Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Justin Madders
Tomorrow the TUC will officially launch its Bill on AI regulation and employment rights, which recognises that transparency, observability and explainability are all key elements of a fair and just workplace. What will the Government do to ensure that AI does not lead to a weakening of workers’ rights?
Michelle Donelan
We want to garnish the opportunities of AI for the British public, which include the comple- mentary aspect that it can pose for jobs, especially in teaching and medicine, by taking away some of the admin and bureaucracy. We are also very realistic that technology always changes labour market needs. In 1940, 60% of the jobs we now have did not exist. That is why we have undergone a revolution in our skills system, including the launch of the lifelong learning entitlement next year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Johnny Mercer
That is a good question and I cannot emphasise this point enough. Obviously, this is my responsibility as the veterans Minister, but it is also the nation’s duty to look after these people. We need local authorities to understand what is available to look after these people. We have armed forces champions in local authorities now and I want to see that role taken seriously. There are multiple pathways specifically for veterans through health, housing, employment and a number of other topics, but clearly it is incumbent on all of us in public life to understand what is available for veterans so that when we find one in need, they get the world-class help they deserve.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government’s “Cross-Government Fraud Landscape Annual Report 2022” includes data from the first year of the Government’s response to the pandemic. The report suggests that in 2020-21, Government Departments and arm’s length bodies reported a total of £124.6 million of detected procurement fraud. The same report showed that at the end of March 2021, some £88.2 million of fraud and error had been recovered within covid-19 schemes. Since then, crucially, further funds have been recovered and the Government will continue to update the House as fresh data becomes available.
Justin Madders
When people think back to the sacrifices they made during the pandemic, the greed associated with the personal protective equipment scandal really jars with them, so will the Minister commit to following the Labour party’s lead and appoint a covid corruption commissioner to chase down and claw back every penny of taxpayers’ money that was wasted?
Alex Burghart
This Government take PPE fraud extremely seriously. To remind the House of the figures, 1.8% of expenditure on PPE was lost to fraud at a time when there was the most extraordinary public crisis in several generations and we were competing in an extremely overheated international market. To date, we have recovered more than a quarter of that 1.8% and the fight to recover more continues. PPE procurement is subject to ongoing contract management controls, active dispute resolution and recovery action. The law is on our side and we are using it.
Oliver Dowden
The short answer is clearly no. Indeed, it really worries me that things have come to a state where the Labour party allegedly did not want to declare donations because of concerns about growing antisemitism. That is a very worrying allegation.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Oliver Dowden
The Government remain committed to ensuring value for the taxpayer across all projects. As the hon. Gentleman highlights, this is principally a matter for DLUHC.
Ministerial Severance: Reform
Justin Madders Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey
The hon. Member has raised a point about redundancy payments, and that is fundamentally what we are talking about. Severance pay is a redundancy payment, in that Ministers can be turfed out of office without any notice of termination and without any proper consultation. They have been given what would otherwise be called redundancy payments. I entirely agree that people have accepted those redundancy payments, just as Labour Ministers did when the Prime Minister changed from Blair to Brown, and just as Labour Ministers did when Labour went out of office in 2010.
Esther McVey
I will carry on for a little while longer. I want to talk about what the Opposition are doing today, which is, as I said at the outset, seizing the business of the day and trying to make this a case for emergency legislation, which it is not. So many emergencies confront the country and the world, and it is striking that of all those emergencies—it could be the middle east, it could be Ukraine, it could be illegal migration—the Opposition deem this to be the most important. We know why that is: it is because they have no plan to deal with any of those big issues of the day. They do not know what to say, they do not have a clue, and they change their minds, flip-flippity-flop, all the time, so they have been reduced to talking about this issue.
Given the importance that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury attaches to the issue—wanting to seize the business of the day, wanting to push through emergency legislation—can she confirm that this will be the first piece of legislation that any new Labour Government would introduce?
Esther McVey
From a sedentary position, I get £1 million quoted at me. I remember, although maybe the right hon. Lady does not, that it was over £1 million in 2010 when Labour lost office, and that is quite a long time ago.
It is for these reasons that the Government do not currently intend to reform severance pay for departing Ministers, although I am happy to review it, as I mentioned earlier. The current system respects the essential constitutional principle that Ministers serve at the discretion of the Prime Minister and that it is right to provide some protections associated with the loss of ministerial office. The principle has applied, as I said, to all Governments since the Act was passed in 1991, and we need to be careful not to change policy on the basis of exceptions that will occasionally occur under Governments of all forms.
Justin Madders
If the Minister is going to review the system, can she guarantee that it will be reviewed and implemented before the next general election?
Esther McVey
I am sad to say no I cannot, because we have said that it is essential that there is due process on the Floor of this House—not like the Opposition, who want to whisk it through in a day.
We are completely transparent about the payments of severance, and all such payments are published in departmental annual reports.
Sir Michael Ellis
When one has a system in law, whether it was created 10 years ago, 30 years ago or 100 years ago, it must apply to all. If the system falls out of favour, it can be reviewed, but the example that the hon. Member has criticised is of someone who served in a role and was entitled to take a severance payment. As he himself alluded to, people in the last Labour Government received these payments; in fact, they received payments that were statistically more generous than has been the case under this Government—some £1.6 million in real terms in today’s prices. As has already been said, none of the four Labour leadership candidates in 2010 returned their severance pay; I think they were under some pressure to do so at the time, but declined. When Ministers have no contract, no notice period and no consultation or redundancy arrangements, and can be removed without cause, it is right that that is differentiated from what happens elsewhere, because there is an increased risk.
Justin Madders
The right hon. and learned Member makes an interesting point, but if working conditions are so poor, may I suggest that he joins a trade union?
Sir Michael Ellis
How does the hon. Member know that I am not already a member of a trade union? Actually, I am not, but he did not know that.
