Grassroots Football Funding: Wembley Stadium

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Wembley Stadium and the funding of grass roots football.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Football, as we know, is our national sport. We invented the modern game and have the most popular league in the world, viewed by millions around the globe. I grew up playing and watching the game, and while I still play and watch when I can, I also have an interest in ensuring that our national sport can be enjoyed and participated in by as many people as possible at all levels.

Members will recall last year’s controversial proposals to sell Wembley Stadium to the American businessman, Shahid Khan. At the time, the Prime Minister rather dismissively told me that the proposed sale was a private matter. I have to say that I consider the sale of the national football team’s stadium—the home of the FA cup final and countless other important matches—to be a matter of some considerable public interest.

The deal did not go through in the end, but we need to talk about the consequences. The sale falling through has left a hole where the grassroots strategy was. The main justification put forward by the Football Association for the deal was that it would have enabled the release of hundreds of millions of pounds to fund grassroots football. Although I was a little bit sceptical about the deal and what it would mean in the long term, because sale and lease-back agreements often do not work well in the long run, it was beyond doubt that it would have enabled significant investment in grassroots football. It is important for us to discuss how to replace that funding.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the greatest footballers who ever graced the football field in this world, certainly in my lifetime, was Geordie Best. Pelé, another of the greatest footballers in the world, said that his favourite footballer was George Best. Geordie Best was a product of local academies, played his football in the back streets of Belfast and became a world star. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those are the sort of people we want to encourage?

[Justin Madders]

As a Manchester United fan, I would say that, if we can encourage more George Bests, I will certainly be very pleased to see that. I will talk a little more about how we can encourage more youngsters to participate a little later.

Football in this country is in a very strong position. The premier league is the envy of the world. Most of the world’s top players come here, and England’s youth teams have enjoyed unprecedented levels of success in recent years. Whether those kids who have enjoyed great success with the national team recently get to play at the highest level remains to be seen. We should be concerned about the declining number of home-grown players, such as George Best, coming through the leagues, although I am sure someone with that talent would still make it today.

About 35% of players who started games in the premier league last season were English, on average. That represented a huge reduction on the 69% of English players who started games in the inaugural season of the premier league in 1992-93. There are huge questions about how professional clubs operate and about how our younger players can hope to get a chance against the huge influx of imported superstars, and I also sometimes wonder about the effect of giving a 17-year-old who has never played for the first team 10 grand a week—what does that do to their chances?—but that is probably outside the scope of today’s debate.

What we can do today is discuss how to improve the game below elite level. One in six grassroots matches were cancelled last year, and I recall my own kid’s games getting repeatedly cancelled over the winter period, although I do not think it was a particularly extraordinarily bad winter. Cancellations have a detrimental effect on both an individual’s and a team’s development, and we need to encourage that development. There are of course plenty of distractions and reasons why kids may find something else to do rather than play football, but we should do what we can to support it by encouraging a little bit more of the wealth that flows through the game to trickle down to the grassroots. We cannot expect the superstars of tomorrow to emerge if we are not prepared to invest in them.

One thing we can and, in my view, must do is improve the standard of facilities for younger players of all abilities, and for everyone involved in grassroots football. We should not tolerate second-rate facilities in our national sport. We know the pressure local authorities are under to balance the books and how there is little left for discretionary spending on improving sporting facilities. Pitches are often in poor condition, with poor drainage and areas of the pitch that are more mud than grass. Many pitches have little or no changing facilities connected with them.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a wonderful case for grassroots football. A club in my constituency, Otley Town, wrote to me to outline its concerns about facilities. It said:

“The key issue that we have is the quality of training facilities in winter. Most junior and senior clubs need access to all weather pitches so they have good environments to train in.”

They went on to talk about the need for funding for girls football, veterans football and disability football, to ensure that everyone can enjoy the game. Should we not ensure that the money trickles down from the billionaire owners to the grassroots?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A whole range of groups are participating in football that possibly traditionally did not, and we need to encourage them as well.

I am not saying that there is no investment. Since 2000, the Football Foundation, funded by the FA, the Premier League and Sport England, has invested more than £600 million in projects. My constituency has recently benefited from such investment, with fantastic facilities at the Vauxhall Sports and Social Club, where two new fourth generation pitches, which I occasionally grace, have been opened alongside a fantastic new clubhouse. About half the money for that came from the Premier League and the FA facilities fund, but the other half had to be raised locally, and I pay tribute to the incredible work done by Dave Edmunds and Tony Woodley, in particular, who really fought to get those facilities off the ground.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We see hundreds of grass pitches close each year because of cuts. Although the football world does its bit to invest in the grassroots, more could always be done, especially given the billion-pound TV deals. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the Government to get tough if we are to see any action?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right. As the shadow Sports Minister, she will know far more about the challenges than I do. When we compare our facilities with other countries, we are lagging behind. We have half the number of third generation pitches that Germany has and, shockingly, only one in three grass pitches are of adequate quality. Some 5 million playing opportunities were lost last year because of inadequate facilities. With the NHS struggling, schools facing a funding crisis, and the challenge of affordable housing, it is fair to say that we cannot expect the taxpayer to find the resources for this. However, as my hon. Friend said, there are huge opportunities for the grassroots in terms of the cash that is washing around the game.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

