Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

My right hon. Friend has been an incredibly ardent campaigner on that important issue and I thank her for all her work on it. As I hope she knows, the Government have consulted on the use of non-disclosure agreements and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), is committed to legislating in due course in that vital area.

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

4. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s affected by the increase in the state pension age.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect of the increase in the state pension age on women born in the 1950s.

[Justin Madders]

Not so long ago, the Prime Minister said he would look at this issue with

“fresh vigour and new eyes”,

but as far as I can see, nothing has been done. What will the Prime Minister and this Government actually do to help those women?

[Mims Davies]

We are here for Women and Equalities questions. Women retiring today can expect to receive state pension for an average of over 21 years—two years longer than men—and if state pension age had not been equalised, women reaching the age of 60 would be expecting to spend over 40% of their adult life in receipt of state pension. I believe in equality and opportunity for older women. There are great opportunities out in the workplace now, and our local jobcentres can give women really good advice on that next stage of their working career.

No-deal Brexit: Schedule of Tariffs

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I always stand ready to visit colleagues from across the House and their constituencies, and their local businesses, to understand the background to commercial decisions that are being made. I am not particularly aware of the detail of that one, but, again, if the hon. Gentleman thinks it useful, I would be happy to have a meeting with him. It may be more appropriate for him to meet colleagues from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I am very happy to talk to him.

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

I was approached by people from Stanlow oil refinery in Ellesmere Port over the summer as they were concerned about proposals to zero-rate certain petroleum imports. I therefore added my name to a cross-party letter from a number of Members whose constituencies were affected by those proposals warning the Secretary of State about the impact such proposals might have on the refinery sector. Will the Minister therefore assure us that these concerns have been listened to and the proposals will do nothing to impact the viability of the UK refinery sector?

[Conor Burns]

The issue of the refineries and how tariffs may have an impact there has been discussed and continues to be looked at closely at the heart of government. Those representations are having an impact and are being listened to carefully.

US Tariffs: Scotch Whisky

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I congratulate and salute my colleagues representing Scottish constituencies. To weave into this, my debut performance at the Dispatch Box, the writing of the Chancellor’s Budget shows a degree of ingenuity I welcome. I will certainly make representations on behalf of my hon. Friends, who serve the people of Scotland so well, about what the Chancellor can do in his Budget to help protect this sector.

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

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said, Airbus is a huge employer on both sides of the north Wales border, so when the Minister has his conversations will he emphasise that point and the point that the United States employs a significant number of people in the same industry?

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I will certainly echo the comments made by the hon. Lady about those sporting teams in Scotland. Her question is better related to the Pensions Minister, so I will ensure that he responds fully to the points she raises. However, I would say, on WASPI women, that any amendment to the current legislation that creates a new inequality between men and women would be unquestionably highly dubious as a matter of law, and the Government’s position on the changes to the state pension age remains clear and consistent.

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

2. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the availability of British Sign Language courses.

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

A range of qualifications in BSL are available, but of course it is for schools and colleges to decide whether to offer these qualifications or other courses in BSL. The Department for Education is working to develop draft subject content for a potential GCSE in BSL.

[Justin Madders]

Cheshire College South and West, in my constituency, has had to cancel the BSL courses altogether, due to cuts in the adult education budget. That pattern is being repeated all over the country, so may I urge the Minister to look carefully at the impact of the cuts his Government are implementing?

[Nick Gibb]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the particular issue regarding that college. He will be aware that the exam board Signature has a number of BSL qualifications at different levels. He will also know that the DFE funds the I-Sign project, which has developed a family sign language programme course, which is available online, and post-16 funding is of course a priority in the upcoming spending review.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

This is the issue on which I—and, I am sure, most other Members—have been contacted most by constituents. They have all asked me to represent their views, but in the time available it will simply not be possible to do all of them justice, especially given the contradictory and incompatible messages that I have received.

Wherever it ends up, this process will cause a huge group of people to feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the political process. The binary nature of the referendum has created a schism in society, splitting families and friends in a way that will take years to fix. The longer the process continues, the wider those cracks become, and many issues are not receiving the attention that they need because Brexit, and many of the causes of Brexit, are not being addressed. Those are the big issues that I want us, as a country, to tackle. Brexit has sucked the life out of all other political debate in the country, and has toxified dialogue in the process. The danger is that the position could become even worse if we cannot be seen to be trusted—if democracy is no longer seen as something that works—and my starting point is what this process means for democracy.

I voted in favour of a referendum, and I did so in the expectation that the result would be binding. I campaigned to remain, so of course I was disappointed by the result, but as a democrat I accepted it. Moreover, along with many other Members, I had been re-elected on a manifesto that had confirmed that I would abide by the result.