Let us talk about trade unions, because this motion is rather alien to the concept of what I understand trade union organisations work to do—indeed, I think they would be appalled by the motion. By the way, as a lawyer, I have always considered that trade union organisations are very robust in defending their own members and their legal rights. They are very robust, and they throw the kitchen sink at it, with the best-quality lawyers and the best-quality legal advice, if they think the case is appropriate. That is how they represent their members, and I think they would be appalled by this motion, because they would say that it is contrary to the ethos of how trade unions work.
If we look at trade unions, we see that they used to support Labour—they still do—in the 1890s and 1900s, when Parliament did not pay salaries to MPs. It was because of trade unions that early Labour Members of Parliament—and before that Liberal MPs—could afford to be here at all. In those days, prior to 1911, if I am not mistaken, Members of Parliament were not paid at all. When they started to be paid in 1911, they were paid £400 a year, at a time when the average salary in this country was £70 a year. Labour argued that it was right and proper that those salaries should be started, because then everyone could afford to become a Member of Parliament. However, what we have to remember—and I encourage those on the Labour Front Bench to remember it—is that that argument is inconsistent with today’s argument, because what they would be arguing for is that only wealthy people would consider becoming Ministers.
Labour Ministers were earning double what Ministers have earned under the Conservative Government since 2010, because my noble Friend Lord Cameron froze ministerial salaries. They have stayed frozen since the 2010 Parliament, which has had a major impact. It is also worth noting that Labour Select Committee Chairmen and Chairwomen and senior Labour MPs on the Panel of Chairs have taken salary increases during the course of these Parliaments. I would suggest that is also inconsistent with the thrust of the argument of those on the Labour Front Bench, because if they think it is too much for one, they should say it is too much for all.
I think there are some significant inconsistencies, and we must bear in mind that we have to serve the public in the best way we can, which means encouraging people to come to this place to serve and to do their duty. I think that Ministers of the Crown—and, in fact, Members of Parliament from across the political divide—do come here with a view to doing that, and that is why I disagree with the motion.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
If damaging the economy and people’s living standards, as well as degrading our health service, councils and other public services, were not enough, this Government have also enriched themselves and cost the taxpayer close to £1 million as a result of their sheer incompetence and infighting. We have found out that Ministers—some of whom were in post for only a matter of weeks, faced serious accusations or were ineligible through age—have received handsome sums of taxpayers’ money.
The question on my lips, and no doubt the lips of many of our constituents, is: why are Ministers given such special treatment? Just one day in post as a Cabinet Minister entitles an individual to £16,876 as a severance payment. For one day in the job for a Minister of State, it is £7,920. One day as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gets them £5,594. These are vast sums of taxpayers’ money available only to a select few, and they come with absolutely no caveats for performance, conduct or length of service.
We do not disagree with the principle of loss of office payments to Ministers; like all workers, they should be entitled to some form of payment in the event of suddenly losing their job and income through no fault of their own. However, I suspect many of my constituents will not have much sympathy for that, given that those in such a position will still have their MP’s salary to fall back on, and we know that some Members have other sources of income. Those salaries are well in excess of what most of our constituents earn. Being a Minister is not easy, I am sure, but that should not distract from the fundamental issue that the treatment given to those in governmental positions is completely different from that given to the wider public—even the members of the public working in the very same Departments that those Ministers serve.
Kevin Brennan
One person who cannot fall back on their MP’s salary is Peter Bone, who was the Deputy Leader of the House for 81 days and received a redundancy payment, even though he is over 65, of £5,593. He is no longer the MP for Wellingborough, but should we not be told whether he has paid the money back, not least because there is to be a by-election in that constituency in a few days’ time?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very good point. I am sure Peter Bone’s former constituents, many of whom will have had calls from the Department for Work and Pensions when benefits overpayments were made and they had to pay them back, will expect him to have done exactly the same as they had to do. It is clearly a matter of public interest.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend agree that people who have £1,000 to make a bet—on anything—may be a bit out of touch with how most people live their lives in this day and age?
Justin Madders
Yes, anyone who can afford to wager that sort of sum on anything, never mind a matter as important as national public policy, does not experience the lives most of our constituents live.
In the 2022-23 financial year, four Ministers left office after facing allegations of misconduct or for breaching the ministerial code. Two received the full severance payment, one selected a reduced payout, and another turned it down altogether, but regardless of the circumstances of their dismissal, they were entitled to those payments as a right. All those forced out of their position while facing allegations of misconduct or falling below expected standards were entitled to payments totalling tens of thousands of pounds. That only half of them took the money is immaterial; what is at issue is the principle that those individuals had an entitlement that no one outside Government has access to.
In any other workplace, an employee against whom gross misconduct allegations are upheld would surely expect to be dismissed immediately without pay. Likewise, if they had been found to have acted in a way that was below the standards expected of them, they would be liable to dismissal with no automatic right to compensation. In the real world, the only protection offered to an employee who has been dismissed for reasons other than gross misconduct is a statutory notice period, which that employee still has to work—unlike Ministers, who do not have to work a notice period—and the notice period is just one week until an employee has two years’ service. In stark contrast, Ministers have, from day one, minute one, an automatic entitlement on dismissal to a quarter of their salary without even having to work any notice period. Those are day one rights that most people can only dream of having.
The evidence is clear when we look at the eyewatering sums Ministers have gobbled up, in some cases qualifying for them after only a matter of weeks’ service. Our analysis finds that a total of 57 Ministers were in post for less than three months before taking their ministerial severance payment. To put it another way, they were able to cash in on their party’s chaos and receive more money in severance pay than they earned doing the job in the first place. I will say that again, because I find it absolutely staggering: 57 Ministers got paid more for leaving the job than they were paid for doing it. That sums up what a shambles the last few years have been.
The story does not end there though. There are now nine former Ministers who spent a grand total of just 37 days as a Minister in their whole career, all within that disastrous 44-day lettuce premiership, which we are still feeling the effects of. When they were effectively sacked by the current Prime Minister, they were all allowed to pocket £5,593—not far off three times the amount they earned actually doing the job. A Government who hit the pockets of millions of Britons with their unfunded tax cuts also hit the public purse with these giveaways.
