Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is brilliantly championing an excellent initiative in his constituency that maintains social value for the people of Rugby. I think the council ought to be referred to the national planning policy framework, which makes it clear that local planning authorities are expected to balance social, economic and environmental considerations in a way that is appropriate to their area. That is already in planning guidelines, and I therefore encourage him to keep on reminding the council of its obligations.

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

Last summer, the Government announced a £3.6 billion town fund and identified 100 towns that were to benefit from it. I was disappointed that Ellesmere Port and Neston—

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

And Little Neston.

[Justin Madders]

I was disappointed that those towns, and Little Neston, were not on the list, so I began tabling written questions about the basis on which successful towns were selected. I got a list of criteria, and I asked for the data that underpinned it, only to be told this week that that information was not available because the policy was still being developed. That prompts the question: how could towns have been selected for a fund if the policy was still being developed? We need a clear and unambiguous statement from the relevant Minister about that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Policies are in development the whole time, and if we always waited for the complete development of every policy, nothing would ever happen.

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady cleverly ensured that she was called when the Health Secretary was sitting next to me. The message has therefore been heard by an authority that is greater than mine when it comes to dealing with this issue, and health questions will take place next Tuesday. Let me add, however, that the inquiry is an absolute priority for the Government, recognising the dreadful, desperate scandal of infected blood, and also recognising the hon. Lady’s formidable and right campaign to make sure that people are aware of it. The Department of Health and Social Care has increased financial support to beneficiaries of the infected blood support scheme in England, and it is looking as a matter of urgency at the issue that she mentioned in relation to the differences between the schemes in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Secretary of State is here and has heard her point.

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

Constituents of mine who are leaseholders recently received a letter from a firm of solicitors called JB Leitch about some outstanding ground rent. What was particularly outrageous about the letter was that it included additional fees for late payment equivalent to 222% of the original ground rent charge, despite this being the first correspondence that my constituents had received on the matter. That is typical of the way in which leaseholders are being exploited in this country. May we please have a debate on how we can stamp out these terrible practices?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are well aware of that issue, and I think that it might well be covered by legislation that is in the pipeline. I think that that would be the occasion on which to debate it.

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think this is primarily an operational matter for the Metropolitan police. There is always a balance to be struck between allowing non-violent protest, which is a legitimate activity in a democracy, and preventing violence from taking place, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s question is passed on to the Home Secretary so that she is aware of his concern.

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

From next week, the number 22 bus service will no longer travel through Willaston, which is a rural community with a lot of elderly residents who will be more isolated as a result. It seems that every couple of months we have to go into battle with bus companies who change their routes or stop them altogether at a moment’s notice without any thought for the impact on my constituents. May we have a statement from a Transport Minister about when we can take back control of our buses?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the Government have proposed an extra £220 million for bus services, so there will be a significant financial commitment. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue at Transport questions on 30 January.

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I think that bank holidays are one of the things that come under the Lord President of the Council, so this is the first question I have ever been asked while wearing my Lord President of the Council hat. However, there is a great cost to bank holidays and I think the chances of having another one, although we all like to have a day off, is relatively slim, so I would not like to build up my right hon. Friend’s hopes.

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

May I join the tributes that have been paid to my predecessor Andrew Miller, who served the constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston with distinction for 23 years? He was greatly admired and respected by his constituents. As I found when I entered this place, he was also greatly admired and respected across the House for his work during his time in Parliament. He will be greatly missed. He was a friend to many of us here and a real mentor, and my thoughts are with his family at this time. His work in the field of science and technology is well known, but he was also a patron for the charity RoadPeace. In that regard, will the Leader of the House update us on when the consultation that took place several years ago on increasing sentences for death by dangerous driving will actually result in legislation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. The Government take the matter extraordinarily seriously. There were plans in the previous Parliament for dealing with it, and I would be very surprised if they were not revisited soon.

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady may recall that not so many years ago we had a Second Reading debate for a couple of days on the role of the upper Chamber in an attempt to reform it, but it did not get very far. The problem with those debates is that so many people have so many different ideas that nobody can come to a conclusion about what ought to be done, so I would suggest that if people want such a debate, they have a word with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

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

Last week, 50 new towns were added to the future high streets fund. Ellesmere Port was not one of them, which was hugely disappointing, but then I saw that the majority of successful bids were from Conservative constituencies. May we have a statement, please, from the relevant Minister to assure us that this is not a political fix ahead of a snap general election?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Oh, of course it is not a political fix! No Government would ever behave like that.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I will not speak for too long, because I am sure the House has heard enough from me today, but I have a couple of queries, following what I said in the previous debate about this only being a staging post to our final destination.

