we have consulted widely to consider any improvements that we can make ahead of the reopening. The Government will provide further advice on how businesses can improve fresh air flow in indoor workplaces and introduce regular testing, as set out in the road map. User feedback is good and levels of compliance are high, but we must not be complacent. The covid-secure guidelines are underpinned by the health and safety legislation as regards the need to conduct a risk assessment, as well as certain requirements set out in new regulations brought forward by the House under the public health legislative framework. Enforcing authorities have been given the powers they need to enforce covid rules where necessary, for the purposes of controlling the spread of infection. Those powers are robust and proportionate, ranging from issuing fixed penalty notices to closing down a business in extremis. We continue to work closely with businesses and across Government to ensure that we maintain these high levels of compliance. If someone has a concern about the measures in a workplace, they should consult their health and safety representatives in the first instance.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. In terms of the enforcement powers that are at the disposal of inspectors, is the Minister able to say how many improvement notices or fixed penalty notices have been issued?

[Paul Scully]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer at the moment, but I will find that out for him.

We have given more resource to the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that it can do its job to the best of its ability. We do look to people to come forward with evidence, and that includes not just employees but trade unions and other representatives as well. We make sure that we encourage all businesses, especially if they are considering reopening after a period of closure, to take the time to review and refresh their risk assessments in line with the latest advice.

Although there is much cause for hope and optimism with the vaccine roll-out, we must be mindful not to prematurely relax the social distancing and other safety measures that have been put in place to protect workers and the most vulnerable in society. As set out in the road map, covid-secure guidance will remain applicable throughout steps 1 to 3. At step 4, subject to review, we hope to relax legal limits on social contact and open the remaining closed settings, including clubs and large events, and including weddings. But the Government have been clear that some safety measures must still be required from summer onwards.

To cover a couple of areas that we have talked about, I have been working with the retail sector, including USDAW, to help as regards the violence shown to retail staff, who have done amazing work during the pandemic.

Fire and rehire, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has been raised a number of times in this place. It is important that, yes, we retain our flexible employment practice, but it should not be used as a bullyboy tactic by large companies against their workers. He said correctly that any reasonable, sensible and forward-thinking employer would understand that treating their employees well gets the best out of them, makes it a productive business, and, ultimately, gets the best for the shareholder in the long term. We have charged ACAS with looking at the evidence to see how systematically the practice is being used. It has reported back, and I will be examining what it says.

On self-isolation, we have put in £110 million of funding for the test and trace support payment. A further £20 million per month will go to local authorities from March 2021. That will ensure that local authorities can continue to make payments and support people on low incomes to stay at home and self-isolate when required.

On zero-hour contracts, we must get the balance right to make sure that people who work on such contracts enjoy the flexibility of such work—the vast majority of students and young parents involved in such contracts do appreciate that flexibility. We have banned exclusive contracts, and we want to make sure that, in having that flexibility, people are not being exploited. I look forward to the Employment Bill coming forward so that we can look further at a number of issues around the gig economy, including making sure that our flexible working is a fair way of working. I can confirm that we will continue to work with all sectors of the economy as we forge a successful, long-term recovery from this pandemic. I remain grateful to businesses for everything that they currently do, and will do in the future, to help us to build back better.

Question put and agreed to.

Uber: Supreme Court Ruling

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

As I said, we have extended the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers, to make sure they understand the conditions they have and their status. We need to do more work in that area, which I am looking forward to doing, as we speak to people to make sure our labour market is fit for purpose.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]]

It is a disgrace that people have had to fight court battles over four years to get basic employment rights, and the Minister must recognise that the only reason they have had to do so is that the Government have sat on their hands for too long. Will the Government finally recognise that the trade-off between flexibility and security is an illusion, and legislate so that everyone who is in work can get the basic protections they should be entitled to in a civilised society?

[Paul Scully]

The gig economy offers individuals flexibility, and countless surveys have shown that the majority of people do like that flexibility—especially younger people and women. However, there is always more we can do to make sure that people understand exactly what they are signing up to, and they definitely must not be exploited.