In the real world, thanks to this Government’s lack of regard for workers’ rights, an employee has to be in a job for two years before they get any kind of compensation. That is an outrageously long period. In addition, for ordinary people, after two full years of continuous service, the redundancy payment is modest compared with what Ministers can expect. Depending on the age of the individual, between eight and 12 years of continuous service are required to entitle them to 12 weeks’ redundancy pay, which is the equivalent of what Ministers are entitled to no matter how long they have served. It is galling that Ministers who had served for a matter of weeks were able to claim a level of payment that it would take those relying on statutory protections up to 12 years to accrue—and let us not forget that if this is someone’s only wage, the commitments made on the back of it are likely to be substantial, which means that the sense of jeopardy if things go wrong is palpable and the consequences of failure are real. The deal offered to Ministers who are effectively made redundant has none of those strings attached.
I think it abundantly clear that the generosity of the 1991 Act has been tested beyond breaking point over the course of the past two years. I cannot believe that when the Major Government introduced the Act, they ever thought we would have such a rapid turnover of Ministers—it is hardly a basis for good government—but, as we know, many conventions have been tested to the limit in recent years.
At the time of its introduction, the condition in the rules that outgoing Ministers can only receive the payment if they do not return to the Government within three weeks was probably seen as an extremely unlikely scenario—after all, ministerial appointments are not meant to be a carousel—but we now know that 20 Ministers decided to take, and keep, their severance payments despite finding themselves returning to a Government role within three months of their initial departure, and some returned even more quickly than that. It just shows how much the Tories love fire and rehire, although in the real world the worker does not become thousands of pounds better off as a result. Perhaps Ministers think that everyone gets thousands of pounds for no reason when fire and rehire happens to ordinary people. That, I think, is the only possible explanation of why they allow that outrageous practice to continue.
This money merry-go-round is self-evidently against the spirit of the “loss of office” system and the original Act. The severance payment is designed to help an individual to make the financial transition after being in the Government, not to be effectively a bonus for Ministers who are temporarily out of the fray. Those who drew up the rules simply could not have foreseen the level of chaos to which the Government have subjected us. It is hard to escape the feeling that there is a profound injustice in the system and the way in which it was exploited in 2022. Nearly £1 million of public money was handed out in the form of severance payments during that year, a figure which, had the reforms that we are proposing today been in place, would have been reduced by 40% to just over £550,000.
I return to the question “What makes a Minister so special?” Are a couple of weeks of being a Minister equivalent to the eight or even 12 years’ service that our constituents would have to give to receive the same level of payment? I think we can all agree that that should not be the case. This is not just about levelling down Ministers’ payments; it is about improving workers’ rights, and our new deal for working people will transform working conditions for everyone in the country.
I want to make a point, which I think is important, about the lack of transparency surrounding these payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has already mentioned the payment to the former Member of Parliament for Wellingborough. I accept that this has been the case for many years, but we only find out what payments have been made by a particular Department when it publishes its annual report for the preceding financial year, which Departments are not required to do until 31 January in the subsequent financial year. Anyone who has recently filed a self-assessment tax return will note that the annual reports work on exactly the same timetable. By 31 January, people must report on what their financial situation was at the end of March in the previous year—although I suspect that Departments do not experience the frustration experienced by my constituents who wait for hours on end to speak to someone at the end of the HMRC helpline.
The reason it is only today that we are debating the final severance bill of £933,000 is that we only learned about the final group of payments last week, when the Department of Health and Social Care published its report adding another £41,000 to the total. However, this also means that we are eight weeks away from the end of the 2023-24 financial year, and we do not yet know whether a single severance payment has been claimed by any of the Ministers who left their jobs in that year.
We know that several Cabinet Ministers have had to resign in disgrace or have been sacked, but we do not know whether their bad behaviour was rewarded in the same way as other Ministers’ actions. What we do know is that the last reshuffle, in November 2023, created a theoretical severance entitlement of £112,000, although we do not know how much of that was claimed or by whom—and here is the crucial point: as things stand, we are not entitled under law to be told any of the answers to those questions until 31 January 2025, which is, of course, beyond the final date by which a general election must be held. In other words, a number of former Ministers will be standing for re-election but taxpayers will not have the right to know what severance payments they received over the previous year. If we cannot even have transparency, we ought to at least have some reform.
The frequency of reshuffles over the past few years has taken the idea of Government instability to a new level—a level that frankly makes a mockery of us all—and when that absurdity not only has no negative consequences for those in charge but sees them rewarded for their misdemeanours, it is little wonder that so many members of the public look at this place and think it is inhabited by people who are totally out of touch with reality. A Minister losing their job has none of the risk attached to it that many of our constituents face every day, including the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be given enough hours next week to put food on the table because they are on a zero-hours contract, the risk that because they are in bogus self-employment they have no comeback if they have a dispute with the company, and the fact that they have to be in a job for two years before they get any protection against unfair dismissal.
Precariousness, risk and uncertainty are the defining characteristics of work for too many, but the defining characteristic of Ministers’ jobs is reward, and this reward comes whatever the length of service and whatever the reason for their departure. That is why so many of my constituents feel that there is one rule for the elite and another for everyone else. We know that in most workplaces if you break the rules you are out, with no compensation. Here, if you break the rules, you might be out, but you might be back again a few weeks later, but either way you still win because you can expect a handsome payoff, no matter the reason for your departure. We have a Government who are literally rewarding bad behaviour. It is no wonder so many people look at this place and think politicians have no understanding of how the real world works. It is about time we refreshed the way we do politics and put the service of the public ahead of the service of ourselves.
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
As the Prime Minister set out when he first entered Downing Street, this Government will uphold the highest standards of integrity and propriety. In July we announced a wide- ranging programme of reform, acting on recommendations from Nigel Boardman, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration Committee.
