UK Gross Domestic Product

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

In Gloucestershire, as across the country, we remain focused on the challenges facing both small and large businesses. As my hon. Friend mentions, during the pandemic we made a number of sector-specific interventions for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which will continue to benefit from the business rates holidays. We are keen to ensure, however, that we achieve better productivity, with more investment in capital, in ideas and in measures that will lift us to a new level of growth. That means interventions across the whole economy.

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

In the past week or so I have been contacted by a number of community nurses at their wits’ end because it is costing them more to travel to see patients than they can claim back in mileage allowance, and they are not alone—taxi drivers, couriers and others, such as domiciliary care workers, are struggling because of the surge in fuel costs. The Government have already taken 5p off fuel duty, but given that they have raked in far more in increased VAT receipts since then, how much more has the Treasury recovered in VAT receipts this year?

[John Glen]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that figure at the Dispatch Box at this point, but we have introduced timely, temporary and targeted interventions. We recognise with a real sense of empathy the fact that people will be struggling. We have been very clear from the time we made this series of announcements and over the past six months that we will not be able to ameliorate the impact of every single additional cost. The key intervention we need to make is to encourage that growth and productivity in the economy in the context of fiscal responsibility and the commitments we have made to intervene so far.

Taxes on Motor Fuel

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her excellent introduction, which she delivered with panache, as always. I am sure she pleased the people who signed the petition by covering many of the issues they want to raise.

This is an important debate for my constituency. We have made vehicles in Ellesmere Port for more than 50 years, and we have one of the few remaining oil refineries in the country. Most importantly, people in my constituency overwhelmingly depend on private transport to get to work. Some 78% of people in Ellesmere Port and Neston use a private motor vehicle to get to work, which is about 15% above the national average. That is not just a reflection of our proud industrial heritage; it is probably more to do with the lack of a regular and affordable public transport service in the area.

Although fuel duty and VAT are the same at whatever pump in the country someone fills up at, their impact differs depending on where they live and what they do for a living. Shift workers are far less likely to be able to use public transport to get to work. To be honest, people with jobs that finish after about 6 pm in my constituency are lucky to find a bus to take them home. If a person has children they need to place in childcare or school on their way to work, or pick up them up from afterwards, they may well need a car. If they are in a job that requires a large amount of driving, that of course makes a huge difference to how much they have in their pocket at the end of the week. Taxi drivers are a particularly affected group, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, so are care workers. Of course, the Minister will have some reflections on that from her previous role.

Nor should we forget about the impact that fuel has on other costs that we as taxpayers have to meet, including police cars, ambulances and school transport. There are literally millions of miles travelled every day that end up paid for by the taxpayer. The cost is quite often met by local councils, which do not have a say in the amount of fuel duty raised in the first place. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) rightly pointed out, fuel costs also play into wider inflationary pressures, particularly on food and other services that are delivered.

What someone does, and where they live, can make a huge difference to the impact of fuel duty, and I am afraid that that extends to some inexplicable variations in the price at the pump up and down the country. It might only be a couple of pence most of the time, but that can quickly add up, and I wonder why the average price is a couple of pence more around Ellesmere Port than it is in various other parts of the country, given that we are on the doorstep of a refinery.

On a related point—this is something my hon. Friend the Member for Gower mentioned earlier—the RAC Foundation has said that the 5p cut in fuel duty, which was introduced by the Chancellor in March, led to an average fuel price reduction of 3.3p per litre for unleaded and 2.6p per litre for diesel. In their defence, the representative bodies for the retailers claim that their members passed on the cut in full, but that prices were rising at the time. It might not be right to lay the blame entirely at the door of the retailers, but it is very difficult to get the level of transparency we need.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the other issue is that retailers often have no choice as to which distributor or wholesaler they go to? If the wholesaler does not take any of the 5p duty cut off the wholesale price of fuel, the retailer is given a double whammy: they cannot cut the price, but they get flak from drivers who expect to see 5p coming off a litre of fuel.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member is right, and it goes to my point about needing greater transparency. It can often be difficult to know exactly where the 5p has disappeared to, but I think it beyond contention that our constituents are not seeing the full benefit of the fuel duty cuts. The key question that we need to ask is how these measures will help to put cash back into people’s pockets. The reason this debate is so important at the moment is because we have the biggest squeeze on living standards in a generation, and the steps that the Government have taken so far are woefully inadequate.

