Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

If the Minister is true to her word, she will vote with us and make sure that that is exactly what happens. I refer to the impact assessment, which recognises in three separate paragraphs that the Bill contains a threat to equality, so this is not something we are making up out of our own heads; it is something that is there and to be concerned about.

One set of protections definitely in the sights of those who see employment rights as a burden include the working time regulations, the introduction of the right to paid annual leave, limits on weekly working hours and a legal entitlement to daily and weekly rest breaks. They are some of the greatest achievements of the previous Labour Government, and for Members who are not aware, those regulations originated from concern about workers’ health and safety and the risks associated with working excessively long hours. I am proud that my party tackled that. Do we want to turn the clock back to when people worked 70 or 80 hours a week? We know that some on the Government Benches think there is no moral right to annual leave, but on these Benches we could not disagree more. Also included in our amendment are the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.

[Mike Amesbury]

I am after my hon. Friend’s help on this: was it a figment of my imagination, or did those on the Government Benches drive through a piece of legislation that curtailed the fundamental freedom and right to strike in the past few days? I just seek his help on that.

[Justin Madders]

Yes, I think that Bill also gives employers the power to sack striking nurses, teachers and doctors. Those are not the actions of a Government who want to protect employment rights.

The amendment includes the 2006 TUPE regulations, which ensure that when one business buys another, there is reasonable certainty about which workers transfer to that new business, so that the purchaser knows which employees it is getting and, critically, workers know that they cannot be dismissed or have their terms and conditions slashed just because they are working for a new employer. Let us make it crystal clear that TUPE will stay. That would ensure protection and certainty for employees, but also certainty for employers. How on earth would someone thinking of buying a business in 2023 know whether to proceed with the purchase if they did not know whether they were obliged to take on the workforce with it? We have a stable, settled, well understood framework of law that helps businesses to operate. Why put that in jeopardy, particularly if, as is claimed, Ministers have no intention of removing it?

To make a general point on employment rights, they are not a burden. They are an essential ingredient of a civilised society. If we want our citizens to play an active role in the country moving forward and in future economic growth, our citizens have to be rewarded fairly and treated fairly. Security and respect at work are the cornerstone of any success we will have as a nation. A secure and happy workforce is a productive workforce. Giving people dignity, certainty and fairness in the workplace is not a burden on businesses; it is what good businesses do, and what good businesses will see the fruits of, if they are allowed to operate on a level playing field.

My constituents will be considerably poorer over the next few years as a result of the economic decisions made by this Government. I do not want them to be poorer in terms of rights, as well. Employment rights ensure that people can participate in the labour market without facing unfair discrimination. They give vulnerable workers more job security and stability of income. They help to encourage a committed workforce and the retention of skilled workers. They are not just about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they also have social and economic value and are an essential component of a healthy, stable and progressive country.

We need a country where people have the security of knowing that if they do a good job and their employer runs its business well, they will be rewarded properly and be able to stay in work. What we have instead is a culture of disposable commodities and fire and rehire, where loyalty counts for nothing. It is time to draw a line in the sand and say, “No further.” Let us not allow this Bill to open up another line of attack on working people. Let us close it off now once and for all and support amendment 19.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

At the moment, ICBs are not a legal entity, so they do not own anything. When the Bill comes into force, they will effectively take over mainly administrative buildings from the CCGs, and the trust will hold ownership of most of the assets. We hope that there will not be the risks that my hon. Friend outlines, although it is not impossible for ICBs to set up their own trusts at some point in the future.

We do not believe that the question of private providers sitting on the place-based boards can be left open in this way, because this is really about who runs the NHS. There is a complete and utter incompatibility between the aims of private companies and what we say should be the aims of the NHS and the ICBs. I can do no better than refer to the evidence of Dr Chaand Nagpaul from the Bill Committee. He identified the concern perfectly:

“We forget at our peril the added value, the accountability, the loyalty and the good will that the NHS provides. We really do…I am saying that it does matter. Your local acute trust is not there on a 10-year contract, willing to walk away after two years. It is there for your population; it cannot walk away.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 90, Q113.]