Oliver Dowden
The people of Mid Bedfordshire deserve a hard-working Member of Parliament who lives and works in the constituency, and in Festus they will find exactly that. I have every confidence that they will return him to this House in the by-election next month.
Justin Madders
At the conclusion of Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made a point of order, picking up on a statement made by the Prime Minister that she described as “categorically untrue”. This is about the sixth or seventh time this year that we have had to make such points of order about the Prime Minister. How can we have any confidence that we are going to get high standards in public life if this keeps happening?
Oliver Dowden
That is simply not the case. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the exchange, he would have heard that the Prime Minister answered comprehensively every question raised by the Leader of the Opposition and demonstrated a far greater understanding of the detail of this than that demonstrated by his opposite number.
Automotive Industry
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Ghani
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the rules of origin tariff. That is why we are working hard and negotiating with the EU, and working with our partner representative groups within the EU, so that they can be lobby as well. This is not just an issue in the UK. This is a European issue too, and we are making sure that those voices are heard loud and clear with our partners across Europe.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I have a specific question for clarity: have the Government formally requested a reopening of the rules of origin for 2024?
Ms Ghani
The Government are working hard to share the challenges that will be faced by all manufacturers in Europe, not just the UK, when it comes to importing and exporting vehicles. This is not just a UK issue, and it is important that not just we but our counterparts in Europe make these arguments loud and clear to the EU. I recently met SMMT and asked that its sister bodies do the same where they reside in European countries, to ensure that those arguments are heard loud and clear.
As I said, there is huge diversity of companies within the supply chain and manufacturing of all automotive vehicles, and the UK has a full automotive eco-system across the UK. The sector is here because it recognises the UK’s unique strengths. Our engineers are world class—it is not for nothing that six out of a total of 10 Formula 1 teams are based in the UK. More broadly, the sector recognises that this Government have its back. We want to use innovation, skills and a competitive business environment to ensure that the UK automotive sector can thrive.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Speaker’s agreement, and that of the Whips, to my speaking in today’s debate.
If anybody does not know it yet, Ellesmere Port, which I am proud to represent, is synonymous with Vauxhall Motors. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) will say that Luton is equally synonymous. I put on the record my gratitude for their support, and that of their predecessors, when we faced similar battles to keep our plants open. We have heard already that we all have to succeed if the UK car industry is to succeed. I will show my solidarity with them to keep this important sector going. They will recognise the pride that we all have in being such a major part of the UK car sector.
Generations of my constituents, though not as many generations as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North and for Luton South, have worked in the Vauxhall Motors plant since it first opened in around 1960. When I drive away from my house in my constituency in my Vauxhall Astra, I go past many houses that have Vauxhall workers in them, or Vauxhall pensioners, or people who have had family and friends who work at Vauxhall. That is just before I get to the end of my street. It is a long street, but I think that it is symbolic of the fact that every part and corner of my town has a link to the factory. Indeed, as the town grew the plant grew, from the 1960s onwards. Although it does not employ anything like the 12,000 people that it did at its height, it is still a substantial employer in the town. That of course does not take into account the many people employed in the supply chain and associated industries; neither does it account for the great potential that we have for greater numbers if the new van, which is coming soon, proves to be the success that we hope that it will be.
The parent company may now be called Stellantis, and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North and for Luton South and I are now “the Stellantis three”, but Vauxhall Motors is the name that gives us pride in our community. It is something that we all recognise. The jobs that Vauxhall Motors, or Stellantis, provides are the sort that I want our future success to be built on: highly skilled, unionised, permanent jobs, manufacturing something that is a matter of national and local pride. When the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), spoke about his pride in the Nissan plant in Sunderland, those words really resonated with me. Those of us who have big local manufacturers take great pride in what they have done for our communities, and indeed the wider economy.
As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, the plant has regular fights for survival, and I am proud that alongside many others I have played my part to ensure that it is still there, but it does not get any easier. Every five years or so, when the next model is discussed, plants across Europe are effectively pitted against each other to bid for the next job. The productivity of the local workforce and their co-operation with Unite the union, which for the record I am a proud member of, work extremely well. They show tremendous leadership to work with management. In the past, that has put us in the best possible position to secure future work. The partnership between the trade union and management is a real exemplar of how employee relations can be conducted for the benefit of everyone.
The local authority, and indeed central Government, have played their part too, both in recent years and in the previous decade, with initiatives such as the car scrappage scheme and the Automotive Council, which helps not just Vauxhall Motors but the entire sector more generally. Before the new van rolls off the production line for the first time, which I hope will be shortly, the challenge to secure the next model has already begun. That challenge has many similarities with the obstacles that the entire sector needs to overcome, as we have heard about.
I am confident that our workers and management locally will be able to show that they are competitive compared with other plants, but will that be enough if they face a 10% surcharge on their exported products, as it looks as if they may be facing from next year? I think that we all know that expecting any business to remain competitive if it has an additional 10% cost added to it is unrealistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South mentioned, for vans the tariff could go up to 22%. The clear warning signs are there that we need to do something dramatic to avoid that cliff edge.
There are six months to go before we get to that point, which shows that we are in the danger zone. As has been mentioned, the Government had years to address this issue. They either need to renegotiate the deal to get rid of the tariffs or get enough battery plants on the ground so that tariffs do not matter any more. Unfortunately, neither of those things has happened. When the EU is pumping billions into manufacturing as part of its green industrial plan, and the US is investing trillions as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the inaction in the UK becomes negligence. If we want the UK to be a clean energy superpower by 2030, and to avoid falling off a cliff edge before then, we need a much more interventionist Government who will help the automotive sector to make this important transition. Gigafactories, charging infrastructure and reshoring the supply chain will not happen by magic, especially when the US and EU are actively pursuing that for their own industries.