The rise in prices across the world is obviously largely out of our hands, so it is inevitable that people will look at what the Government can change to ensure that there is some respite for people, and that help reaches those who need it most. We have already discussed the windfall tax at length in this place, so I will not repeat the arguments on that, but it is the fairest and most effective way to get help to those who need it most in a fairly quick manner. As we have seen already, although reducing the cost of fuel can help, there is a risk that such a reduction might not be passed on in full, and that it will benefit only those who have a car in the first place. In the context of wildly fluctuating oil prices, those savings may not be felt by people at all.

On fluctuating oil prices—or, to be more accurate, increasing oil prices—we should remind ourselves that higher prices at the pump mean that the Government have an increased income from VAT. Research has indicated that because of the rising oil price this year, the Government’s VAT receipts on pump sales have gone up by an average of 7p per litre for petrol and 9p per litre for diesel, which is far more than the 5p per litre that has been taken off. Fuel duty cuts might be a sleight of hand that creates a good headline and the illusion that the Government are taking decisive action, but it could be that those cuts are being made up for by increased revenue elsewhere—revenue that comes out of the pockets of the same people who are meant to benefit from the cut in the first place.

This debate cannot really happen in isolation and away from the influence of the Treasury, and we must be realistic and acknowledge that it will always be the primary driver of these decisions, given the huge amount of revenue that fuel duty brings in. Sooner or later, however, the debate must move on from whether we take off 2p here or add 2p there, because if we are to meet our net zero targets and move away from reliance on fossil fuels, we must also move away from reliance on taxing those fuels that we currently tax. At the heart of this is a complicated dilemma about moving to a similar fuel duty system for electric vehicles, which may disincentivise people to change. If instead we decide to tax people by the mile—I know that has been suggested in some quarters—that may disproportionately impact some communities, as well as removing one of the major reasons for investing in an electric vehicle in the first place.

There is also the question of whether the infrastructure is in place to make reliance on electric vehicles realistic. I certainly see that in my area there is a long way to go in order to get a comprehensive charging structure in place. We know that many properties—some say at least one third, and possibly even higher—are not, and never will be, suitable for home charging. With the differential VAT rate for charging at home and at a filling station, that is a major inequality that needs addressing. I would suggest that it needs addressing now, before the tax taken from it becomes so high that it becomes impossible for us to wean ourselves off that too.

Those are debates for the future, however, and we now need more effective and rapid ways of putting more money into the pockets of those who need it the most. As I have said, the best proposal I have heard so far is the windfall tax, and with this being a debate on the cost of living crisis, it is very disappointing that not one Government Back Bencher has come to speak about this issue. It shows, I am afraid, just how out of touch the Conservative party is.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank the Petitions Committee for organising this important debate and all hon. Members who have contributed today, especially the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who opened the debate.

I also thank the more than 100,000 people across the UK who signed the petition calling for a reduction in fuel duty and VAT. Those signatures are a reflection of how hard high fuel prices are hitting people. As well as being Exchequer Secretary, I represent a rural constituency, and I know that for most people in my constituency, there is no alternative to going by car for most journeys. As hon. Members have said, whether it is getting to work, doing the school run, going to the supermarket, the doctor or the dentist, or visiting family, there is usually no alternative. If we add to those journeys all the business journeys—the man in a van, delivery drivers, logistics and so on—we can see that so much of our economy is reliant on road transport.

The UK has about 30 million drivers, and the vast majority of us fill up our vehicles at the petrol station. As many hon. Members have said today, fuel prices have dramatically increased in recent months, and they reached their all-time highest levels this spring. I know that this comes at what is already a painful moment for many households, with so many pressures—ranging from heating bills to higher food costs in the shops—on people’s budgets. I welcome the Petitions Committee survey assessing the impact of increases in the cost of motor fuel on petitioners, which reflects what I have heard from my own constituents and from people I speak to up and down the country. Whether that is the parent struggling to put food on the table for their children or the care worker providing vital care across her community, we hear you, and the Government have stepped in to help, with support measures that add up to £22 billion.

However, we should not ignore the context. We are part of a global trend, driven by global issues—by the surge in demand post pandemic, exacerbated by Putin’s war in Ukraine. And just as these circumstances are not unique or specific to the UK, so they cannot be solved by the UK alone.