The Gemma White report says that

“contributors to this inquiry have expressed considerable concern about using the new procedures and scepticism as to what the ICGS can realistically achieve. Many of them told me they would not contemplate making a complaint under the new ICGS procedure, because it would be ‘career suicide’… Some are concerned about the independence of the ICGS process… and the lack of clarity as to the sanctions which could be imposed on an MP.”

Those are still the issues with getting a process that we and, most importantly, staff can be confident in. Until we have a process that does not involve Members at all—I appreciate that work is going on in respect of that—staff will feel a bit inhibited in making a complaint.

The other issue is sanctions. I am not at all clear, and I hope the Leader of the House can clarify when he responds, what sanctions will be levied against an MP for a complaint being upheld under this procedure. For the procedure to have the confidence of staff, it must have proper sanctions.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

To clarify, on behalf of the Committee on Standards, we are conducting an inquiry into exactly the question of what sanctions would be appropriate in a number of different situations. We would be more than happy to hear from my hon. Friend and, indeed, all Members.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware that a consultation is ongoing, but it begs the question of what will happen with complaints that are being dealt with now if sanctions have not been clarified. Presumably some complaints will be resolved before the Commission reports. If I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected. Will sanctions be applied retrospectively after they have been agreed, or will investigations be reopened? Those are the questions that I hope the Leader of the House can clarify when he responds.

Question put and agreed to.

Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am sure none of us thought we would be surprised to read Gemma White’s report, given that there were reports of bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff in the press as far back as November 2017, but even though we knew there was a problem, the report has been no less shocking. It is shocking to know that in the place where I work, some staff have been and are still being subjected to an

“unacceptable risk of bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, at work”

from their employers. Those employers are Members of Parliament, not some backstreet employer. They are people elected by this country to lead, not to have an attitude to staff that belongs to a bygone era.

No one reading the report could fail to be moved by the testimonies of those who have suffered at the hands of some of our colleagues. Like many others who have spoken today, I want to pay tribute to the former and current members of staff who have been brave enough to come forward and participate in this inquiry. I am sure that their stories were not easy to share, and I want to assure them that I and others will listen to what they have to say and do our best to put in place measures to ensure that those in the future do not go through what they have gone through. I want to read out the words of some of those members of staff. One talked about an MP who

“would intimidate, mock and undermine me every day”.

Another stated:

“After I resigned I suffered a breakdown which I have never recovered from”.

Another said:

“My entire sense of self was crushed, and by the end, I felt incapable and incompetent”.

No one should be made to feel that way when they go to work.

Grown men and women have been shouted at, sworn at, belittled and humiliated. Some have been relentlessly picked on, day in and day out, and worn down by the drip-drip nature of the abuse that they have suffered. Others have been the victims of unwanted sexual advances or banter. This is nothing short of sickening. It might not be something that many Members have personally been on the receiving end of, but we all know people who have received appalling treatment at the hands of their employer. These are people who wake up each morning with a knot in their stomach, or worse, because they do not know what they will face when they go into work. However, they know that what they will face will be unpleasant, harrowing and debilitating.

Staff are already expressing their concern that the number of Members here today does not send out the right message about the importance that we should place on the way in which our staff are treated in this place. This has happened right here under our noses in these buildings, in the corridors and the offices. It is like something from a bygone era: staff feeling bullied and abused and, most importantly, feeling powerless to do anything about it. Talk to any member of staff and they will almost certainly know someone who has been involved in such issues. Unsurprisingly, that will have had a detrimental effect on them, with some becoming too anxious or ill to work. Some have been forced to resign, often following a period of sick leave, and some have been sacked. Some have left Parliament altogether with promising careers ruined while the perpetrators get off scot-free.

[Eddie Hughes]

I recognise so much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He used the word “banter”—he was referring to the report—so I googled it, and it seems to imply some sort of friendly, playful exchange. However, the impacts that he is describing are far from friendly and playful. We should get away from the idea that abuse can sometimes be acceptable because it is casual.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. People may sometimes feel that they are being amusing or engaging in banter, but they have no idea of the effect that that is having on the individual. Many sexual harassment cases over the years will have the same characteristic. That is why training is important, because we all must understand that some of the things we say can have a negative effect on people.