Look at the evidence given to the Business and Trade Committee about the challenges that we face. These are some of the quotes given to the Committee on the matter recently:
“At the moment, the UK does not have a strategy. It does not have a runner in this race…Capital is far more incentivised to go to the US.”
Right now there is no comparison with what is on offer with the Inflation Reduction Act, and what is on offer in Europe. That is unfortunate, but it is the reality of where we are. The problem is that when other nations are putting in massive amounts, not putting in that level of cash makes us uncompetitive. It is difficult for shareholders to make a positive decision if we are not putting the same amounts on the table. That is what the industry has been very clearly telling us.
We know, as we have heard already, that we need at least eight or possibly nine gigafactories to make the UK car industry viable, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, we may have half a gigafactory coming on stream, or maybe two at best, if we are lucky. He told us in some detail about the struggles to get that gigafactory up and running in his constituency, and that should tell us that this needs full attention. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has been actively campaigning to get a gigafactory site in his constituency capable of serving not only Vauxhall Motors but probably also JLR and some other factories in the region.
I am pleased to say that our request to meet the Minister was granted, just before this debate in fact—what a great coincidence that was—because we think there needs to be recognition that there is a lot of chicken and egg in this situation. If we do not have the gigafactories, we will not have the car plants; if we do not have the car plants, we will not have the gigafactories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, we all have to succeed in this. It cannot be just one or two plants. For the future to work in this sector, we all have to succeed.
Let us get more of these gigafactories up and running, with spades on the ground in the next 12 months, before we get the point where the sector decides that there just will not be the capacity to move forward with a viable UK car industry. As we know from many other industries, once it is gone, it is gone. As the Faraday Institution has said, we need a “timely and co-ordinated effort” to attract more gigafactories to the UK. We need to develop a resilient, sustainable and efficient supply chain and build up skills capabilities. That takes leadership, and it is about time we saw some from the Government.
We definitely need a strategy, and one that is interventionist in its outlook. When people decry the £28 billion a year that my party is committed to spending on greening the economy, I have to say to them, just look at what a fraction of that could do for the car industry. I believe it could be money well spent.
However, we can also do other things better. We need to make better use of the taxpayer pound that we already spend, and the most cursory look around the fleets in most other countries shows that we stand almost alone in failing to recognise the importance of social value as part of our procurement process. In France, the police drive Citroëns, Renaults and Peugeots produced in French factories. In Germany, they drive Mercedes, BMWs and Volkswagens. In Spain they drive Seat vehicles; in Sweden, it is Saabs and Volvos and in Italy they drive Alfa Romeos, Fiats and even sometimes Lamborghinis.
All those countries are governed by the same directive as we used to be, yet they all seem to be able to procure vehicles in the way that supports their own industry. We are no longer part of the EU, so we have no excuse now, and I ask myself what is stopping us being able to make use of public sector procurement powers to support our automotive sector. I ask myself why police officers in Cheshire are using vehicles made thousands of miles away when they could be in vehicles made just down the road at Vauxhall Motors. It does not have to be that way. The automotive sector has had more than its fair share of challenges due to Brexit, as we have heard, but let us use some of those so-called new-found freedoms to bring us some benefits as well.
A proper strategy on charging points is needed, but, just as with the overall industrial strategy, there is a mistaken belief that things should just be left to the market. In consumers’ minds there is now hesitancy about moving over to EVs and making a huge financial commitment at a time of cost of living crisis. The initial cost and inconvenience of running an electric vehicle is at the forefront of their considerations. Brand-new electric vehicles are far more expensive than second-hand traditional vehicles and, while electric vehicles are becoming a greater proportion of new sales, I am concerned that we will face a natural ceiling on them before too long.
As technologies progress and electric vehicles become more numerous on the roads, focus has turned to the availability and practicality of owning one. Concerns have arisen around access to and the cost of on-street charging. Given that around one third of UK homes do not have access to off-street parking, whether a driveway or a garage, we need a more effective way to public charging before we reach 2030. There is also a profound unfairness in the fact that those whose properties lack driveways pay four times as much in VAT as those who can use domestic supplies of electricity.
The Government’s commitment to building 300,000 new charging points is to be welcomed, but between 2017 and 2022 only 1,603 were installed, and almost 75% of those were located in the west midlands, the south-east and London. The north-west received only 0.7% of the total installed. London now possesses 100% of the charging points required by 2025, yet every other region in the country is lacking. According to analysis by Transport & Environment, most of the UK’s regions possess less than 50% of the estimated charging capacity required by 2025. In regions such as my own in the north-west, the north-east, the south-west and Northern Ireland, it is only around 30% of the capacity required. My local authority, Cheshire West and Chester, has only 28% of the chargers required by 2025—a stark comparison with wealthy London boroughs such as Westminster, which already has 358% of the chargers it needs.
That is not a good record for a Government who stood on a platform of levelling up the country—there appears to be no strategy to deal with those regional disparities. I am not sure that the Government even recognise that they exist. There is a huge opportunity for so-called “left behind” towns to receive some central investment for major charging points, so that those who cannot access private sources of electricity can come in to their town centre, charge their car and rejuvenate their town centre at the same time. There is a real opportunity there, but it will not happen by chance; it needs Government action.
When the Government’s report on charging infrastructure acknowledges that the process is arduous, we have to ask what they are going to do to change it. The report states:
“Installing and operating chargepoints requires several parties across the energy sector, local government and the transport sector to work together effectively.”
But where does the responsibility for that ultimately lie? That is the endgame for the whole automotive sector.
Someone has to step up to the plate and say, “Yes, this jewel in the crown of our manufacturing sector is going to be supported and supported properly, because we recognise that for our constituents, for our economy and for our environment, the car industry in the UK will only survive if there is the political will, backed up by a properly funded strategy, to make sure that it actually happens.” If the Conservative party will not do that, it should make way for one that will.