Building Safety

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

We have chosen to focus both the grant scheme and the financing arrangements on cladding. That is for good reason, because the expert advice that we have received from the independent panel has consistently been that cladding is the greatest danger that needs to be combated. There may be other defects in buildings, and they will vary widely from building to building. They will have to be a matter for the building owner and for the homeowner. We, as a Government, are going to tackle the big issue here, which is cladding. We are going to end the cladding scandal that began with the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the funding that has been announced as a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it is likely to cover only around half the anticipated cost, and the innocent leaseholder will be picking up the bill for the other half. The Secretary of State has said that he has sympathy for leaseholders, but that sympathy does not appear to extend below 18 metres. That directly contradicts the promise, which has been repeatedly made, that no leaseholder would have to pay anything. I deeply regret the Government’s decision to break that promise and create another injustice. Can the Secretary of State say how many leaseholders he estimates will be subject to the loan scheme that he has announced today?

[Robert Jenrick]

We do not want any leaseholders to be paying for fire safety defects; we want that to be paid for by the building owners, the developers and the builders—the people who did this in the first place. As I said, there are circumstances where that is not possible, because there are building owners who no longer exist, who have gone bankrupt or who are shell companies overseas. That is the world we are dealing with. This is complex and multifaceted; it is not simple. In those situations where that is not possible, buildings above 18 metres, where the greatest risk lies, will take advantage of the new scheme and no leaseholder in that situation will have to pay for the remediation of unsafe cladding. Below 18 metres, where the risk is significantly lower, guided by our expert opinion, the financing arrangements will be in place. This is a comprehensive plan to provide comfort, reassurance, certainty and confidence to as many leaseholders as possible.

Towns Fund

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the towns fund, because transparency and accountability are vital at all times, in particular when we are talking about a process that has largely been discredited due to the way in which the fund has been handed out so far. The priority to support town centres is undoubtedly the right one, but the process of deciding where that money is spent so far has undoubtedly been the wrong one.

I have consistently talked about the importance of the high street. So many people want to have pride in their local town and to see it thriving, and the towns fund is one clear way of realising that ambition. However, is that not something that every town should have the chance to benefit from? Should not that fund be distributed fairly, giving everyone a slice of the pie? Should not we be empowering local communities to choose their own priorities, rather than making them jump through multiple hoops in a competitive bidding process that is neither fair nor transparent?

What about other funds? When will we see the new version of the shared prosperity fund? We have left the EU, so we should have had that oven-ready to go a long time ago. Communities cannot wait while another complex set of opaque bidding procedures are cooked up.

My town centre, Ellesmere Port, is struggling. It has been struggling for a long time now. As in many other towns, the rise of the internet and changes in shopping habits, accelerated by the pandemic, have led to shops closing down, sadly on an almost weekly basis. So we would welcome cash from the towns fund, but for it to be a truly transformative project, it needs to address not just the symptoms of decline, but the causes.

Where are the plans to tackle the massive disparities between the north and south, in employment opportunities, earnings and life expectancy? Why do so many young people feel they have to leave where they live and move to a city just to get a foot on the ladder? It is a scandal that where people are born and who they are born to are still the biggest determinants of their life chances. That is what this fund should be looking at, not at tarting up 12th-century gatehouses. Where has the money been spent so far? My research indicates that more than 80% of the towns fund cash to date has gone on management consultants—that is hardly the transformation we were hoping to see.