There are some really good examples. The Sheffield junior football league is the largest junior football league in Europe. The Isobel Bowler Sports Ground in my constituency is part of the Parklife project, funded by the FA and the Football Foundation. It has a great artificial pitch and a wonderful gym, where Disability Awareness with Sport runs facilities for disabled people. That is all wonderful and very positive—as is Mosborough rugby football club, where the Rugby Football Union has come in with support—but let us contrast the £300 million that local authorities spend on pitches in parks with the more than £200 million that the premier league’s clubs spent on agents’ fees alone in the last financial year. Is that not a contrast that we simply should not accept?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his excellent work with the parliamentary football club and with the Football Foundation. He is absolutely right about the cost: £200 million on agents’ fees, more than £1 billion in transfer fees every year now, and the direction of travel is only upwards. I know a levy operates at the moment on transfer fees, but a significant amount of that goes to players’ pensions and academies. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is for the professional side of the game and we are talking about the grassroots. I believe a small levy or a redistribution of existing funds could do an awful lot more for grassroots football.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

My constituency benefited recently from half a million pounds from the Football Foundation for new training facilities at Mansfield Town, which will be a huge benefit for the constituency. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the money involved in football. Obviously, the success of the premier league drives up wages and prices in that market, but premier league clubs and players pay something in the region of £3.5 billion a year in tax to the Chancellor, and there is even more tax revenue as we filter down through the Football League. I am interested in whether the hon. Gentleman thinks there is an opportunity there to ring-fence some of that money to be reinvested back in the grassroots of the game.

[Justin Madders]

That is an interesting point. Of course, we can debate ring-fenced taxes all day—there have been discussions about that in the context of the NHS, for example—but I think we can divert some of the other money, particularly agents’ fees. I go back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said about that, because I believe that people in that arena, particularly agents, are getting an awful lot of money from football for very little effort.

I do not want to turn this speech into a tirade against agents, but Mino Raiola is reported to have earned—using the word “earned” in the loosest possible sense—about £20 million when Paul Pogba transferred to Manchester United. That is £20 million for advising on one transfer; that is money that is going out of the game, and we need to look at getting some of it back in. I am not saying that we need to get rid of agents’ fees altogether, but that case demonstrates that these sums are going through the game and do not benefit the players, do not benefit the clubs, and certainly do not benefit the wider game in this country. A small levy on fees could generate significant funds and would not distort the transfer market. That idea was highlighted by Gary Neville in his excellent evidence to the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, when he proposed a 25% levy on agents’ fees. On that note, I will give way to a member of said Committee.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I am grateful; my hon. Friend is very prescient and ahead of the game. One of the issues that has come up again and again is the difficulty posed by the multiplicity of agencies involved in football: we have the Premier League, the Football Association, the Football League and others. Does my hon. Friend agree that a levy is a tool to get those organisations to work together and come up with results, encouraging our young people to play more football on decent surfaces?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; that is what I was trying to convey. There are lots of agencies involved, there is lots of money there, and Government need to guide, advise and maybe even compel those organisations to do more to help the grassroots. There is also the issue of prize money, which totals £2.5 billion; even a fraction of that amount could be put into grassroots football. I passionately believe that a modest level of redistribution would not destroy the premier league’s allure, but it might just enable the millions of people who enjoy playing our national sport to do so in slightly better conditions.

[Sir David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is lots of money in the game of football, with footballers on as much as £500,000 a week? Should we not be tapping deeper into the billions of pounds that come in as a result of television deals before football clubs get hold of that money?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is one of a number of ways in which we can harness the wealth that is in the game to better effect, and as I say, that is something I encourage Government to look at closely.

While we are here, I will say a few words about the future of Wembley. Obviously, the proposed sale split public opinion, and I, like many others, had concerns. I do not know whether another offer will come along, but I understand that the Government will have a say over whether any sale goes ahead, so if that does come to pass, I ask the Government first to consider what we have discussed today about harnessing that money. Secondly, I ask the Government to consider whether safeguards could be put in place so that important domestic and international games always take precedence at that stadium; what measures we could put in place to meet the needs of fans, in terms of kick-off times and the availability and price of tickets; and what assurance there would be that any future purchaser beyond the initial one could be held to any agreements that were made on initial sale with the FA. As I say, we are not in that place now, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

Finally, I will take this opportunity to say a few words of thanks to the thousands of people who give up their time to voluntarily run the teams, organise the fixtures, paint the lines, mow the pitches, put up the nets, and all the other jobs. Without those people, grassroots football would not exist. Their love of the game means that millions of people up and down the country get to participate, and their dedication gives youngsters opportunities to emulate their heroes. They often have to do so while getting changed in car parks in the freezing cold, facing frequent cancellations and bobbly pitches that are mud baths, so it is not surprising that kids sometimes prefer to spend their time playing football on the Xbox, rather than in real life. We all know about the need to encourage healthy living and exercise, and we all know about the many distractions kids have that do not involve them getting off their couches, so we need to make the playing experience as genuinely enjoyable as possible. There are probably not many pastimes that bring as much pleasure as scoring the winning goal in the last minute of an important game, but we know those occasions are few and far between, so we need to make sure that when kids play, they are encouraged; they are comfortable; and most of all, they enjoy themselves.