Prices at the pump are not set by the Government, and nor are crude oil prices more widely, but the Government have taken action to help people with recent unprecedented price increases. After the launch of this petition last October, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the decision, at autumn Budget, to freeze fuel duty rates; this was the 12th consecutive year of the freeze. He then went further. In the spring statement, the Chancellor announced that fuel duty for petrol and diesel would be cut by 5p per litre. Unlike many international counterparts, who have introduced shorter-term relief for motorists, we have this measure in place for a full 12 months. This is only the second time in 20 years that fuel duty has been cut, and this time, it is the largest cash-terms cut ever across all rates of fuel duty at once. It represents a tax cut worth £2.4 billion in 2022-23. Coupled with the fuel duty freeze, it is worth £5 billion overall and equates to a reduction in fuel duty of about £100 over the year for the average car driver.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister will have heard the suggestion that the Chancellor has raked in more through increased VAT receipts than he has given away in this fuel duty cut. Will she say whether she agrees with that or not?

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Member comes to exactly the next point that I was going to make in my speech. The petition called for a VAT reduction, as did the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) when she intervened. Given that VAT is applied on top of fuel duty, the 5p duty cut on petrol and diesel also results in a VAT reduction. It effectively translates to a reduction of 6p per litre overall. That said, a VAT reduction is not generally the best way to provide help with fuel costs, particularly because it would not help many businesses, many of which already claim back VAT paid on fuel for business use. About 40% of fuel is used by businesses. If we had just focused on reducing VAT instead of fuel duty, that would have left businesses more exposed to fuel price increases, in turn impacting the cost of goods for consumers. Making the focus fuel duty rather than VAT means that businesses, as well as consumers, will benefit from that tax cut. Also, by helping businesses with the fuel duty cut, we ensure that the duty cut benefit flows through to people who do not own cars, as well as those who do, because of the importance across the supply chain of the cost of fuel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

That goes a long way into the broader economic questions about the right way to deal with the crisis we are in, and how we raise money if we are to make further tax cuts to provide further support to consumers. As I have mentioned, and as I am sure the hon. Lady well knows, we have already put in support worth £22 billion to help people across the country with the cost of living. That includes £9 billion to help people with energy bills—some of that will be through council tax rebates of £150—and that money is already going into many people’s pockets. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head and says that that is not enough, but the Chancellor has been clear that he stands ready to do more. We do not yet know what the retail cost of fuel will be in the autumn, and we are absolutely concerned about the rising costs to people. We have already taken steps, and that is what we are talking about today.

I want to come back to VAT, because it has been suggested that the Treasury might be getting some kind of VAT windfall. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that VAT receipts will now be lower than it had expected in the autumn. There is not some great surge in VAT coming through to the Treasury.

[Justin Madders]

Will the Minister give way?

[Helen Whately]

I will move on and keep to the topic of the petition, if that is okay with the hon. Gentleman. Another question that came up earlier, particularly from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), was on the extent to which the fuel duty cut has been passed through. I am well aware of that concern and the suggestion that suppliers have been taking the benefit of the £2.4 billion tax cut.

To provide some context to this, the spring statement was made at a time of sharp rises in international oil markets, which would have taken some time to feed through to the pump. Diesel has faced specific pressures, because of the particular role of Russian exports in the European market. That has, unfortunately, contributed to diesel reaching all-time high prices this month. The background movement in prices makes the 5p cut harder to see. The Government have been clear that we expect all in the supply chain—from the moment fuel duty is owed to when fuel is bought at the forecourt—to pass the fuel duty cut through to consumers.

The Chancellor and the Business Secretary wrote to industry on the day of the announcement to set out that expectation. The Business Secretary wrote to industry on this matter again last week. The Competition and Markets Authority is closely monitoring the situation. To quote its chief executive, Andrea Coscelli, the CMA stands ready

“to take action should there be evidence that competition or consumer protection law has been broken in the fuel retail market”.

He went on to say that a formal investigation may be considered appropriate,

“which could ultimately lead to fines or legally binding commitments”.

The Government will continue to undertake longer-term analysis to establish the extent to which the Chancellor’s cut may have been buried beneath further wholesale price increases, and to ensure that the market does not fail to pass on the benefits of the duty cut to those refilling at the pump.

I have also heard public discussion of something called PumpWatch to regulate prices at the pump. Some comparisons have been made to Ofgem, the energy regulator, and the role of the price cap in the domestic energy retail market. However, that price cap was introduced in 2019 specifically to correct the market failure identified by the Competition and Markets Authority, which showed that the conditions for effective competition were not present in the market. While the energy price cap has shielded customers from volatile energy prices, it was specifically designed to better protect disengaged customers from being offered poor-value deals.