Power flows towards London and wealth flows upwards into the hands of the elite. A Westminster handout on Westminster terms, with Westminster priorities in mind, will not change that. For too long, people have felt left behind and held back by a system that does not work for them. People already feel that they do not have the power to take decisions about the most important things in their lives: whether a local hospital should stay open, where a new school might go, or even how often the buses run. To empower local communities, we need a different approach—no more crumbs from the table. We do not want divisive, politically motivated, short-term fixes that only have the electoral cycle in mind. We need a new, long-term approach that actually attempts to tackle the underlying issues, and one that empowers and enables our local communities by giving them the responsibility, the power and the resources to shape their own futures, allowing them finally to take back control.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I think my hon. Friend was talking about anchor stores and the effect on the high street. I know him very well, so I can predict his question. Yes, if we take out an anchor store, we hollow out a high street, so it is so important that we look at this holistically, work together with local government, national Government and with retailers themselves to build up our high streets and shape them anew.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Ellesmere Port, like many places, has seen an exodus from the high street over the past decade, which has been accelerated in the past year. Of course, it is no coincidence that, at the same time, online retail is booming, but my constituents do not judge the vibrancy of an area by the number of delivery drivers up their street; they judge it by the number of boarded-up shops in their town centres. Therefore, we need a consistent funded plan for the high street, but, just as importantly, we need a level playing field so that high street shops have a chance of competing. Can the Minister assure us that we will get that?

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, high streets will certainly change, but we need to get the balance right between online and bricks and mortar as well, because both have a really important position to play in our retail offering.

Towns Fund

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the towns fund.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

The towns fund is one element of this Government’s mission to spread opportunity and to level up by investing in towns and smaller cities—places to support businesses and communities so that we can help them to thrive.

Last year we announced that 101 places had been invited to develop proposals for a town deal as part of the £3.6 billion towns fund. These towns are spread across the country. Many are birthplaces of industry and centres of commerce. Others are bastions of the maritime economy or the pleasures of the English seaside. Others are great agricultural and market towns. They are all different. But what they do have in common is that they have been underinvested in and undervalued by central Government for too long as too much investment has been centred on our big cities.

Town deals are about reversing that trend. They are about providing investment and confidence at a crucial time for these communities. Through town deals, we are driving economic regeneration and growth, raising living standards and boosting productivity. We are investing in new uses for often derelict and unloved spaces. We are creating new cultural and economic assets that will benefit those communities not just today but for generations to come. We are connecting people through better infrastructure both digital and physical, such as the new walking and cycling routes planned for Torquay and the creation of the new digi-tech factory in Norwich.

We have already made some investments as a rapid response to the effects of covid-19 where towns are particularly vulnerable. Up-front grants of up to £1 million are being spent in places such Burton-on-Trent, on its new main shopping centre to allow greater access for pedestrians and cyclists, or on demolishing and rebuilding unloved buildings in places like Newcastle-under-Lyme. Many towns are repurposing empty shops into vibrant community and business spaces that will help them to bounce back when covid is done.

Each town selected to bid for a town deal is eligible for an investment of up to £25 million. Of course, that is not guaranteed, and all proposals are rigorously assessed by officials in my Department. In exceptional circumstances, such as the nationally significant plans for the great town of Blackpool, we will invest more. I am particularly excited by Blackpool’s plans to make its illuminations even more impressive and attract more visitors when they are back next year.

Town deals are about more than simply investment. They are about the whole town coming together, to create and share a genuine vision for the future of that place. We have just offered Barrow-in-Furness a town deal that will help to address the skills gap, create better housing and support local businesses to grow and employ more people. I am hugely excited by these deals. They offer a chance to turn around the fortunes of many, many places.

This is just the start. The Government are committed to levelling up all parts of the country. We want everyone, wherever they live, to benefit from increased economic growth and prosperity. Town deals are but one way to achieve that. All Members of the House will agree that places such as Blackpool, Barrow and Darlington need and deserve investment, and they will have it under this Government. The work of the towns fund is just beginning.

[Justin Madders]

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, although many questions remain unanswered. He discussed the Blackpool illuminations, and we certainly need illumination on this side of the House about exactly why particular towns were chosen and not others. Can he tell us what was in his mind when he ignored civil servants’ advice and allocated funding to low-priority towns? Was it really a complete coincidence that all the low-priority towns that he chose happened to be in Tory-held or target seats? We have heard nothing to convince us that it is anything other than a deliberate ploy.

