UK-EU Negotiations

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right, and he reinforces the observation that I have come to: the louder the Opposition heckle, the truer the question from a Government Back Bencher.

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

The parent company of Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port is waiting for the outcome of these negotiations before it makes any investment decisions. To get a favourable decision, we need a guarantee that there will be no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions in the automotive sector. Can the right hon. Gentleman give that guarantee?

[Michael Gove]

That is the commitment to which the European Union has aligned itself in the political declaration, and we will hold it to that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering to step in as a marriage counsellor. I have to say, notwithstanding my earlier reference to Morecambe and Wise, that the Prime Minister and I, when it comes to everything, are like the two Ronnies, so it’s goodnight from me and it’s goodnight from him.

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

What proportion of personal protective equipment procured by the Government during the covid-19 outbreak was manufactured by UK businesses.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Amanda Milling)]

The whole country is facing an unprecedented crisis, and British businesses have risen to the challenge with offers of help. Businesses across the UK have stepped up to provide PPE including aprons, face masks, visors and gowns. We have now signed contracts to manufacture over 2 billion items of PPE through UK-based manufacturers, and we have already taken delivery of products from new certified UK manufacturers.

[Justin Madders]

There is no doubt that the devastating consequences of covid-19 were exacerbated because the Government allowed stockpiles of PPE to be run down and were too slow to anticipate the level of need that there would be. Given that in a worldwide pandemic there will inevitably be worldwide demand for PPE, do the Government now accept that it was a mistake to place so much reliance on overseas investors?

[Amanda Milling]

The Government have been working around the clock to get frontline NHS and care workers the equipment that they need to do their jobs safely and to save lives. Since the start of the outbreak, we have delivered over 1.7 billion items of PPE across the health and social care system within England. Plus, tens of millions of items have been distributed to the devolved Administrations. We will continue to pursue every possible domestic and international option for PPE procurement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend, and I extend my deepest sympathies to the friends and family of his constituent, Ashley. We are asking councils to do exactly that—to help people to attend without breaching the rules on social distancing. I am sure that he would appreciate that we think that is the right balance to strike.

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

Undoubtedly the furlough scheme has prevented mass unemployment, but when companies such as BA use millions of pounds of public money to furlough their staff at the same time as handing out redundancy notices, it is a kick in the teeth to those workers and the taxpayer. It is concerning that reports today suggest that the furlough scheme may be wound down after June. Would it not be an obscenity if, whether through employer decisions or Government inaction, those people whose jobs we have been trying to save end up redundant anyway?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Prime Minister answers, will Members please ensure that they do not have political slogans behind them when they are speaking?

European Union: Future Relationship

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that the Scottish nationalist party—[Hon. Members: “National!”] I am sorry, but as Robert Burns said,

“facts are chiels that winna ding”.

I am afraid that the representatives on that Bench are nationalists. They put separation—the smashing up of the United Kingdom—ahead of anything else. Some of them are decent and kind people, but they are nationalists. The reason they object so much is that when the mask comes off and we recognise the ideological heart of the SNP, they dinnae like it up ’em.

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

It is estimated that if agreement is reached, there will be a need for about 50,000 new customs officers. Is it feasible to recruit and train that many people in less than six months, and who is going to foot the bill for it?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, it is, and the Government stand behind that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Companies do have to demonstrate that, and if existing suppliers do not comply with the targets we have set, they will be booted off the supplier list.

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

T9. This morning, I did a quick Google search—other search engines are available—for “Government jobs”, which came up with dozens of Government positions described as being inside IR35. That is the worst of both worlds, because an individual would be taxed as an employee but would have no employment rights. Does the Cabinet Office agree that that is an untenable state of affairs for people working for the Government?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman raises a thoughtful point. He will be aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury has led a review of those rules. I think that we all agree that we want to see employees treated accurately and fairly, whichever category they fall into, and of course that the public purse is protected by taxes being brought in and made available for public services. I am happy to look at the matter in slightly more detail if he thinks there is something beyond that.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, but I stressed earlier that some prices will rise and others will fall, not just in the event of a no-deal Brexit but in the event of global economic circumstances. If prices fall for consumers, that is good for them and good for business.

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

Does the Secretary of State envisage using powers available to him under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and if so, what might he use them for? In those circumstances, can he guarantee that Parliament will remain open to ensure that there is scrutiny of those powers?

[Michael Gove]

I am tempted to say don’t tempt me, but actually I have no plans to use those powers.