Plenty of constituents have expressed their frustration and anger at the posturing that goes on here. Their perception is that too many Members are using Brexit as a vehicle for their own ends. I have no issue with Members who have been honest from the start about their wish to stop Brexit—especially when that represents the overwhelming view of their constituents—but there is an undercurrent that implies that unless Members unquestioningly accept the Government’s interpretation of Brexit, they are really trying to stop it. I find that insulting, I find it puerile, but, most seriously, I find it dangerous, because it says to people out there that we are insincere, that we are playing games, and that we are too wrapped up in our own egos to govern effectively. Some people say that the vote was for Parliament to take back control. That does not mean that MPs should always do what the Government want; in fact, it should mean that MPs are free to do the opposite.

We are in this mess because there was a division in the Tory party and a referendum was seen as the way to heal that division, but rather than bringing people together, it has pushed them further apart. The division has seeped out into the rest of the country, and political dialogue has become so polarised that many people with different views have stopped listening to one another. Of course, the irony is that many who voted leave and remain alike are opposed to this deal, but the reasons that they give are so diametrically opposed that any consensus will not last endure past what is now today.

A few of my constituents have said that I should support the Prime Minister’s deal, but if the best arguments are about what might happen if Members vote against something rather than giving positive reasons for them to vote in favour of it, it must be accepted that the offer cannot stand on its own two feet. I am not falling for the bluff of a no deal, and I refuse to be threatened by something that I know no responsible Prime Minister would allow.

We must restore trust, and the first step towards doing that is to be honest. We cannot pretend that this agreement is anything other than a desperate fudge, the embodiment of weak leadership, and a mish-mash of contradiction that needs radical revision if it is to be passed. It does nothing to address the fundamental issues that we need to address in order to create a society that works for us all. We must be candid and recognise that whatever route we take now, it will come at a cost. Some of the costs are easier to quantify than others, and none are certain. We will probably also need more time to sort ourselves out. However, it is up to us, here in Parliament, to show leadership and find a solution that brings people back together, protects our national interest, and restores faith in the democratic process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. This is incredibly important to get right. The reporting on the gender pay gap will be a vital tool in ensuring that we close it. I will be discussing it with the EHRC, which is the group that will follow up with enforcement. It is sufficiently funded to do exactly that, and I will be turning to it to ensure that this is handled properly.

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

T3. With reference to the BBC and the gender pay gap, I have been looking at the diversity and background of the senior management at the corporation. Unfortunately, they will not play ball and give me the information I need to judge how they are doing in terms of diversity and social mobility, so will the Minister have a word with them about this as well?

[Amber Rudd]

It looks as though I will have a few things to take forward with the BBC, and I look forward to coming back to set out what those conversations have revealed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. With permission, I would like to group questions 4 and 6, and I refer to the answer that I have just given.

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

6. What steps she is taking to ensure that women who were unable to pursue pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims due to the cost of employment tribunal fees are able to bring forward their cases.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Government’s research into maternity-related discrimination shows that one in nine mothers reports that they were either dismissed, made redundant or treated so badly that they had to leave their job. Following the Supreme Court case brought by Unison, the union I used to work for, what specific action are the Government taking to identify those who could have brought claims but did not because the Government acted unlawfully?

[Dominic Raab]

The Supreme Court judgment was clear on fees and we immediately stopped charging fees in response. We are putting in place the detailed arrangements to ensure that those who paid fees are refunded. We will shortly announce the practical detail that the hon. Gentleman is looking for. As I indicated a moment ago, those who could not apply to the tribunal because of the fee will now have the opportunity to do so.

[Justin Madders]

I understand that the Government are considering how to approach the system, but will the Minister rule out any type of up-front fee to access justice in employment tribunals in the future?

[Dominic Raab]

We are clear that we are accepting the Supreme Court judgment. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read the judgment, he will see that it makes clear that there can be, in principle, a place for fees in the justice system. We need to strike the right balance between taxpayers subsidising the justice system and those who benefit from it making a contribution, but only when they are able to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

14. What discussions he has had with businesses, trade bodies and industry representatives on the potential effects of WTO rules in the event that the Government do not secure free trade agreements with other countries after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)]

International Trade Ministers and officials regularly meet British businesses to discuss trade policy matters. These discussions have included our position in the WTO, work under way to avoid the loss of trade preferences that UK firms currently access via EU trade arrangements, and future trade negotiation priorities. The Department for Exiting the EU is also engaged fully with British businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

When we leave the European Union, it is the intention of the Department for International Trade to carry over the existing trade deals that we enjoy through our membership of the European Union. Countries such as Mexico, for example, have trade deals with the EU, and it is our intention to carry over such trade deals in the first instance in order to avoid any cliff edge.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister will be aware of statements made by the head of the PSA Group, following the takeover of Vauxhall-General Motors group, that when new models are awarded plants across Europe will be judged on their competitiveness. A 10% tariff on cars would have a huge impact on the competitiveness of the UK car industry, so what contingency plans do the Government have to ensure that the UK car industry remains competitive?

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this point; he speaks on behalf of his constituents in an area that manufactures these vehicles. It is the intention that the UK can achieve tariff-free, customs-free access to the single market. That benefits not only the UK car manufacturers that produce 1.9 million cars, but the European manufacturers that export to the UK.