This behaviour has been happening for a long time, and perpetrators have been getting away with it, enabling them to carry on the cycle of abuse with the next member of staff, a problem that we absolutely must end. It is unsurprising that one contributor to the report states that staff have come to believe that there has been

“general disregard for the dignity, wellbeing and employment rights of MPs’ staff”.

I agree with that, and Gemma White agrees with that. She concludes that

“bullying and harassment in MPs’ offices is widespread and cultural”,

and it would be impossible for anyone who reads her report to conclude otherwise.

As has already been said, a minority of Members are involved in this kind of activity, but it is important to say at this point that Gemma White explicitly stated:

“Some Members were the subject of contributions from a number of different contributors.”

In some cases, we are talking not about isolated incidents, but about the same MP repeating a pattern of abusive behaviour with successive members of staff. The fact that this is just a minority must not stop us treating the matter with the utmost urgency. If the same names keep cropping up in reports, without any acknowledgment of wrongdoing or any action to put things right, we know that something is not working.

The majority of us, of course, are perfectly able to be fair and reasonable employers, but that is not an excuse for a small number who behave inappropriately. People have got away with that for too long, because we have not had the right procedures in place. We must now collectively find a way to deal with the situation, or we will all be responsible for what goes on in this place.

There is no place for bullying and harassment in any workplace, but we should be the exemplar of best practice. We should be the place that people look to for positive behaviours. We should set the standards for others to emulate. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we effectively challenge the employment practices of others? We are failing badly to get our own house in order, because we have here another publication with yet more cases of bullying and harassment, but we have not properly implemented the recommendations from the last one.

We must stop dragging our feet. We must at least implement changes to employment practices to give our staff the same protections that we would expect from every other employer and that we would expect our constituents to have. We must ensure that the necessary steps are taken so that staff can report incidents without any fear of reprisal or retribution, because many who took part in the inquiry were clear that they felt unable to raise a complaint against their MP because, until July of last year, those complaints had to be made directly to that MP. In many cases, they were complaining to the boss about the boss’s behaviour, so who could blame them for concluding that there would be literally no point in doing so because the same person being complained about would be the judge and jury over that particular complaint?

Staff now have access to an independent complaints and grievance scheme, but it is clear that, even though the new system is in place, they still do not have confidence that it would not be career suicide to refer complaints to it. Indeed, Gemma White concludes that, even now, it is

“unlikely that the majority of bullying and harassment suffered by MPs’ staff will be reported under the ICGS.”

We must consider that seriously today.

Staff are simply not convinced of the process’s independence, so it is vital that we move to a fully independent process in which MPs are not able to sit in judgment on their colleagues in any way, shape or form. No longer should an employer be a judge in his or her cause. It really is not good enough for the Commission to recommend the non-involvement of Members in determining bullying and harassment cases. We have to move away from it altogether.

It is not good enough that there is a complete lack of clarity on the sanctions that can be imposed on an MP. The Women and Equalities Committee heard at the beginning of this month, in evidence on a gender-sensitive Parliament, that sanctions against MPs appear to amount only to an informal quiet word with a dozen or so offenders. If that is all that happens, who can blame staff for feeling that there is not much point in going through the system?

[Mrs Miller]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. The Select Committee’s concern is that, even though there is now a formal grievance procedure in place, it appears that some senior members of staff still think it is the right procedure just to have a quiet word. If they are not recording who they are talking to, there is no ability to monitor repeat offenders. We are quite concerned that that procedure and practice still seems to be embedded in this place.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. I find it incredible that we are still in that place. I cannot imagine that the contracts of employment of those staff do not make it explicitly clear that bullying and harassment are considered gross misconduct. A quiet word following an allegation of gross misconduct is not good enough, and it deters people from making valid complaints in future. That really has to change.

Even if we get to a truly independent process, we still need to think about why staff feel inhibited in making a complaint against their employer. The employer might have to write them a reference, or they might still share an office. Until recently, staff could not pursue a complaint at all if they left Parliament. I think that will change with the motion on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, but it was a ridiculous distinction to make—it would not be allowed in any other workplace—because a lot of people, for valid reasons, will not make a complaint until they have left their employment.

I am pleased that we will finally have a chance to extend the independent complaints and grievance scheme to cover non-recent cases of bullying and harassment. I do not know why we need to wait for the autumn, as has already been mentioned, and we have to be clear that this is not the final point on our journey but is a step towards it.

From what Gemma White has said, it is clear to me that, without effective sanctions and a truly independent complaints panel, we will not have true justice. It is bizarre that we can talk about extending the scheme, when the report basically says that staff do not have confidence because of the lack of independence and the lack of sanctions. That problem will not be rectified when we pass the motion on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, and we need to address it as a matter of urgency.