Prorogation of Parliament

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this very important debate, Ms Ryan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her excellent contribution: she spoke a great deal of sense. We probably disagree about some of the eventual outcomes, but her defence of democracy was first class, and I wholeheartedly support it.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) talked about a lot of issues, but something I regretted hearing from him was that we should not be here contemplating our navels. That is certainly not something that I do when I am here, and no hon. Member I am aware of spends their time here doing that. They are here representing their constituents and doing their very best for them. It would be wrong to suggest to the public at large that our time here is not important: it is normally well spent.

Many of my constituents signed the petition to block Prorogation. More than 10 times as many added their names to the petition against Prorogation as signed the one to support its implementation. I suspect that the number who are concerned about events will continue to rise. Many constituents have contacted me through social media and email. I agree with them that for the Prime Minister to shut down Parliament at such an important time in our country’s history, in the end stages of the Brexit process with by far the largest negotiations this country has undertaken in at least half a century, is nothing short of an outrage.

The Prime Minister is not content with ignoring Parliament: we know that he ignores his Cabinet colleagues, too. The number of people who were consulted about this decision before it was made was small. It is no wonder that most Cabinet members were not consulted, given that many of them spoke strongly against Prorogation during the Tory leadership campaign. For example, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) said:

“You don’t deliver on democracy by trashing democracy.”

The right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said that the idea was an “archaic manoeuvre”. The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said:

“I think it would be wrong for many reasons. I think it would not be true to the best traditions of British democracy.”

I agree with what they said, even if they do not agree with themselves any more.

[Paul Scully]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that all three of those quotes were in response to the idea of proroguing Parliament and bridging 31 October—in other words, taking Prorogation beyond the date when we are supposed to leave the European Union?

[Justin Madders]

I do not know the precise context of those comments. What is clear is that Prorogation is designed to have the same effect—to shut down debate and stop Parliament analysing properly the effects of our exiting the EU by way of a deal or not. I am afraid that it amounts to the same thing—an absolute outrage for democracy.

That is where we are. Parliament will be suspended later today because the Prime Minister desires to avoid scrutiny and force us into a no-deal Brexit, despite the Government’s own analysis showing that a no-deal Brexit would mean food shortages, medicine shortages and chaos at our ports, and despite Parliament legislating to take no deal off the table.

The Government have no mandate from the British people to leave the EU without a deal, but what else would we expect from this Prime Minister? It was reported last week that his chief of staff described negotiations as a scam and an attempt to run down the clock. Even the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) has decided that she can no longer take part in this charade. She resigned from the Cabinet this weekend because the Government had not undertaken serious formal negotiations with the EU. That exposes the truth of what the Government are about.

Let us be absolutely frank: the Government are about hiding from scrutiny and running away from the reality and the consequences of their decisions. It is a desperate attempt to cut and run before the truth catches up with them. A string of local companies came to see me over the summer with genuine concerns about the impact of a no-deal Brexit. Between them, they employ thousands of people. The Government’s decisions have the potential to wreak havoc on the local economy.

This is about not just the consequences of leaving without a deal, but Government decisions relating to that that could be changed. There are industry-wide issues, and that will almost certainly mean that jobs in other parts of the country will be affected. We are denied the opportunity to hold the Government to account on these matters, because we know that the truth is that they cannot justify their decisions. We are in the middle of the biggest constitutional crisis that this country has ever seen. We are on the cusp of enacting the biggest changes that this country has made for a generation, yet the Government are acting as if there is nothing to talk about. What an outrage!

If we leave the EU on 31 October with or without a deal, we will be woefully underprepared. It is simply inconceivable that all the legislation needed for an orderly exit is place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) said. To my knowledge, there are at least six Bills that have not been passed and would need to be enacted for that to happen. If we crash out on the 31st without a deal—let us not forget that, despite what the Prime Minister said, that is still an option if he can persuade Parliament that it is the right thing to do—there is still an enormous amount of contingency planning needed in transport, medicines and food, to name but a few areas. Members of Parliament should be scrutinising the Government and holding them to account for what they intend to do.

I read a very alarming report the other day that suggested that the plans for a no-deal Brexit involve relocating thousands of council staff from around the country down to Whitehall to deal with no-deal fallout. Bizarrely, the council staff will be replaced with members of the armed forces. I have no idea whether that is true—I hope it is not—but surely we deserve to know what is going on. Surely our role as parliamentarians is to scrutinise Government policies, particularly when the effect might be as dramatic as that. We should sit every day until 31 October to sort this out, which is what we were elected to do. The Prime Minister should not be going around the country electioneering at a time of national crisis. That is snollygostering of the highest order.