Serious concerns have been expressed, not just by Opposition Members but by the National Audit Office and the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. We are told that we are making the issue party political, but I remind Government Members that we are not the only ones who question this process. This is party political because the Government made it so in the first place by gerrymandering the fund. Can the Secretary of State give us assurances that the whole rationale for these decisions will be published and that any future rounds of the towns fund will be dealt with solely on merit?

I want to know whether Ellesmere Port will get a fair crack of the whip next time round. Before the scheme was announced we were told that we were well placed for the next round of funding. If the funds had been allocated on the scores alone there is no doubt that we would have qualified for support, and we would have put that money to good use, because there are ambitious plans for the town, ready to go, that only need Government support to be realised. When is the next opportunity, and will funding be allocated on a transparent and impartial basis? Does the Secretary of State accept that the pandemic has accelerated the challenges that many towns face and urgent action is needed? There can be no levelling up if one structural bias is replaced by another. There can be no levelling up if the playing field is uneven, and there can be no levelling up if large parts of the country are ignored just because they voted the wrong way.

[Robert Jenrick]

I look forward to receiving a bid from Ellesmere Port in the competitive phase next year. It seems as if the hon. Gentleman wants more of the towns fund, not less, and we can all agree that this is an important investment opportunity for places throughout the country.

A rigorous and robust procedure was put in place by the Department, before I or any other Minister set foot in the Department. That was then followed; we followed the advice of our excellent civil servants in the Department —it is a pity that the Opposition tried to cast aspersions on them—by selecting the 40 most highly ranked towns and smaller cities that their methodology drew up. It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman has such great enthusiasm for algorithm-based policy making. We have learned in the past year that a degree of judgment and qualitative analysis is also useful. The officials advised just that. They said that in addition to those 40 places we should use our judgment to select other places for inclusion from the list informed by the information and advice that they provided to us, because many of those places were quite finely balanced.

That is entirely consistent, and is set out in the work that the Department has shared with the National Audit Office. I have seen the recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee and, in the usual way, the Department will respond. The permanent secretary of my Department has made it clear that Ministers followed a rigorous and robust procedure in full. That is quite right, and that is how we will approach the next round of funding.

All of us on both sides of the House should be able to agree that this fund is important and that these places need investment. We are working very well with Labour councils in these places. The hon. Gentleman says that these are Conservative-voting places. I am afraid that it is not the towns fund that is responsible for the way people have voted in those communities—it is the fact that Labour MPs and successive Labour Governments have let down those communities for too long. More than 60% of the towns and smaller cities that we have invested in have Labour councils, and we are working extremely well with them, whether that is Wolverhampton or St Helens; I am sure we will hear other examples today. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to continue to invest and level up.

Covid-19: Employment Rights

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. A lot of people are self-isolating at the moment; that number could be higher if test and trace worked properly, but we still have hundreds of thousands of people who cannot attend work for two weeks, as the law requires them to isolate. However, they are doing so without any protection from detrimental treatment by their employer, which could be refusal to pay sick pay to which they are entitled, or even dismissal.

I have also heard concerns from constituents that a period of self-isolation could be used to trigger a sickness absence review, or be used as part of a process that is already under way. It is quite possible that if other members of the same household get symptoms or test positive, people might have to self-isolate on multiple occasions. I am sure we can all understand the genuine anxieties people might feel if they have to tell their employer that they are having to self-isolate for a second or third time, so why are there no workplace protections to support them in doing the right thing? The Government could state very clearly, either through guidance or regulation, that a period of self-isolation should be classed as other leave that cannot be called unauthorised leave, sickness absence or annual leave, and cannot be used as part of any disciplinary or capability process. I think that is a very simple ask of the Government.

Fire and rehire is not a new development—it has been around for as long as people have had jobs—but just because it has happened for a long time does not make it acceptable. In fact, it shows that our employment protections are as antiquated as they are inadequate. The current crisis has shone a light on the absolute imbalance of power in the employment relationship, and the way in which so many people feel exposed to the whims of their employer. That powerlessness does not just manifest itself in people losing their jobs: look at everyone on zero-hours contracts, in the gig economy or in agency work. They are literally at the company’s beck and call, so insecurity is baked into the workplace. It is little wonder so many people have a sense of helplessness, but it does not have to be this way. Job security does not have to be an impossible dream, and the first step to understanding that is looking at why rights are so weak, and often illusionary.