Ultimately, this comes down to the power imbalance between MPs and staff, the high demand for jobs in politics and the reliance on patronage in our political system, which means that the risk of abuse of power is all too great. We have 650 individual offices, which together employ more than 3,200 staff. Any other public sector organisation of that size would have a body that allows some degree of independent oversight of its employment practices, whether it be the use of probation periods, appraisals, performance management or training.

As an absolute minimum, we need basic policies and procedures to drag our worst offenders into the 21st century, and it cannot be ignored that probation periods and performance management were repeatedly raised by contributors to the report. Those of us who already recognise employment practices in a fair and reasonable manner use them to support and develop our staff, but they can be used as a stick to prevent people from making complaints—those are the tactics of a bullying employer. So I welcome the Commission’s statement that it will begin consulting immediately to see what implementation issues there will be in the creation of a new HR department, because it is clear that we need to give much more support to Members and staff in developing and implementing policies in a fair and reasonable manner. That we do not already do this in 2019 is shocking to the outside world, so we have to get on with it as soon as possible.

Having spoken to staff, I know that they are keen to see that department set up, because, as Gemma White recommends, it would also support staff welfare. We hope it would also introduce initiatives such as a buddy system for new staff, to reduce isolation, and peer mentoring for staff who need extra support. Many staff do this in an informal way already, but others are struggling behind closed doors and are not calling for help but actually need it.

There is a role for IPSA or a similar independent body in respect of the introduction of both a leavers survey and a way to collect data to monitor MPs’ employment records, which would help to identify trends or specific pockets of concern in individual offices. That is important, because there must be nowhere for bullies to hide. Only through introducing transparent systems and independent scrutiny will we be able to end the impunity that currently exists in some quarters to hire and fire at will. Let us imagine it became public knowledge that a Member had gone through a dozen or more staff in a couple of years—questions would rightly be asked about what was going on there. So although I also welcome the Commission’s announcement that it will consult on how to collate this data and use it to improve employment practices, I again urge it to do that with the utmost expediency.

Finally, I come to an issue that I have spoken about before and that the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) spoke about at length. Many MPs enter Parliament with little or no management training or experience, but that cannot be used as an excuse. If we know MPs lack that training, we should be providing it, to make sure that no one falls behind. Even with my experience in the law, I would still have welcomed a Members’ staff handbook, with correct procedures and policies in place, and I was shocked to find that there was little support here when I was starting out as a new MP, having to hire staff, set up offices and so on. Clearly, with such a low take-up so far of the Valuing Everyone training, voluntary training is not the answer. I see no reason why that training should not be mandatory for all current Members and their staff, and it should be completed within a short timeframe. It is up to us as Parliament to set the standards not just for this place, but for the rest of the country. We cannot lecture others on the way they treat their staff if we cannot get our own house in order. We must be an example of the best practice, not the worst. That starts with getting our house in order, and getting true independence in our procedures and meaningful sanctions for those who transgress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The message from the Dispatch Box this afternoon is that we expect these measures to be introduced by October. Therefore, the message to anybody who is minded to come forward is that there is now time to prepare prior to October, when we hope that the independent assessors, who will handle that work, will be in place. I think that I can at least signal that that is our anticipation, and hope that that in itself is helpful.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. I must say that I am a little perplexed that we have a scheme that is essentially identical to the current complaints scheme, that it has taken this long to come to fruition and that there will be a further delay. What is also of concern is that there may be an election later this year and those who may get caught by this historical complaints process may no longer be Members of this place. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, in those circumstances, those people will essentially not face any inquiry?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman has very perceptively poked his finger into one of a few areas where it is not entirely clear how the system will work. Indeed, he is right. If a Member has left this place, I guess that an investigation could be conducted, but then there would be the issue of what sanctions could be applied and by whom. Indeed, a Member may have left this place and gone to the other place and, in those circumstances, he might ask what the process would be and who would apply the sanctions—if sanctions are to be applied. The best answer that I can give him is that there are elements of this that will require further work. If he would like to contribute to that, my door is always open.

That brings me rather neatly on to the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. She rightly asked the question about this whole issue of transparency, ownership, accountability and leadership, and where these decisions ultimately rest. I am standing at this Dispatch Box as a Minister leading this debate, but, of course, these are matters not for the Government, but for the House. They are matters for all 650—600-plus—MPs who have actually taken their seats in this place. In some senses, there are some quite deep and reform-related issues around governance here that various Members have raised, which really fall to the House to grapple with. My role in that is that I sit on the House of Commons Commission, as does the shadow Leader of the House, but I do not lead the House in terms of reforming its own procedures and practices, albeit that I can facilitate some of those changes, as I have done, by bringing forward this debate today, and, indeed, the motion that we will very shortly and hopefully be passing in regard to historical cases.