The Prime Minister’s game—that is what it is to him—has been clear for some time: make a load of spending announcements quickly, shut down any scrutiny of them, and hope that the traditional honeymoon period that all Prime Ministers experience lasts until mid-October. Well, we will not play that game. I have been on to him since his second day in office, when he announced a £3.6 billion fund for towns. When I heard about that, I thought, “That sounds pretty promising and is certainly something that Ellesmere Port and Neston could benefit from.” I was keen to see whether my constituency would be on the list, but as Parliament was not sitting, I submitted a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office, which said in its response that it had no information at all.

Here we have a Prime Minister announcing a multibillion-pound expenditure, while his office does not have even one scrap of paper to set out how the money will be spent. What a complete charlatan. I want accountability, answers and a Minister at the Dispatch Box to explain where that money is going, how it is being spent and who made those decisions. Anything less than that and it looks like a political fix—a cheap stunt unworthy of a serious party of government.

That is not the only issue on which I want answers. A major employer in my constituency is talking about shutting down in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Two secondary schools are up in arms about the way that they have been treated. There are major concerns about the way that a company contracted by the NHS suddenly went bust over the summer, and about the future of the fire service. There are major problems with access to mental health services. There is rising unemployment and a chronic lack of affordable housing. We should be tackling all of those matters here and now, in Parliament.

In truth, however, we will not be able to talk about those things because the Prime Minister does not want scrutiny as what he says does not stand up to it. He tells us that he cannot negotiate with the EU if no deal is taken off the table, but given his claim that the primary change that he wants to make is on the Irish backstop—a very specific issue—I see no connection between the changes that he says he wants and the need to keep no deal on the table. He also tells us that the first thing that the EU will ask in respect of any proposals made by the Government is whether they have the support of Parliament. How can Parliament say that it supports the proposals if it does not even know what they are and it is not sitting to find out? That does not stack up; it is a nonsense that has unravelled in a matter of days since Parliament’s return.

No wonder the Prime Minister does not want Parliament to sit. The more exposure he gets, the more even his own party walks away from the circus. The clown routine is an insult to the office of Prime Minister, to Parliament and to the people of this country, who he thinks will be duped by Eton’s answer to Arthur Daley—we will not fall for it. One cannot claim, as the Conservative party has, to believe on one hand in parliamentary sovereignty, and on the other in shutting Parliament down.

I put on the record that I do not support the Prorogation of Parliament and believe it to be an unprecedented, antidemocratic and unconstitutional attack on our democracy. Taking back control means Parliament taking back control and standing up to the bully boys who want to shut us down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I always have great respect for my hon. Friend, but the Government have set out the period of Prorogation and the reason for it, which is the Queen’s Speech. I can reassure people that we will still be sitting for three weeks before the scheduled exit date and, as we have seen over recent days, it does not take long, if the House is minded, to pass a particular piece of legislation. There will still be ample and adequate time to debate Brexit and, as many would reflect on, we have certainly not been short of opportunities to do so over the past year.

[Justin Madders]

Can Minister indicate how many days the Government intend to schedule for debate of the withdrawal agreement Bill, assuming that we have one?

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

As we know, the central aim of the shared prosperity fund is to reduce inequality and enable all our communities to share in the country’s economic growth. It could not be any more needed than it is now, because regional inequality has grown since 2010.

My constituency is in the north-west, and it is no surprise to me that earlier in the year the Institute for Public Policy Research North published a report finding that the north has borne the brunt of the Government’s austerity drive. We have had a £3.6 billion cut in public spending, while the south has had a £5.1 billion rise in real terms. We have seen public sector employment fall by 2.8%, compared with 1.2% in London, and spending on transport rose by more than twice as much in London as in the rest of the country. We have seen weekly pay increase by only 2.4%, compared with 3.5% nationally, and the number of jobs that pay less than the living wage has risen by nearly 11%.

Of course, these cuts have had and continue to have a negative impact on our communities. There are now more than 200,000 extra children living in poverty in the north than there were five years ago, meaning that 800,000 children are now living in poor households. That is nothing short of a scandal. The economy has been growing consistently—very slowly, but consistently—throughout the last five years, so having such an extra number of children growing up in poverty during that period shows that the economy is not working for many in the north. The points that have been made about maintaining, at the very minimum, existing levels of expenditure are absolutely right. The budget for the UK shared prosperity fund must match, in real terms, what the EU has been paying, but we need to go much further. I am worried about the lack of transparency from the Government about how they are going to adopt this fund, because I believe we have good grounds to be worried.