Football is more than just a game, and certainly more than just a business. It is an integral part of our culture, something that needs nurturing and protecting, and I firmly believe that the fruits of this golden age in the professional sport should be used to help secure its future so that everyone can enjoy it.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

As I was saying, before we were interrupted to do our absolute duty, we must and we will provide playing opportunities, to be enjoyed by people now and by future generations, across our towns and cities. I want clarity for grassroots football and balanced provision of local assets, as well as a good pathway for our next generation of stars.

The figures appear to suggest that the grassroots are somewhat underfunded compared with the investment going into professional clubs, but the professional game rightly cares about the grassroots, as demonstrated by the funding it provides. As the Minister for Sport, however, I will always champion the grassroots and focus on them, examining the commitment given to them and providing challenge.

The Premier League is investing £100 million each year into football participation programmes and local facilities. That is a significant amount and is in addition to the other areas that it funds and supports in football, at all levels of the game, including vital payments to the English Football League and national league clubs.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for picking up so well from where she left off, all that time ago. The central thrust of what I was saying, which I think most Members agree with, is that we do not dispute that the professional game puts money into the grassroots, but we think there ought to be a little more. Does the Minister agree with that analysis?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point: we must absolutely keep a focus on the grassroots. In Parliament today there has been constituency-wide MP engagement with the Premier League. He mentioned the existing levy of 4% on Premier League clubs and the fact that the money goes to all tiers of the game, supporting welfare and pensions.

Grassroots will always be an absolute focus for my Department and me, so those partnerships with clubs and that commitment to all the broader activities that address health, education, crime and other difficult social issues that football, alongside Government Departments, can reach, are vital. Those programmes add value and must be seen in conjunction with the grassroots opportunities, to ensure that we continue to champion the sport and that we consider the facilities and the wider community value of football.

The league funds also provide a voice for fans and help to fund new stadiums, which we enjoy visiting from time to time—or, hopefully, regularly—and which, as I mentioned, will perhaps help to bring back the World cup to these shores. The FA is not far behind in investing in the way that we would hope, with £70 million going into the grassroots cause, and I will continue to work closely with it, engaging with the new FA management in a time of change but also, I think, of opportunity. The Government will not be shy, either. We recognise the need to continue to support the national game. We are currently investing £25 million each year, including £18 million for facilities, £2 million for grassroots coaches and £5 million for the FA’s participation programmes, which provide vital support for the women’s game and disability football.

This Government, in partnership with the FA and the Premier League, are investing more money than ever before into the grassroots football programmes and facilities. From this year, we will contribute a combined £70 million to provide new and improved facilities through the Football Foundation charity, which we heard about earlier. Since 2000, the partnership has invested about £615 million through the foundation, which has resulted in 700 new and improved 3G pitches, 3,500 grass pitches and 1,000 new and improved changing rooms. I acknowledge that we must continue that work—there is more to be done—but simply throwing money at a problem is not always the answer. We must ensure that investment continues to go into the right areas and that we are having the right local and necessary impacts.

How are we doing that? We are working with our partner, Sport England, which is working on behalf of the Government to create new local football facility plans for every local authority in England. Over the next 12 months, we will know exactly the best places to invest in football on a supply and demand basis. That will include further artificial and grass pitches, school mini pitches and Parklife hubs—a new programme aimed at developing a sustainable model for supporting local football facilities. Some hon. Members may have visited the hub sites in Sheffield and London, with state-of-the-art artificial grass pitches available to people of all ages and abilities. We hope to deliver increases in football participation in every city. New hubs are on the horizon: hubs in Liverpool and, close to my constituency, in Southampton will open this year, with further cities in the pipeline.

The new local football plans will align with the new national football strategy, working together to ensure that we take stock of the facilities over the next 10 years and get closer to the number of facilities that I think we would all like to see. We must ensure that the Football Foundation is the right delivery model, that we have the right mechanisms and that there is sufficient capacity in place to deliver the increase in local investment. We must recognise that there is ongoing and increased demand for local facilities, so we need those local football plans.

Although the proceeds from a Wembley sale would have no doubt accelerated investment into facilities, we are not simply standing still on this issue, despite the changes to that potential deal. Shortly, I will shortly meet the EFL, the FA and the Premier League, looking to them to reaffirm their commitment to working with Government to significantly improve the provision and quality of football facilities, and focusing on participation levels across all demographics. I will also discuss with them whether the levels of investment are sufficient to meet the expected demand, and to address some of those statistics I mentioned earlier. I will ask key questions about what needs to be done and where it will be done. I will be there to champion the grassroots.

I am alive to the fact that there are other issues of concern in football, and I fully intend to work with the sport to address them. Only last week, I responded to a debate about the alarming problems with the ownership of Coventry City. We need to address the other side of football, and I will work with the authorities to do that. The so-called fans who cause discrimination incidents continue to make the headlines. We do not want football to return to its worst days. I will discuss that and ensure that the football authorities and all relevant stakeholders know that further decisive action can and must be taken.