To date, we have not seen evidence that the same situation is happening in the fuel market, because pump prices are conspicuously displayed outside fuel stations to encourage competition and allow drivers to make comparisons and find the best deals, but I reiterate that if the CMA finds evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in the market, it is clear that it will not hesitate to act.

National Insurance Contributions Increase

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I do not demur; we are faced with a serious challenge on the cost of living. The Government entirely accept that and are working to address it, but we must address it in a smart and financially sustainable way. A £20 billion package is a major commitment to support families across the UK. Of course, we continue to keep all our options under review to ensure that we can act in a way that is commensurate with the severity of the situation.

From next month, we will increase the national living wage by 6.6% to £9.50 an hour for those aged 23 and over, which will benefit more than 2 million workers across the UK by £1,000 a year. We have also frozen fuel duty for the 12th year in a row. That is on top of the help that we are already providing to those on low incomes with their housing costs and council tax bills.

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

On freezing the fuel duty, if the Minister has been to forecourts recently, he will know that the cost of petrol and diesel has gone up tremendously in the last few weeks. What has been the impact on the Treasury’s coffers from VAT receipts as a result?

[Mr Clarke]

We have forgone a tremendous amount of revenue through the freeze on fuel duty. On VAT, we obviously continue to look closely at the revenue situation. It is sometimes a misapprehension about the way that the VAT scheme works to the Treasury’s benefit. There is often a focus on domestic fuel and the impact that it is having on our income. To that point, the more that people spend of their discretionary income on domestic fuel costs, which are VAT chargeable at 5% as opposed to the full rate of 20%, the less that the Treasury recoups. In that regard, we have to be careful about some of the arguments around that.

Now that I have set out some of the context of the Government’s response, I will return to the specifics of the debate—the need for the health and social care levy and the rationale behind its operation. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care explained to the House that there is now a significant backlog of elective care as a result of the pandemic, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) alluded to. More than 6 million people are waiting for elective care in England and more than 300,000 people are waiting longer than a year. The Government have set out a clear plan to tackle the backlog, but we must deal with that most pressing of issues and the levy will allow us to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I place on record my dismay that the Government have chosen to hit working people and businesses with a national insurance rise at the worst possible time—when one in six working households cannot make ends meet, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research; when the number of jobs that pay below the national minimum wage and the living wage is still more than two and a half times higher than at pre-pandemic levels; when inflation is forecast to reach 7.25% next month, the highest level since August 1991.

We already have the highest level of inflation for three decades, but I am afraid that everything we know about the implications of Ukraine tells us that it will only get higher in the next few months. Everywhere we turn, prices are going up far faster than anyone can keep up with—at the supermarket checkout, at the petrol pump, in gas and electricity bills. Adding in mortgage rises, rent rises and council tax rises, we face a perfect storm of inflationary pressures that we have not seen for an entire generation.

I do not think that anyone has really levelled with the public about what the implications of a protracted war in Ukraine will be for prices. Things are going to get a lot more difficult before the pressure eases off. Just look at how the mere suggestion of a boycott of Russian gas and oil has pushed trading prices sky-high. That resulted from comments from the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, that conversations about a boycott were taking place—one can only imagine what would happen if people moved beyond conversations and a boycott actually took place.

It is not clear to what extent the price spikes are being exacerbated by speculators who are seeking to take advantage of the situation. Nor do we know whether a real effort by OPEC countries to increase production would mitigate it, or what impact the conflict will have on food prices over the medium term. The reality is that western Europe, trapped by its reliance on Russian energy, is forced to buy fuel that pays for the war that pushes up the price of energy further still. I fear that until more home truths are spoken about what it will take to break the cycle, we will continue to see prices rise and the war continue.

I recognise that addressing the issue is not solely within the Government’s gift. Grasping the nettle will be a continent-wide effort, but we must look at what the Government can control. There is an opportunity today to act on the national insurance increases. It beggars belief that we are looking at tax rises at the same time as prices are rising and bills are skyrocketing at levels not seen for a generation. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry, but the hon. Member has just spoken. If he did not get his point in then, he has missed his opportunity.