That illusion manifests itself in full technicolour with fire and rehire, the very existence of which causes people great concern and bewilderment that they are in this situation. Yes, they are directly employed; yes, they have been there possibly for decades; yes, their terms and conditions have remained constant throughout, and may even have been collectively negotiated by their trade union. Their job has not changed, they have performed well, and the company still makes a profit, so why are they suddenly being asked to come in and do the same job for 20% less? The answer lies in the combination of weak employment laws, opportunistic employers, and an indifferent Government. Together, those factors allow for hard-won benefits to be stripped away through a consultation period that amounts to a box-ticking exercise, followed by the inevitable slide into weakened terms and conditions, which will often make it easier for the employer to do the same thing all over again in a year or two. It is a race to the bottom that has been accelerated by coronavirus, and it is about time that race was stopped.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Second Reading of his Bill. We are looking to strengthen the powers and sanctions in respect of both heritage and planning enforcement as part of our White Paper reforms of the planning system. I am sure that he will be lobbying us to ensure that that is part of the wider package.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State ignored his own civil servants’ advice on which areas to support with the towns fund, was that on his own initiative or was he receiving instructions from Downing Street?

[Robert Jenrick]

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman makes party political points without understanding the facts, because no Minister in my Department has ignored the advice of their officials. The Department produced a robust process, which was followed by myself and any other Minister in the Department, so he should be careful before making wild and false accusations.

Live Events and Weddings: Covid-19 Support

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. The emphasis on business grants for those businesses with premises is probably one of the factors that led to many people in the sectors we are debating today being denied financial support; the fact that a lot of them are also freelancers or self-employed is another factor. However, many of the people who were excluded from support the first time around are being excluded once again. Given the speed at which events happened, the Government could perhaps have been given a little latitude the first time for not covering everyone; eight months on and with the benefit of that experience, however, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone being left behind this time.

We need a commitment from the Government that this issue will be looked into urgently, because by the time the current scheme comes to an end, some people will have been trading for nearly two years and will not have been entitled to a penny. How can that be allowed to happen? I hope the Government will listen and offer a roadmap for the wedding and live events industries, with sector-specific support for the intervening period until we get back to some sense of normality. Frankly, telling those people to find another job is a cop-out.

Like other Members, I will talk about weddings because I have been contacted by many constituents who have had to cancel or rearrange their wedding days. The wedding industry has seen numbers restricted and then restricted some more: the limit of 30 at a wedding lasted for just two weeks before it was reduced to 15. That means either that there was a specific piece of evidence that suggested the limit needed to be reduced for weddings but not for the funerals that took place during that fortnight, or that the limit should never have been 30 in the first place. Neither of those alternatives engenders much confidence that the Government are on top of things.

How can a judgment have been formed to change the limit back to 15 in just a fortnight? Given the restrictions to 30 or 15 guests at weddings, many people consider the wedding industry to be closed in all but name. By including outside suppliers in that number, couples have been placed in the invidious position of having to choose whether their photographer or granny attends. I do not think that is right at all.

The wedding industry did not get any benefit over the summer from the “eat out to help out” scheme, despite many venues being able to hold significantly more guests in a covid-secure way than restaurants can. Instead, we saw the sector largely ignored, despite how much it is worth to the economy and how much it benefits people in other, associated industries such as hair, beauty and photography. An important question that I have received from my constituents who have seen their wedding days restricted or cancelled is why they could go and sit in a restaurant with over 100 people socially distanced at separate tables, yet they could have only 15 people attend a wedding venue that can safely hold ten times the amount. I have to agree with them: on the face of it, it seems illogical. Given the massive financial impact that such decisions have had, I hope there is strong evidence behind that distinction being made.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. He will know how vital it is to keep public support for these measures and to ensure that they are evidence-based, logical and clearly explained.

[Several hon. Members rose—]