Time is against me, so let me summarise. This has been a very useful debate. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to strengthening grassroots football. It is absolutely right that the continued commercial success of elite football is reflected in the support it gives all levels of football, and I will champion that. I do not want grassroots football to continue to be seen as a poor relation, and I will work with the football authorities and all stakeholders in the coming weeks.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

2019 Loan Charge

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on securing the debate. It is clear from what we have heard that the issue has caused much consternation and anguish for many people, so it is right that those concerns have been aired here.

As much as the next person, I believe that if tax is due, it should be collected. Without the ability to raise funds, our public services would grind to a halt. I am sure there is unanimous agreement about that. My concern, and that of many hon. Members, lies in the way the recovery of the 2019 loan charge has been handled. It raises questions about whether HMRC can say, hand on heart, that all those who are subject to it have had what I would call a fair hearing. I want to make it absolutely clear that if, following due process, the money is owed, it should be paid, but what I have heard from a constituent does not give me confidence that that will be the case.

My constituent, Mr Crook, was working as a geologist in the oil industry when the agreements that are being scrutinised were set up. His work has dried up and he is now unemployed. He tells me that he is not in a position to repay everything he owes—not that he has been told how much that is—and that because of the uncertainty and the failure of HMRC to engage with him, he is concerned about the risk of bankruptcy.

I have corresponded with Ministers and officials to ask someone to look into Mr Crook’s case but I have had nothing back but the standard response. With Mr Crook understandably anxious to resolve matters, he has contacted HMRC at the email address provided on 9 April, 8 May, 30 August, 31 August and 28 September, and by post on 2 July. His emails have had an automated response and he has had no response to his letter at all.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on his constituent’s behalf. I have a constituent much like his who has been told that he may have to pay back more than £100,000 over the five years, which could cost him as much as £2,500 a month. Does my hon. Friend accept that even when people are still in work, if they are trying to provide for their families, those sorts of sums are simply unobtainable for most of our constituents and will lead to bankruptcy, whether that is what the Government intend or not?

[Justin Madders]

There is a lack of reality and a lack of genuine engagement with the individuals affected. As I said, my constituent has not had a discussion of the sort that my hon. Friend refers to, and until he does, he is in no position to know whether he will be able to repay anything at all. Will there be genuine discussions before the loan charges become due? Is the Minister confident that the Department has sufficient staff and resources to deal with all the inquiries that we have heard about?

My constituent tells me that although he submitted his tax returns each year when he was working they were never queried, and because of that HMRC has at the very least implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted that the moneys he received as a loan were indeed just that. He is concerned by the retrospective nature and long reach of the loan charge, and states:

“We really are normal people, who operated within the law at the time, itemising everything on our tax returns, paying benefits in kind tax on the loans and operating under a registered scheme with a reference number lodged with HMRC at the time.”

I contrast those words with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said earlier about the string of multinational companies that are clearly paying less tax than they ought. When individuals are being driven to despair by the sort of hectoring we have heard about, it is perhaps right if they conclude that there seems to be one rule for the big corporations and another rule for the man on the street. If individuals are made bankrupt we will all lose, but it looks as if we could end up in that situation by default because of a lack of resources and engagement by HMRC. Will the Minister look carefully at how the recovery operation is working, so that we avoid that? Finally, I ask that HMRC acts with competence and compassion.

Public Sector Pay

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been very clear that the additional £500 million over two years will be coming from central DFE budgets. It will be allocated to schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be announcing exactly how that allocation will work in due course.

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

Last week I was speaking to headteachers in my constituency who were very frustrated that they were breaking up for the summer unable to finalise their budgets. Now that they are able to do so, can the Chief Secretary guarantee today—I think that she has dodged this question a little bit today—that they will not have to find a penny from their existing budgets to fund the pay award?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I think that many Opposition Members are missing the point that headteachers have significant flexibility in terms of paying their staff. Last year there was an average rise of 4.6%, including promotions. The point I am making is that above the 1% pay award that was already baked in, the DFE is providing extra funding to the tune of £500 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing the allocations in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As I have indicated, this Government’s approach to PFI is entirely different from that of the last Labour Government. The hon. Lady says that she has learnt the lessons. Well, it is a pity for the taxpayer, and for our children and grandchildren, that they were learnt so late.

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

5. How many people have paid a 25% withdrawal charge to use their lifetime ISA savings since that scheme was established.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

In the first financial year, 2017-18, there was no unauthorised withdrawal charge in place. The data for 2018-19 is obviously not yet known, but HMRC will publish it when it is available.

[Justin Madders]

Will the Minister look at the effect of the withdrawal charge more closely? A first-time buyer has told me that he has found a home that suits his needs, but because his lifetime ISA is less than a year old, he will not only lose his Government bonus but have to pay a £375 penalty charge back to the Government out of his own money. Why are aspiring homeowners being penalised in this way?

[John Glen]

I am of course happy to look at that case. Following my appearance at the Treasury Select Committee, I asked my officials to look at the guidance on the website, as I am anxious not to put misleading advice on there. The LISA is available for long-term savings. That was the scheme’s objective when it was set up.