Covid 19 Inquiry: Judicial Review
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Lady will recall that there were a series of UK Government schemes right across the United Kingdom to support people through a very difficult time. I believe that there is a covid inquiry ongoing in the Welsh Government as well, and we will all have lessons to learn. I take her point that she wants this done in a timely and swift manner. So do the Government, which is why I am delighted that the judicial review will, it appears, be heard soon. As I have said, I hope and believe that it should not stymie the work of the inquiry over the next few weeks, as we will continue to deliver documents to ensure that the work can continue.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister has dressed this up in a lot of legal language, but in essence it is a nakedly political decision to operate in this way. I wonder why, when the principle of the inquiry deciding what is relevant is well established and Baroness Hallett was appointed to the inquiry 18 months ago, this issue has arisen only now? The Minister will be aware that it raises huge concerns about what is going on here. If he has total confidence in Baroness Hallett, as he appears to do, he should be confident that when he hands over documents that he considers completely irrelevant, she will come to the same conclusion, no one will ever see them and there will be no embarrassment to the Government. What is the problem with that approach?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Do I trust inquiries to keep information confidential? We have to do that; they are serious people undertaking serious work—I assume there are 70, 80 or even more of them, and I am sure they will take their responsibilities extremely seriously. However, he must consider what the impact might be on communications and on people discussing issues if they have that cloud hanging over them that any material related or unrelated to a particular inquiry could be required by it. That might even cloud the consideration of Governments in the future about the use of inquiries under the 2005 Act—I do not know. There are genuine long-term ramifications that need to be considered. It is quite a narrow point of law, but it might have wider considerations. Therefore, it is wise to get that narrow point of law satisfied by the courts, and we respect the courts’ judgments.
UK Car Industry
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a statement on the future of the UK car industry.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The automotive industry is vital. It is a vital part of the UK economy and it is integral to delivering on levelling up, net zero and advancing global Britain. After a challenging period where covid and global supply chain shortages have impacted the international automotive industry, the UK sector is bouncing back. Production is increasing, and in 2022 the UK’s best-selling car was the Nissan Qashqai, built in Sunderland.
The automotive industry has a long and proud history in the UK. We are determined to build on our heritage and secure international investment in the technologies of the future, to position the UK as one of the best locations in the world in which to manufacture electric vehicles. We are leveraging investment from industry by providing Government support for new plants and upgrades to ensure that the automotive industry thrives into the future. Companies continue to show confidence in the UK, announcing major investments across the country, including £1 billion from Nissan and Envision to create an electric vehicle manufacturing hub in Sunderland; £100 million from Stellantis for the site in Ellesmere Port; and £380 million from Ford to make Halewood its first EV components site in Europe.
We will continue to work through our automotive transformation fund to build a global, competitive EV supply chain in the UK, boosting home-grown EV battery production, levelling up and advancing towards a greener future.
Justin Madders
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for her response.
The warnings from Stellantis overnight are deeply concerning, not just for my constituents who work at Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port, but for the automotive sector more widely. She will know of the huge efforts put in over recent years to secure the future of the plant and to move to electric vehicle production; significant contributions have been made from the management, the workforce, the local authority and the Government themselves. So it is beyond frustrating that just a couple of years later we find ourselves once again in a position where there is a threat to my constituents’ livelihoods.
We know what needs to be done to secure jobs in Ellesmere Port and in the wider automotive sector, because the sector has been telling the Government, as have we, that there needs to be a proper industrial strategy. So where is that strategy? Indeed, where is the Secretary of State? The EU is pumping billions into manufacturing as part of its green industrial plan, the US is investing trillions with the Inflation Reduction Act and we are being left behind. Every day this Government sit on their hands, that mountain to climb gets a little higher.
So we need urgent action, but I am afraid that all I have heard this morning is complacency. We need those gigafactories with spades in the ground this year, because we know the timescales that the industry invests across are long and it needs to see progress now. So will the Minister tell us what steps the Government are actively taking to increase the proportion of vehicle parts manufactured in the UK? We need to make sure our trading relationship with the EU is updated to reflect the global supply chain difficulties that all manufacturing industry is facing. So does she plan to make a formal request to reopen negotiations with the EU on the trade and co-operation agreement? It has been made repeatedly clear that without changes to the future trading arrangements, and without a proper industrial strategy, the UK car industry is at risk. What assurances can she give to my constituents that their futures matter to this Government? The UK car sector is the jewel in the crown of our manufacturing industry. If we lose it, it will not be coming back. So please, Minister, take action now.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman will know, when I respond to this question, just how seriously I take the sector, as he does—he and I have worked on this previously. I agree that the automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy and I will go on to explain all the work we are doing there; if we add it all up, it is more or less a very strategic strategy. We know that it is integral to delivering on our levelling-up agenda, which is why it matters to so many constituents and why there are so many MPs in the Chamber today. We know that it matters to net zero and to advancing Global Britain. We also know how important this is to Members of Parliament because of the number of people who work in the sector.
The automotive industry employs around 166,000 people and includes major manufacturers, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Toyota and BMW. We are leveraging investment from industry by providing support for new plants and upgrades to ensure that the UK automotive industry continues to thrive into the future. This includes Nissan’s £1 billion north-east electric vehicle hub, Ford’s £380 million investment in Halewood to make electric drive units, and Stellantis’s £100 million investment in Ellesmere Port for EV van production.
We work closely with the sector through the joint Government and industry-led Automotive Council, of which I am the co-chair, which discusses opportunities for growth, competitiveness and future opportunities. We also meet regularly with individual long-standing and new automotive companies to discuss a range of issues, including future investments.
On Government support, the Government and industry have jointly committed approximately £1.4 billion in innovative projects through the Advanced Propulsion Centre to accelerate the development and commercialisation of strategically important vehicle technologies, strengthening our competitive edge internationally. We also work on the automotive transformation fund, which puts the UK at the forefront of transition to zero-emission vehicles.
Of course, I must not forget the Faraday battery challenge, which, with an overall budget of £541 million since 2017, worked to establish the UK as a battery science superpower. This is what keeps us at the forefront as we try to adapt and use a new technology.