Let us take the future high streets fund. It is potentially a good initiative, but one that I fear has already been hijacked for party political ends. Ellesmere Port put forward what I considered to be a good bid. Indeed, the Government seemed to think it was, because when it was rejected in the first round, the Department wrote back a very nice letter to say that it was impressed with the bid and that it was well placed for the second round that would be decided some time next year. However, somehow—out of the blue—another round of funding for successful bids was announced only last week. Sadly, Ellesmere Port missed out again, but when I saw that the majority of the lucky towns were in Conservative constituencies, I was overcome by a flush of cynicism. Could it be that the announcement was entirely connected to secret plans to hold a snap general election? I think that subsequent events have borne out my concerns in that area, which is why we cannot trust this Government to allocate these funds in a non-partisan manner.

Towns such as Ellesmere Port and Neston in my constituency have been struggling for a long time. The rise of the internet and changes in shopping habits are leading to shops closing on a weekly basis. The sums we need for a truly transformative approach will not come from one pot alone. If the shared prosperity pot is operated in tandem with other funding pots, as the Local Government Association suggests, there would be an opportunity for an integrated and creative approach that could lead to a better outcome for all. Although we must ensure that this does not reduce the scope for matching funds in relation to any other projects, it is vital that we can access as many funds as possible to ensure that the communities we represent are properly resourced, that the imbalances are shared out and that the inequalities across the country are actually eradicated altogether.

For too long, people have felt left behind and held back by a system that does not work for them. We do not want more platitudes from London. We need a new approach—one that really empowers our local communities by giving them the responsibility, power and resources to shape their own futures, in line with local priorities and local need, because decisions that impact on local communities are best made by those communities themselves. It does not make sense that, in 2019, London still controls all the resources and holds all the levers. It is time we realised that business as usual is not going to cut it and that further Westminster handouts on Westminster terms are not what our communities want. We need this new prosperity fund to be really owned by local people so that it actually delivers for their priorities.

Priorities for Government

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Had the hon. Gentleman been paying the slightest attention, he would have heard that I have pledged to restore the money to Scottish farming, and it is thanks to the Scottish Conservatives that we have done so.

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

In his statement the Prime Minister said that he wanted to close the opportunity gap, but two thirds of his Cabinet were privately educated, which is more than double the composition of his predecessor’s first Cabinet. He is not leading by example, is he?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that what the people of this country want to know is what is the Government’s programme for taking this country forward. I think that the contrast is between a Conservative party, which is the party of the people, and which wants to improve healthcare and invest in public services, and the Labour party, which would destroy the UK economy and ruin the livelihoods of everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

As my hon. Friend knows, small businesses are the backbone of our economy and we are determined to level the playing field so that they can win Government contracts. That is why, for example, we have introduced tough new prompt payment requirements and simplified the procurement process, and through our digital marketplace we have spent £2.5 billion, with £1.28 in every £3 going to SMEs.

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

T3. According to the recent Sutton Trust and Social Mobility Commission report on elitist Britain, there has been a 4% increase in privately educated permanent secretaries. With the civil service already massively unrepresentative of society, does the Minister agree that that figure should be going down rather than up?

[Mr Lidington]

I think the most important thing is that we encourage as many people as possible from the most diverse backgrounds as possible to enter the civil service and that we mentor them through, but at the end of the day it should be ability to do the job that wins out. Frankly, that matters more to the public interest than which school somebody’s parents sent them to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is imperative for this House to deliver on the vote of the British people in 2016. I have said that on many occasions, standing at this Dispatch Box and elsewhere. I think it is important that we do that. We could already have done that—I am sorry, but I am going to return to this theme. We could already have done that, had this House supported the deal. It will be up to my successor to find a way through this to get a majority in this Parliament, but I agree that it is important that we do deliver trust in politics by saying to people, “We gave you the choice, you told us your decision, and we will now deliver on it.”

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

Q5. Vauxhall Motors in my constituency has a future if we can avoid crashing out of the EU without a deal, but my constituents are very concerned to hear in recent weeks the Prime Minister’s potential successors talk up the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. Will she tell them both in no uncertain terms that if they pursue that option, they will consign thousands of jobs in my constituency and beyond to history?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman could have voted to save jobs in his constituency—[Interruption.] It is no good Labour MPs trying to deny this. They had the opportunity three times to vote to leave with a deal, and three times they rejected it.