European Affairs

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

There is an old saying that nature abhors a vacuum. Similarly, business abhors uncertainty, and in no industry is that more true than in the automotive sector. As the Government’s sector report makes clear, investment decisions and sourcing choices in the industry are often made by European or global headquarters, and the continued uncertainty about training arrangements are making it ask serious questions about whether it will invest in this country in the future.

Uncertainty across a sector can have a real impact, particularly in communities such as mine where the sector represents a big chunk of the jobs market. The Vauxhall Motors factory in my constituency is currently facing huge uncertainty. Until recently, it employed 1,800 people directly, with many more jobs in the supply chain, so there is no doubt that it is of pivotal importance to the area I represent. How such companies fare in the post-Brexit world will decide how I and my constituents judge the Government’s handling of the negotiations, because when it comes to the crunch, what happens on people’s doorsteps is what really matters to them.

The key choices about Vauxhall’s future rest in the hands of its owners, PSA, which is based in France. We know from decisions already made that it shows no sentiment. We have already lost about 700 jobs since it took over, and these job losses are extremely serious. We are told that they are a reaction to market conditions, with a decline in sales of the Astra. Market conditions are not of course within the gift of the Government, but what is within their gift are the conditions within which business can trade, and this is where the Government really need to start listening to the industry—and acting. Traditionally, the automotive sector makes investment decisions about three to five years in advance, so decisions about investment in a post-Brexit world will be made shortly. The current model in production in Ellesmere Port is due to be discontinued at about the same time in 2021. The chief executive of PSA recently told the BBC:

“We cannot invest in a world of uncertainty”,

so now is the time for the Government to provide them with that certainty.

The automotive sector, as we know, is one of the most productive and successful we have, directly or indirectly employing over 800,000 people and generating almost 10% of the country’s manufacturing output. We know that about half of all UK car production is exported to the EU, and that figure rises to 70% to 80% for vehicles produced at the Vauxhall plant in my constituency. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recently found that

“leaving the EU without a deal would undoubtedly be hugely damaging to the UK automotive sector, more so than to other European countries.”

It concluded:

“Overall, no-one has argued there are advantages to be gained from Brexit for the automotive industry for the foreseeable future.”

Now that we are leaving the EU, it is important to recognise that this is one of our most vulnerable sectors, and there is no upside for it. We therefore need to do everything possible to safeguard jobs and investment. History shows us that once manufacturing jobs are lost, they very rarely come back. So far the response from the Government has been inadequate and complacent, and the sense of denial is palpable.

Of course, it was never meant to be this way. Both during and after the referendum, too many people have exaggerated the simplicity of all this. The Brexit Secretary assured us that we would soon be able to access

“a very, very large trade area, much bigger than the European Union, probably ten times the size”,

despite the fact that if it was that big, it would cover an area twice the size of the planet. The Foreign Secretary promised us that without

“the job-destroying coils of EU bureaucracy we can survive and thrive as never before.”

The International Trade Secretary said that securing a UK-EU trade deal would be

“one of the easiest in human history”.

Yet even with such esteemed and self-confident people negotiating on our behalf, we still do not know— 629 days after the referendum—what the deal will be.

When Cabinet Ministers are pressed on these issues, I have seen them bluffing complacently with dangerous fantasies about the promised green and pleasant land that will apparently emerge before our eyes without any effort being invested. The Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech said that new trading arrangements would need good will to succeed, but that sounds more like crossing one’s fingers and hoping for the best. My constituents’ jobs need more than that and the people who employ them need more than that to invest, so the Government need to understand that the once proud automotive heritage will be lost to the past unless we can secure its future. This is an industry that will survive and flourish only if we are prepared to fight for it. Even if it turns out to be the simple negotiation that the International Trade Secretary promised us, he needs to realise that for there to be an automotive sector in this country that will continue to trade with the rest of the world, it needs to be protected now, so the Government must act.

For me, a commitment to a customs union is the only sensible way to restore certainty and confidence, not some vague and ill-defined customs partnership that may or may not be the same as it is now. We know the argument about how a customs union will have an impact on future trade deals elsewhere, but I do not think that getting a couple of quid off trainers from China is actually a price worth paying for the destruction of the UK car industry. In response to a written question from me about which non-EU countries had been identified as the best ones for future trade deals in the automotive sector, the Minister for Trade Policy said:

“We are working with a number of other countries to explore the best ways to develop our current trade and investment relationships”.

That did not tell me anything, including about whether there are any such opportunities outside the EU.

If it is a choice between preserving trade with up to 80% of our existing customers, as against perhaps getting some new business with some unspecified countries at some unspecified time in the future, I know what every person with an ounce of common sense will choose. The choice for the Government is clear, and if they make the wrong one, we will never forgive them and we will never forget.

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I certainly heard the hon. Member’s point of order yesterday and I share and understand the concern that many Unilever employees feel about the current and growing uncertainty. The Government are certainly disappointed that Unilever has decided to close the Norwich plant. We welcome its commitment to maintaining most of the mint production in Norwich, and stand by ready to help the workforce wherever we can. This is a worrying time, and we need to work with Unilever to get further clarity over what is intended.