The tax rise was wrong back in September when it was first proposed, and even more wrong now. That is not just the view of Opposition Members; the cross-party Treasury Committee has highlighted that the increase in national insurance contributions for employers will lead to higher costs being passed on to consumers. If we speak to anyone in social care, they tell us that that is pushing them into unviability.

Data from the Institute of Directors in January demonstrated that more than a third of businesses would respond to the increase by raising prices and passing on the burden to customers, yet again increasing inflationary pressures. The same report also said that nearly a fifth of businesses would consider employing fewer staff as a result of these rises. Almost three quarters of companies in manufacturing say that they are also very likely to pass on the costs to customers, so it is no surprise that Make UK has said that the proposal is “illogical” and “ill-timed”.

We know that some areas will be worse hit than others. Analysis shows that the north-east and the midlands—areas that rely on wages rather than income from investment and properties—will be hardest hit. That is not levelling up, is it? Trapping the country in a low-growth, high-tax cycle and hitting working people with tax rise after tax rise is the opposite of levelling up.

Within four years, the average household will be paying £3,000 a year more in tax than when the Prime Minister first came to power. There is nothing to give families the security that they would get from the fully funded measures that the Opposition have proposed to keep energy bills down, which would be paid for by a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producer profits. In my constituency alone, 12,500 families would be £400 better off as a result of the tax, and our plan would mean almost all households making savings on their bills. Nor would an extra £40 charge be hidden away and come out of people’s bills in a few years’ time, regardless of whether they had benefited from the scheme in the first place.

We see the effects of the current crisis playing out every day. One example in my constituency relates to housing affordability. Housing is a basic right, but with affordable and council housing in short supply, reliance upon the private rented sector has increased. However, a recent search of properties available in Ellesmere Port showed that of the 13 properties available—a minuscule number to start with—only two came within a rental liability level that would be covered by the local housing allowance, while the rest ranged from £30 to £225 over the rates. In Neston, the results of a search are even worse: all the properties were well over the LHA. In fact, it is now incredibly rare to see any properties offered at a rental value equivalent to the LHA. How on earth can we expect people to put a roof over their head in that situation, let alone pay for energy bills, food or council tax bills?

This will be an ongoing crisis, and there is no solution from the Government. Everywhere we turn, from housing to heating to eating, prices are going up. People face some really tough times ahead unless something is done now. Let us not add to that impossible burden. Let us scrap this national insurance increase right now.

Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Appointment

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I do not see this as a special status. This is a Minister of the Crown who remains Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and now has the role of chief of staff at No. 10. It is a highly democratic, highly accountable position. In fact, more so than any of those who went before. The hon. Gentleman should welcome it if he is interested in democracy.

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

How many of these Downing Street staff departures in the past few days are a direct result of Sue Gray’s report? Have there been any associated findings of culpability against individuals for the failings set out in that report?

Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

No.

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

On 8 December the Prime Minister told this House “there was no party”. Paragraph 1.3 of the “Ministerial Code” says that anyone who knowingly misleads the House will be expected to resign, so why is the Prime Minister still in his job?

[Michael Ellis]

If a group of people take cake for 10 minutes while at work, everyone is permitted a reasonable break as part of their working day. That is one possible interpretation. Ten minutes of eating cake and wishing someone a happy birthday would not a party make, but it is a matter for police investigation, and that is what is now happening.

Levelling-up Agenda

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate, which is certainly important. Levelling up is indeed an important Government policy, but for something that is so central to the Government’s vision, it is sometimes difficult to see exactly what it means in practice and, critically, whether the lofty ambitions set out in the big speeches actually lead to delivery on the ground and bring about the kinds of changes that my community wants to see.

Whatever yardstick the Government use, what people see changing for the better in their areas will be the real determinant of whether there has been any success in levelling up. Many of my constituents would say that a tangible improvement to Ellesmere Port town centre would constitute a very good start in that respect. So many people want to have pride in their town and see it thriving, so I am pleased to say that, alongside my local council, we have put in a bid for the levelling-up fund to enable us to make a start on rejuvenating our town centre.

Of course, that is just a start, and much more will be needed. The question hangs in the air: if the bid is unsuccessful, what is plan B? Should not everyone get a slice of the pie? Should not levelling up be a policy that benefits everyone, not just the lucky winners of a municipal beauty contest? Should we not empower local communities to deliver on their own priorities and provide them with the tools and resources to do so, rather than asking them to jump through multiple hoops in what is a very competitive bidding process?