I wish to put it on the record that there are regular reviews of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that responsibility sits with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and is not something that I can respond to on its behalf. However, I can provide assurances—[Interruption.] I am just about to do so, if Members will allow me to continue. I can provide assurances that I and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Secretary have raised these issues with our colleagues across Government and have had productive conversations with our counterparts in the European Union. We are aware of the concerns of UK and EU car makers about the challenges and, of course, we continue to make strong representations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Lady will know, we continue to make considerable progress on all the actions set out in that framework. She is right to highlight the challenges that we face in some resilience areas, particularly in relation to cyber-resilience. That is why I am conducting a programme to step up our cyber-resilience, for example by creating a new agency to ensure that we are across the cyber-resilience of all Government Departments and annually appraise them of it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
The Cabinet Office has drawn up guidance to help protect civil service values. Taxpayers’ money should not unwittingly be used to pay for speakers linked to abhorrent organisations or individuals who promote hate or discriminatory beliefs, which could bring the civil service into disrepute. We do not hold a central record of speakers identified as unsuitable, but as the guidance has been described to me as “codified common sense”, I trust that the number will be very few.
Justin Madders
Well, if the guidance is common sense, the Minister will have no problem with publishing it, will he? At the moment, there is Government guidance to ban people from speaking at Government events, but we have not seen it. We do not know who is on that list, and we do not even know if the people on the list have been told that they appear on it. That is more like North Korea, is it not?
Jeremy Quin
I have nothing to hide. If the hon. Gentleman would like it published, I will publish it. It is internal guidance, and it therefore tends to be internal, but I will lay a copy in the Library. He is a sensible person and will appreciate that there are certain abhorrent organisations that we should not pay or give a platform to and cause embarrassment to our civil service or our country. But I will publish the guidance.
Future of the UK Constitution and Devolution
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Fovargue. I thank the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for his detailed introduction, much of which I agree with.
Like many hon. Members, I am a passionate advocate for devolution, because I am also a passionate advocate for democracy. When I see surveys that tell us that more than 50% of adults believe it does not matter who they vote for as nothing will ever change, and over 60% of people believe that Britain has a ruling class that will always rule the country, no matter what, then the message to me is very clear: something needs to change.
Democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted. We can protect our democracy by ensuring decision making is brought closer to people, so they have greater confidence in the decisions that are being taken on their behalf. We can do better than making areas jump through multiple hoops, at the cost of great time and expense, to take part in a competitive bidding process that is often neither fair nor transparent, the terms of which are often ultimately dictated by the centre. Genuine devolution is about empowering local communities to choose their priorities.
Speaking as a former council leader, and sitting next to another former council leader, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), it seems there is a certain level of distrust and snobbishness about the ability of our local leaders to be granted additional levels of power and resources. As we know, the biggest prizes on offer always seem to come with the precondition of an elected Mayor. I believe our local councils have proved themselves more than capable of working together, particularly through the pandemic, when there were multiple examples of cross-border working on a subregional basis.
My constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston is governed by Cheshire West and Chester Council, which along with Cheshire East Council and Warrington Borough Council forms part of the Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership. It is not a metropolitan area or a city region. It does not have a single urban centre, but is made up of several large towns, one city and a considerable number of smaller towns and villages. It does not really have an established identity. It is not a defined place, as such, and it is made up of separate areas of economic activity.
In my part of the world, we look towards north Wales and Merseyside as much as we look across Cheshire. That is significant because although a case can be made for a single figurehead for a city or city region, it should be recognised that non-metropolitan areas have significantly different sets of circumstances. Be in no doubt, I warmly welcome the opportunities any devolution deal will bring to my area, but I am not convinced we need a Mayor to deliver that.
I genuinely hope there is a real opportunity to improve our area and that that is not lost because of Government intransigence over the governance arrangements. If it is the Government’s position that there has to be a Mayor, then the biggest opportunities for devolution are denied to us. I do not believe that we should forgive such a petulant and inflexible approach; I suspect the public we represent will not forgive such an approach either.
Genuine devolution is not about telling areas what governance they must have, creating extra layers of bureaucracy or dictation from the centre. As we know, in this country power and wealth flow towards London and the south-east, then upwards into Westminster. Any power and resources that are given away usually go on Westminster’s terms, with Westminster’s priorities at the forefront. I believe that is the wrong approach. For too long people have felt left behind and held back by a system that does not work for them.
People already feel they do not have the power to take important decisions about the things in their lives that are most important to them, whether it is a local hospital that should stay open, where a new school might go or even how often the buses run. To empower local areas, we need a different, long-term approach that actually attempts to tackle the underlying issues and to really empower local communities by giving them the responsibility, power and resources to shape their own futures by—dare I say it—allowing them to take back control.
My plea to the Minister is to meet us and give us the keys to unlock the potential for our area. I have been in this place for nearly eight years, and throughout that time we have heard many times how the Government are prepared to allow greater devolution in Cheshire, but we always get left behind. We are seeking devolved powers, particularly in transport—on buses, for example. As we know, we are currently at the mercy of bus companies pulling out services at a moment’s notice. We also want to improve economic regeneration and get more housing in the right areas to meet the local housing need.
There is a well-developed plan, which has been on the shelf for many years now, and we just want the opportunity to deliver it. Leave preconditions about mayors who do not have local support at the door and, instead, talk to us about what more we can do to improve the lives of the people we represent. Do not dictate to us; liberate us. That is what genuine devolution is all about.
House of Lords Reform
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing the debate. As a democrat, it is one that I welcome. I believe that those who are responsible for our laws should have democratic legitimacy. If they do not, our politics, which already struggles to hold the confidence of many members of the public, will continue to ebb away. Of course, it is not entirely correct that no Member of the Lords has a democratic mandate. Last year, there were half a dozen by-elections to replace hereditary peers. As we know, it is a very selective electorate, with only other hereditary peers able to vote. The last election saw a grand total of 37 votes cast. I suggest that anyone who believes that that should be the limit of our ambitions for democracy in the House of Lords should aim a little higher.