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

The automotive sector in this country is facing challenging times, and no more so than the Vauxhall car plant in my constituency where another 250 redundancies were announced this week on top of 400 last October. May we have a debate please, as a matter of urgency, about what practical steps the Government can take to protect manufacturing jobs in this country and secure the future of the car plant?

[Paul Maynard]

As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that, as someone from Cheshire, I understand the importance of Vauxhall Motors to the Ellesmere Port community. I was as disappointed as I am sure he was to hear about the further job losses. The rapid response service of Jobcentre Plus has already been put into action, and the Government are trying to engage with Vauxhall further throughout the process to do all we can both to protect UK jobs and to help those who are affected. There will be much more help available to those who are affected, but I recognise his concerns and will make sure that the Leader of the House passes them on to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Paradise Papers

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman characterises those involved in overseas trusts as eye-wateringly rich, but I do not think all of them are; there are many pension funds, and there will be many who rely on those pension funds to live, and many of them might, indeed, live in his constituency. I think this general characterisation of it all being about super-wealthy people and all being about tax dodgers and so forth is rather crude, and, frankly, not worthy of the Opposition.

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

Some 130,000 UK companies have not completed their persons with significant control registers, and not one of them has been fined. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we credibly ask others to act on transparency?

[Mel Stride]

I am happy to look into the specific point the hon. Gentleman has raised and will come back to him on it.

Summer Adjournment

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) has taken her rightful place on the Front Bench. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on his maiden speech. He spoke with great sincerity and knowledge about his constituency and the challenges facing it, particularly pressure on housing and public services.

I wish to raise just one subject—leasehold—which affects not only a number of my constituents, but many other people throughout England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has already touched on it. I spoke about it in the Chamber last December, when I described the emerging leasehold scandal as the PPI of the house building industry. However, having seen more of the serial failures, deceptions and obfuscations, I believe I may have understated culpability right across the board. The developers, of course, are public enemy No. 1, but the lenders, the solicitors and even the Government all have to take some share of the blame for a scandal that has the potential to fundamentally destabilise the housing market if it is not tackled soon.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, I am now vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, which he brilliantly chairs alongside the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). They have been superbly assisted by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership in bringing the matter to the attention of parliamentarians. There now seems to be some consensus across the House that these abuses need to be tackled. I understand that the Government will be coming forward shortly with plans to tackle some of the abuses in the leasehold sector, but it is vital that they create not only a clear and fair framework for new builds, but a strategy to deal with the rotten mess that developers have created.

There at last appears to be some self-awareness by developers that leasehold homes are becoming toxic, with many now pledging voluntarily not to sell any new homes on a leasehold basis. But that will not assist my constituents who have already bought their homes and have been quoted extortionate sums to buy their properties, obtain permission to alter the property, or even ask a question of their landlord, nor will it assist the many who are already trapped because they have onerous leases that purchasers are no longer interested in signing up to, and that some building societies will no longer lend on. It will also not assist us in holding to account the guilty men and women who must have known that creating this second lucrative income stream for developers would ultimately be at the cost of their customers.

Developers are beginning to acknowledge their responsibility. Taylor Wimpey voluntarily announced in April that it was going to set up a process whereby those with the most onerous leases had the opportunity to convert them into new leases where the ground rent would increase by only RPI, instead of doubling every 10 years. Sadly, however, that announcement is where the credit stops, because three months on, progress has been painfully slow. In the intervening period, I have been contacted by at least one constituent whose ground rent has doubled since the announcement was made, which means that if it ever does get converted to an RPI lease, those RPI increases will be applied to a ground rent that is twice what it could have been. This has ongoing consequences should my constituent ever be in a position to purchase the freehold outright, and if she does try to purchase it, she will still have to negotiate with the owner of the freehold, whoever that is, and navigate the fiendishly complicated and lengthy process currently in place.

The lease may still contain other punitive clauses aside from the ground rent, which, as we have seen from some examples, can include charges of up to £3,000 just to get permission for an extension. This is all before we consider those who are not covered, such as second-generation purchasers where Taylor Wimpey are not the freehold owners. Where do they stand? There is going to need to be an active Government strategy to deal with everyone affected by this scandal.

The Government have a financial interest in sorting this out. At the end of March 2017 the number of Help to Buy purchases on leasehold properties stood at just over 28,000, of which 11,641 are houses. Some 23% of all Help to Buy purchases are on leasehold properties, and given concerns about the drop in value of some of the properties with the most onerous leases, there is a real question whether the Government will get all their money back eventually. To my astonishment, there has not yet been any suggestion of an outright ban on Help to Buy funds being used to purchase leasehold houses.

Let us be clear: sorting out the immediate consequences of onerous leases must be the start of the process, not the end of it. We need to learn the lessons, and if necessary legislate, so that the worst excesses of capitalism that we have seen here are not allowed to infect our society again. There needs to be a much easier, quicker and cost-effective way, so that people can purchase their freehold outright, and then we need to bring in an outright ban on houses being sold on a leasehold basis.

But there also needs to be a long, hard look at how we got into this position in the first place. I would like there to be a full Select Committee inquiry into how this practice developed. At the moment, we do not even know the extent of it. Developers must be required to give evidence about why this systematic duping of their customers was allowed to start in the first place. Who were the authors of those leases that now nobody will sign up to? How many properties were made leasehold needlessly? How much profit have they made out of this scam? And who exactly are the beneficiaries of the leases now?