The town centre in Ellesmere Port has been struggling for a long time. Like in many other towns, the rise of the internet and changes in shopping habits, which have been accelerated by the pandemic, have led to shops closing down on an almost weekly basis. We would absolutely welcome a cash injection from the levelling-up fund, but it needs to address not just the symptoms but the causes of decline. Where are the plans to tackle the massive disparities between north and south in employment opportunities, earnings and life expectancy? Why do so many young people feel that they have to leave where they live and move to a city, just to get opportunities?

It is a scandal that where someone is born and to whom they are born are still some of the biggest determinants of their life chances. If levelling up is to be the truly transformative project that its biggest supporters claim it to be, it has to be so much more than an annual Westminster competition on Westminster’s terms. Give power and resources back to local communities—they know what they want, and they will be around for the long term in order to deliver it. People already feel that they do not have the power to take decisions about the most important things in their lives, such as whether a local hospital should stay open, where a new school might go, and even how often the buses run. To empower local communities, we need a different approach—no more crumbs from the table.

We do not want politically motivated, short-term fixes that have only the electoral cycle in mind. We need a new, long-term approach that actually attempts to tackle the underlying issues, and that really empowers and enables our local communities by giving them the responsibility, power and resources to shape their own futures, allowing them to finally take back control. We need reinvigorated places where people spend time as well as money, and there needs to be much more joined-up thinking about how the world will change in the future.

The move to all-electric vehicles in the next decade is a perfect example of that. Do we have the charging infrastructure to meet the demand? I do not think we have, and I know from the answers I have received to written questions that a huge number of properties will never have access to a charge point. Why do we not have somewhere in town centres where people can access charge points? People would have another reason to come into their town centre, and they could very well spend some time and money while they wait for their vehicle to charge. I think that is a great idea, but in order to achieve it, local authorities need the capacity, the resources and, indeed, the authority to plan and deliver what is needed. They need the necessary powers and the proper funding.

Civic pride, community, identity, jobs and opportunities all suffer when town centres are in decline. We owe it to the people in our communities to think big and have the ambition to deliver town centres that are equipped for tomorrow’s world—ones that will not only survive, but thrive in future generations. When we see the appetite for new things in our world, we know that people are willing to seize the change and try to make the world work in a different way. The sight of empty shop units in a town centre tells them that, for too long, their concerns have not been addressed. It is time that was changed.

I absolutely want levelling up to work, but I also want it to mean something. Tackling some of the deeply engrained issues that I have referred to today is central to that process, not just having a quick headline before the Government move on, because when the spotlight fades, my community will still face those challenges. However, it now expects the Government to deliver on the promises they made and I hope that we see that happen.

Ministerial Code/Register of Ministers’ Interests

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is perfectly legitimate for any Member of this House to raise issues around how we hold people to account and how we scrutinise things, but he has characterised how this is being presented, and he will know from his constituents that the public take a dim view of it.

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

Paragraph 1.3.c of the ministerial code states:

“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.

Does that rule still apply, and does it also apply to the Prime Minister?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Of course it still stands; it is the ministerial code. I am sorry to say that this is another question that does not make any substantial allegations or provide any facts or evidence; it is smear and innuendo, and it is not the way to behave.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to start with last year’s Humble Address, which promised a right for workers to request a more predictable contract, presumably aimed at the many people on zero-hours and flexible contracts. However, it was never introduced—so here we are, another year on and another opportunity missed to deal with those parasitic, unfair contracts, which are more befitting to the 19th century than the 21st. Until we begin to challenge the very existence of zero-hours contracts, we will only ever be tinkering at the edges of an unfair and fundamentally unbalanced labour market. Levelling up will just be a fantasy until we put in place the building blocks that people need for a better life. That means permanent, secure, well-paid jobs. Too few new jobs at the moment offer none of those.

The Taylor review is nearly four years old, and the vast majority of its recommendations are still gathering dust on the shelf. The truth is that this Government have no intention of improving workers’ rights, but they should, because the security of a job should be valued as much as the creation of that job. Why is it that whenever a multinational is looking to cut its workforce, we always seem to be at the head of the queue? Why are we seen as a soft touch? Why are British workers seen as easier and cheaper to get rid of than just about everyone else in western Europe? We need to end the culture of weak employment rights, avaricious corporations and a Government who are indifferent to the importance of job security. Without job security, people have no security.