Finally, let me turn to some other points that have been made. I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her outstanding work on the Committee on Standards, and for the time and courtesy that she offered to me when we met recently to discuss a number of the aspects of the work of her Committee. I also thank her for the work that she is doing at the moment on the different sanctions that may apply to Members of Parliament and for her best endeavours to complete that work, as suggested in the report, by December of this year. Finally, I thank her for the work that she will be doing alongside the House of Commons Commission in respect of the Cox 3 recommendation around MPs effectively not being able to mark their own homework.

In conclusion, I thank again all those who have contributed to this very important debate. We in this House hold this place dear. We are the guardians of its present and of its future, and we have a duty to ensure that it represents the very finest traditions and principles of our country. The way in which we treat those who support us in that endeavour lies right at the heart of any claim that we may make that we meet that vital test. I thank Gemma White for her report. Progress has been made, but there is still more to do and we will press ahead now with vigour.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Gemma White report on bullying and harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary staff.

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, because I totally recognise that dementia is an increasing issue for the health of our nation and—although she did not express this—the cruel nature of the condition. I know that a huge amount of work is being done, particularly by volunteers: through memory cafés, for example—like me, she probably has some in her constituency. They do such wonderful work to find those areas where people with dementia can remember, enjoy and reflect. It might be a rather good subject for a Westminster Hall debate.

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

May we please have a debate on the responsibility of the Post Office to engage with the communities it is supposed to serve? Hope Farm Road post office in my constituency has been shut at random times without explanation, and the other day I heard on the grapevine that the post office in Willaston, which is an isolated, rural community, is being shut next month, with no consultation or forewarning. How are communities expected to access these vital services if there is no dialogue?

[Mel Stride]

Post offices are absolutely vital. I think that, in terms of national affection, they rank second only to the national health service in the passion that people feel about what is almost an institution. That is for good reason, particularly in rural areas, because post offices often provide services, including banking services, to local traders and residents that would otherwise have been hollowed out and become unavailable due to the absence of banks.

I take the issue extremely seriously. The Government have generally protected the size of the post office network; there are nearly 13,000 branches across the country, and the vast majority of people live within 1 mile of a branch. How the Post Office is handling that network might be a rather good subject for a Westminster Hall debate.

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Clearly I am not privy to the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised. However, I urge her to beat a path to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has departmental responsibility for HMRC. If the hon. Lady requires my assistance in that purpose, it will be available. As to the observation that she might have been treated as an English taxpayer rather than a Scottish taxpayer, I would imagine that that might be slightly welcome, given that she might pay less tax as a consequence.

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

As was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the company that owns Vauxhall Motors at Ellesmere Port has announced that we are going to get the new Astra model, but only if we avoid a no-deal Brexit. Now, I cannot help thinking that the reason the company has said this is that both the men who want to be the next Prime Minister have been talking up the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. Given that there is now a very specific threat to the livelihoods of many of my constituents because of a proposed Government policy, I am astounded that the Business Secretary has not been here to give a statement about how we are going to avoid those job losses. Please can we have a statement from the Business Secretary on this issue as soon as possible?

Business of the House

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is most unfortunate that there are redundancies at the Bridgend plant. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have been very much engaged in and closely connected to what is happening there.

The hon. Lady raised the specific issue of termination payments and rightly said that tax was due on payments over a £30,000 threshold, although there are some exceptions to that. I believe that is one of the most generous arrangements in the world and think I am right in saying—I stand to be corrected—that in Germany, for example, there is no threshold in play at all. However, she raised important points, particularly in respect of pensions, so I direct her to Treasury questions, which will be held on 2 July.

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

May we please have a debate on the statutory requirements for changes to bus services and the consultation process? Stagecoach has announced that seven services in and around my constituency might change. It has not given any details on what the changes are, other than to say that people in Neston will no longer be able to go to Arrowe Park Hospital. It is all squirrelled away online and is very inaccessible. It really is not good enough. Can we have a proper consultation process on changes to important local services?

[Mel Stride]

That would make an excellent subject for an Adjournment debate, at which the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity to ask the appropriate Minister specific questions about the specific routes and so on in his constituency.