These properties are being passed around from one company to another. Some are based outside this country, and there is secrecy about who the ultimate recipients are of the substantial incomes coming from the leases. There is an old saying that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but it now seems that an Englishman’s home is in fact a revenue stream for an offshore company operating from a tax haven.

What is very clear to me is that when people bought their houses they thought they were doing just that—buying a home. What they never contemplated for a moment was that actually the true owner of their home would be someone they might never know the identity of, who can sell on their interest in the property to somebody else without their knowledge or consent. It sounds like something out of feudal society, not 21st-century Britain.

That brings me to what I would like a Select Committee inquiry to look at: the legal profession. Speaking as a former solicitor, I know that mistakes are made, but it seems incredible to me that so many people make the same complaint about the advice they received at the time of their purchase. I surveyed my constituents in leasehold properties and a staggering 80% of them did not know the true nature of what they were buying. I think those figures demonstrate that there is a compelling need for further examination of the advice that was provided. I have heard of developers offering incentives to use particular solicitors. Why would they do that, and what led to such a collective failure in the legal profession?

What advice was given to the lenders, whom solicitors also have a duty to? We now know, for example, that Nationwide will no longer lend on properties with doubling ground rents. That rather raises the question of what their and other lenders’ exposure is and, crucially, why they granted mortgages on these properties in the first place. None of the developers will tell us how many properties they have built with these onerous clauses attached. We need to know the scale of the problem; the stability of the housing market rests on the back of that.

I hope I have demonstrated the range of issues that need to be dealt with in respect of this scandal. A full Select Committee inquiry is the way ahead. This has not happened by accident and we need to know why it started.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all other Members and, in particular, all the staff who work so hard to keep this place running smoothly, a restful and peaceful summer.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I will aim not to disappoint, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this extremely important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on their extremely hard work over a number of years to try to secure adequate compensation for everyone who lost out as a result of this scandal. The issue of Equitable Life and the fate of those who lost out after investing has been debated by Members on both sides of the House for more than 15 years. As has been said, there is a great deal of cross-party work on this matter. Throughout that time, the Equitable Life Members Group and the all-party group have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that the issue is not simply kicked into the long grass. I am pleased to have another opportunity to press the case for those who lost out.

After a long battle, I appreciate the action that the Government have taken to date for those affected by this scandal. However, as we have heard from Members and our constituents, many policyholders remain short-changed, receiving a payment of less than one quarter of the compensation to which the ombudsman found they would have been entitled. The second ombudsman’s report was clear that the aim of the compensation scheme should have been to put people back into the position they would have been in if maladministration had not occurred. Despite that—we have heard this from many Members today—1 million people have received only about 22% of the compensation they are due.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman, like all speakers in the debate, is making a very powerful point. I, too, have received a great number of letters from constituents who have corresponded with me about the money that they or their relatives lost. He is right to say that they received only 22% of the compensation they expected. Is it not the case that we are dealing with pensioners and that we are losing about 15 a day? If the Government were to look again at whether, with a growing economy, more could be done for the people who have lost out, that would need to happen sooner rather than later.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are dealing with people who are getting on in years. As he points out, sadly about 15 policyholders a day are dying before the situation has been resolved. I am strongly of the belief—we see this for a whole range of issues—that the longer people wait for justice, the harder it is to appreciate that justice has been served.

The core of this issue is that many people feel that, even after all these years, justice has not been done. That message has come across loud and clear from my constituents and those of other hon. Members who have spoken. These people worked all their lives only to find that their pension pot has failed to materialise in the manner they were promised and they genuinely believed would occur.

In practice, this means that people who spent decades working for a comfortable retirement have had it denied them. It means that they are downsizing or even re-mortgaging their homes in their old age just to make ends meet. That is clearly not what we want for people who have contributed throughout their lives.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking extremely powerfully. He is absolutely right to focus on those who will not have the opportunity to recover the money they have lost unless the Government change their mind. Does he agree that a real message can be sent to young people and those of us who, like myself, are less young? We must show that saving and responsible action during a working life is rewarded. There is a danger that if we continue to get this wrong, the lesson we are providing is that people should not bother to save, because it is not worth it.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I am sure that he has many years to go before he reaches retirement age, but that is something that is absolutely central to the debate, so I will expand on it a little more. We are entering an era in which retirement ages will increase and there will be more and more onus on people to take responsibility for their own retirement. If we have a system that people lack confidence in, it simply will not work. That is why compensation in these situations should be delivered in full.

One of my constituents told me:

“what I personally find sickening is that Her Majesty’s Government, no matter which party is in power, has utterly refused to act on the Ombudsman’s findings, which point to its own shortcomings.”

That point, which has been made by many Members, really does sum up where we are. I hope that the Minister will update us on what the Government are doing and focus on what good news those individuals who feel that the system has short-changed them can expect. That is important not just for them, but for the trust we should have in the system to secure our own futures. There is a need to restore confidence and build trust not just for the individuals affected by the scandal, but for everyone. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, there are uncomfortable parallels with the WASPI campaign. People’s confidence has been shattered by what they consider to be broken promises by the Government and the institutions in which we place our trust.