As has been reflected on, many Members of the House of Lords do make excellent contributions, but some are, sadly, a little less assiduous. We know that an average of only between a half and two thirds of the Members of the upper House actually attend, and many Members have not spoken or voted in a considerable time.
Margaret Ferrier
The House of Lords currently has a huge number of peers—over 800. Does the hon. Member agree that reducing that number could be one aspect of initial reform, along with looking at ways to increase the diversity of the membership of the other House, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), said.
Justin Madders
I believe that it was Government policy not so long ago to reduce the membership of the Lords. I am not sure that that has been kept on track—like many Government policies.
Many Members do not speak or attend at all, but they appear to be able to do so without any accountability. That is an affront to democracy and an insult to the public.
David Linden
When we talk about the House of Lords, one thing I find amusing is the concept of working peers. We do not talk about “working refuse collectors” or “working brain surgeons”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be some sort of threshold, at least in the beginning, such that if a peer has not spoken or voted, they automatically lose their place in the House of Lords, by virtue of not being a working peer?
Justin Madders
That is an interesting suggestion. I would suggest that lords in that position should do the honourable thing and resign. We have spoken about the Government wanting to have minimum service levels; indeed, they want to sack nurses and teachers who do not keep to those. Perhaps they should apply the same standards to Members of the Lords.
I am certainly not claiming that there are no valuable elements of the current House of Lords. As we have heard, there are many extremely talented Members who demonstrate high levels of integrity, expertise and independence. However, we make a huge mistake in assuming that the second Chamber is naturally imbued with those characteristics because of the way that Members are appointed. As we have heard, there is a growing tendency for those with the biggest cheque books to be offered a seat at the table. That is not democracy; that is not the way a modern country should operate. I see no reason why those who have a place because of their skills, experience or abilities would not have a good chance of continuing to serve if they put themselves forward for election by the public. Ultimately, for all the positive qualities that those particular Members show, their contribution is fatally undermined by the lack of democratic legitimacy.
We essentially say to the public, “We trust you to decide on our future relationship with Europe. We trust you to elect Members of Parliament, councillors, police and crime commissioners, and Mayors. But we do not think we can trust you to elect the upper Chamber of Parliament.” I have no truck—we have already picked up on this—with those who are recent converts to the merits of the House of Lords just because, on a particular occasion, it voted in a particular way that suited their political views. That does not negate the overall democratic deficit that, in its current form, it represents. Let us not allow the day-to-day decisions, and the painfully slow incremental process that we have seen, to cloud the bigger picture: the House of Lords belongs to a bygone era of privilege, establishment and a closed political world, when we are, I hope, becoming a more open society.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a fundamental point: if we reform the House of Lords, we effectively reform the House of Commons. My hon. Friend is suggesting direct democracy for the House of Lords. Does he agree that that would necessarily diminish the powers of the House of Commons? It would put another House in opposition to our House, which would be a bad thing.
Justin Madders
That is not necessarily the case, and that is not where the argument need take us. That kind of argument is often put forward by people who want to stifle change and reform.
I cannot believe that anyone would think that the current arrangements are satisfactory. We have, in effect, a halfway house between the medieval institution the Lords once was and the modern democracy that we, or certainly I, hope to see. When the number of hereditary peers was reduced in 1999, Baroness Jay described the Lords as a “transitional House”. It is clearly an anomaly that we have certain people entering there by different routes, and it is time that that was ended.
Anthony Mangnall
I will have two bites of the cherry. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the House of Lords being a place of privilege, but the vast majority of people are not appointed from a background of privilege; they are appointed from a background of expertise and specialism in their subjects. He references the 92, but they are not the vast majority of the House of Lords.
Justin Madders
That is 92 too many, in my opinion. I do not believe that having a place in our legislature by reason of birth has any place in our modern democracy.
As has been picked up on already, the recent report from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown sets out the case for reform very well; it contains serious proposals for what a modern, democratic second Chamber could look like, which could be implemented without us necessarily having to change the way we in this House work. Some of the big messages in that report about the loss of trust in our democratic institutions are ones that we should all be concerned about. The fact that more than 50% of adults believe it does not matter who they vote for and that nothing will change, and that more than 60% of people believe that Britain has a ruling class that will always rule the country, should ring huge alarm bells for single one of us who cares about democracy in this country.
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. I would like to pursue the point. If a second Chamber were elected after the House of Commons had been elected, how would conflict between the two Houses be resolved if they had two contrary mandates? I agree that the current House of Lords is not justifiable, and I believe in its abolition, but I do not think we should set up an alternative democratic base to the House of Commons.
Justin Madders
I refer my hon. Friend to the recommendations set out in the Brown report, which outline the limitations on a second Chamber’s ability to reject legislation. The suggestion is for it to have a defined constitutional role and this will cover when it is able to reject issues. Those are matters for further discussion, but nations around the world manage to have democratically elected second Chambers without creating chaos. I believe that is something we should aim for.
Coming back to the figures, we should take very seriously the fact that so many people have so little faith and trust in us representing them. Democracy is fragile and should not be taken for granted. We ignore those findings at our peril. We have to make our politics more open and accountable to the people we serve. An appointed body cannot have a future in that respect.
I will finish on this point. There are always pressing priorities, but we need to look at the bigger picture and at how the world is radically different from just a decade ago. We cannot allow our institutions to remain static forever. We must listen to what the public are telling us.
Justin Madders
I am just finishing. The public want change and a political process that they feel a part of and that is not geographically weighted towards London and the south-east, as the second Chamber is at the moment. They want people with a mandate from the whole nation, and a body that is not just invitation only. They want accountability and representation. In short, they want democracy. Reform of the House of Lords is unfinished business, and it is about time we had a Government who intend to see that through to its conclusion.