Nowhere is that indifference more apparent than in the Government’s failure to address the scandal of fire and rehire. Ministers repeatedly tell us that they do not agree with it, yet they do absolutely nothing to tackle it. ACAS sent them its findings on the options several months ago, but since then we have had radio silence. In a vain attempt to find out what was happening, I sent freedom of information requests to both ACAS and the Department. ACAS told me that it was not in the public interest to release the report and the Department said that, if the report were made public, “we believe the nature of such frank discussion and debates on key public policy issues would be inhibited and the Department would be prevented from taking decisions based on the fullest understanding of the issues. We take the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served by withholding this information.”

What utter nonsense! Thousands of people are having their livelihoods ripped away from them and it is apparently not in the public’s interest to even reveal what options the Government are considering to deal with it. Not in the public interest? I think what they meant to say is that it is not in the interests of the greedy employers who are boosting their profits by cutting people’s pay. Those of us on this side of the Chamber think it is in the public interest to support working people. The clue is in the name: the Labour party.

We do need more housing, but tinkering with the planning system will lead to more of the same. The problem is not developers being able to get planning permission; the problem is that there is a big cartel at the top. We get the wrong types of houses built in the wrong types of places, because that is where the money is made.

I thought we were going to take back control, but I see precious little of that. Instead, there is legislation to stop people and councillors having a say on the future of their areas. The Government are denying people a voice. That is a fundamental threat to democracy, but the biggest threat is of course the plan to stop millions of people from voting in the future. Why do that? There were 32 million votes cast at the last election and only six cases of voter fraud. This is all about moving the goalposts for party political advantage, and it is part of a wider pattern to suppress and reduce accountability. We also see proposals to restrict the right to protest, the continued use of emergency powers when they are not justified, and an increasingly distant relationship between the Government and the truth. We see the lining of mates’ pockets with public money while kids go hungry, and there is plenty of talk, too, about simplifying procurement. Just who is going to benefit from that?

The Government are deliberately embarking on a course of action that will damage our democracy. While I welcome the announcement of a public inquiry into the pandemic, it is clear that it will be delayed until after the next election; again, party political advantage is being sought. If there is one thing that sums up the Government more than anything else, it is their complete failure to take responsibility for absolutely anything.

Lockdown: Economic Support

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

As I said earlier, these are UK-wide schemes. We continue to listen and engage, but the schemes apply on a UK-wide basis. That has been the case throughout, and that continues to be the case now.

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

I am sure that we have all heard heartbreaking stories about people who have been unable to claim for self-employment support because they had not registered or submitted a tax return for 2018-19. It seems that those people are still excluded from any support. Some of them have been trading for 18 months now. They are clearly not fraudulent and they clearly deserve some support; why cannot they get some?

[Steve Barclay]

As we referred to earlier, the point is that the package of support includes the £9 billion of welfare measures and the support that is available through local authorities and targeted at their discretion. I have also set out that there are those within that excluded population, for example those who were employed, who may be able to qualify for the extension, but for the reasons that we have covered in a number of earlier replies, part of the challenge from the Public Accounts Committee has been ensuring that we have the right operational controls in place, and that has been one of the difficulties with the cohorts to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I gently take issue with the point about coaches not having support. One of the areas where coach firms have been able to benefit hugely from our response, and to work with the Government, has been in school transport. We were able to secure the additional capacity that we needed in part through the willingness of coach companies to adapt as part of our response. It is not the case that coach companies have been unable to get any business during the pandemic.

On more comprehensive measures, the hon. Member is right that the cinema industry has been hit hard. We were all concerned to see the announcement from Cineworld at the weekend. Together with Odeon and Vue that is 75% of the market, but as he knows it is not simply down to one issue. With cinemas, there is the supply of films—the delay of some of the blockbuster films has had an impact—and consumer confidence. Attendance is significantly down compared with last year, and there is also the impact of the non-pharmaceutical interventions. There is not one single factor, but we continue to work with the cinema industry in shaping our response.

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

Dominic Harrison, the director of public health for Blackburn and Darwen said that some of the more economically challenged boroughs are

“being placed into more restrictive control measures at an earlier point in their…case rate trajectory. This has the effect of exacerbating the economic inequality impacts of the virus in those areas.”

Why are some areas being treated differently from other areas, and can the Minister not see the need to have greater transparency and equity across the board?

[Steve Barclay]

The pace of those medically driven decisions is more, perhaps, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I know has been to the Chamber and answered such questions. I am willing to flag the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the transparency of that process.