I agree that we all need to encourage people to plan for their retirement and to contribute to their pensions, but what kind of message does it send if the Government fail to properly regulate a provider and then fail to compensate people fully for their losses? It is not just trust in the finance sector that is at stake here; it is trust in politics itself. As has been said in previous debates as well as today, the 2010 Conservative manifesto included this comment, which links these issues in a neat way:

“We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”

I think that all Members agree that that is a worthy aim, but the question of whether the pledge has been met in full is a matter of some debate.

I am conscious of the time, because we do want to hear from the Minister. What has already been said today has really summed up the situation, but let me end by making what I think is a key point. A failure to correct the wrongs of the past will lead to a failure to secure confidence in the future. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that the erosion of confidence that this episode has engendered could, in fact, be of greater impact in the long run than the cost of full compensation. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will do the right thing, not only for the policyholders of Equitable Life, but to restore confidence in the entire system of savings and pensions.

The hon. Member for Harrow East spoke of a debt of honour, and I think that that is an excellent way of referring to our obligations. We need to act honourably, and to correct this injustice in full. Given the age of many of the policyholders involved, it is clear that the adage “Justice delayed is justice denied” was never more true than it is in this case.

Good Parliament Report

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on her superb introduction to this debate. She set out the huge range of issues that we have to consider and will, I hope, act upon. I very much welcome the recommendations in the report. I hope that they are given the opportunity to be implemented faster than we have seen female representation grow in this place.

Having been elected only last year, I still look at some of the goings-on here with a mixture of wonder, bemusement and sadness. My job before I was elected enabled me to peer into many other workplaces and their cultures. I am sorry to say that, if the culture we have here were replicated in an ordinary workplace, the company could expect to be involved in many employment tribunals every year. It would also find it difficult to recruit good people and would have an even harder job retaining good staff.

Although it is a huge privilege to work here, we should not be afraid to challenge archaic practices and cultures where we find them. At how many workplaces does someone’s finish time vary and change at incredibly short notice? How is that in any way family friendly? In which workplaces is it acceptable for colleagues to stop speaking to you because they disapprove of something you have or have not done? Would we expect to start a new job without any feedback or appraisal of progress, but still be promoted or demoted on a set of opaque criteria we are not privy to? In which jobs would it be considered normal to engage in arguments on Twitter with work colleagues? And I am talking about people from the same party; they sometimes come with insults and abuse that would breach any dignity at work policy.

I am chair of the all-party group on social mobility. We are currently conducting an inquiry into access to the professions, which includes law, finance, the arts, media, medicine, the civil service and politics. In terms of Parliament, as we have heard, the stark fact remains that there have been fewer female MPs elected than there are male MPs currently sitting in the House of Commons, and less than 30% of MPs at the moment are female. Although the report looks mainly at gender issues, we cannot isolate that from other factors that influence representation here. According to the Sutton Trust, 32% of MPs were privately educated compared with 7% of the general population. Of those, the research shows, almost one in 10 went to Eton. Nearly 10% of all MPs attended the same school: a school that of course only boys can attend.

The recommendations on sitting days are welcome. Why, for heaven’s sake, do we have a half-term recess next week that starts on a Wednesday? No schools are off then and I am not aware of any school breaks that start on a Wednesday. I certainly welcome the recommendations on producing a statement on maternity, paternity, adoption and caring leave. We would not expect our constituents to forgo those hard-won rights, so I do not think we should, either.

Recommendation 43 places the onus on political parties to increase the diversity of parliamentary candidates. My party has been at the forefront of this, and with the creation of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme, I am confident we will continue to be so. The reality is that it is up to the political parties to seriously look at the way they select candidates if we really want to change things.

My party has made great strides towards gender equality. I have a great amount of respect and admiration for my Labour colleagues, but it is still very much the case that someone has to have connections with the centre, the kind of informal networks that we see in all professions, if they want to succeed in politics. We have to recognise that, to be selected as a candidate for a major political party in a winnable seat, someone must first of all win an election that in all likelihood will be just as challenging as the real one, but without the party’s resources, or the finance. They may not have the time to get the nomination, particularly if they are in a full-time job outside politics, or have caring responsibilities, or both. The reality is that, if they are working at the local Tesco, and have three kids under 11, they will struggle to find the time to run a successful election campaign. Some unions are getting better at recognising those challenges, and we need to go further and support them.

There is a huge London focus in most professions, but arguably it is most acute in politics. The Speaker’s parliamentary scheme is helping to open up opportunity, but a number of people do not apply to it at all because the cost of living in London is so high. Those who are on the scheme can struggle because the cost of living is so high, even on the London living wage. That is why people with supportive and well-resourced families have an advantage. We must therefore stress the importance of open and funded internships and placements, which do not rely on self-finance. We hope to present the result of the all-party group’s inquiry next month. It is pretty clear that it will show patterns that restrict opportunity, repeated throughout the various professions— with politics no exception. There are pockets of good practice in all professions, but they are just that—pockets. In Parliament we have a unique role and an opportunity to lead by example, to show that in this country, whatever a person’s background, they will have the same opportunities as everyone else.