Those final words sum it up perfectly. Put a company on the board, and its interest lasts as long as the contract, and those interests will of course not be the same as the NHS’s anyway. A company’s primary concern is the shareholders, not the patients. With that clear and unanswerable concern about conflicts of interest, we invite the Government to withdraw their amendment and support ours.

We have already had some discussion of who goes on the ICB. Apparently, the answer is not the most appropriate people chosen by an independent external process or individuals directly accountable to the public; the answer is left to guidance that leaves open the risk that voices we think need to be heard will slip through the net. Our amendment 76 deals with that by setting out the requirements for ICB membership. Allocating scarce NHS resources should be robustly debated and will always be political. Tough choices have to be made, so we need people on the ICB who will be there to cover all the necessary interests for the wider good.

If Members look at what amendment 76 suggests, I hope nobody would argue that those interests do not have to have some voice. The public, patients, staff, social care, public health and mental health—which of those can be safely ignored and which has no part to play? As I have already mentioned, there is a major area of uncertainty because of the complete absence of anything that sets out how the much-vaunted place-based commissioning will work. Who will sit at the place-based table is, I am afraid, still completely opaque.

The next major area covered in the Bill is a further deconstruction of Lansley with the removal of compulsory competitive tendering for clinical services. We have seen the NHS proposals for a provider selection regime to replace the regulations under section 75 of the 2012 Act. That is to be regarded as a work in progress, so our amendment 72 covers the issue and would reintroduce some safeguards into how our money is spent. Since its inception, the NHS has always relied on some non-NHS providers, with the model developed for GPs being an obvious example. However, in recent decades there has been an increase in the use of private providers of acute care, most notably in diagnostics and surgery.

To be clear, we on the Opposition Benches believe that the NHS should be the default provider of clinical services. If it is not the only provider, it should be the predominant provider in geographical and services terms. Where a service cannot be provided by a public body because the capability or capacity is not there, there is still the option to go beyond the NHS itself, but that should be a last resort and never a permanent solution. Amendment 72 therefore sets out a clear framework for how we could achieve that. We hope that extra transparency and extra rigour would mean we avoid buying stuff that is unsuitable and sits in container mountains, stuff that does not meet specifications, and stuff made by companies that have no experience, but are owned by friends and family. In short, we would stop the covid crony gravy train.

The use of private sector capacity in the covid emergency turned out to be a farcical failure. It became very clear, very quickly that it was not there to support the NHS; it was there just to make profits. Use of private providers through dodgy deals during the PPE scandal has highlighted the need for greater transparency and greater capacity in the NHS. We can never allow a repeat of what we have seen there. We need the rigour set out in the amendment to be put into legislation, rather than left to guidance. We need to be able to challenge NHS bodies that do not comply, as well as Ministers who try to flout the rules.

I will now deal with new clause 49, saving the best—or more accurately, the worst—until last. Because of how Report stage works, it has fallen to me to express our opposition to this measure, rather than my expert colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who shares my dismay at what has been produced and how it has been presented to us. Starting with the process, it is wholly wrong to bring such a fundamental change forward as a last-minute addition to this Bill. That means it cannot be debated properly today. There is no impact assessment and, as we have already heard, this change was not discussed in Committee at all. In fact, in 22 Committee sessions spanning some 50 hours, we never once heard mention of this amendment coming forward or discussion on the care cap. Indeed, when this Chamber was busy debating the social care levy, we were beavering away in Committee on the Bill, oblivious to the fact this measure was coming down the track. If the Government cannot even get their decision-making processes integrated, what hope is there for integrating health and social care?

As we know, the aim of the new clause is to remove means-tested benefits from the costs that count towards the care cap. As has been pointed out far and wide by Members from all parts of the House, that change adversely impacts some more than others. It is a wholly regressive measure, to say the least, to give support through means-testing, but then to penalise people later for receiving it in the first place. We will vote against this iniquity, and I hope many Conservative Members will vote with us. They should be used to the Prime Minister’s broken promises by now; this is their chance to make the point that he should stand by what he says.

[Mike Amesbury]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is Robin Hood in reverse? I encourage Conservative Members who wax lyrical about levelling up, particularly in the north, to do the right thing.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend must have sneaked a look at my speech, because I will say later that it is Robin Hood in reverse.

Hospital Building Programme

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on securing the debate. As a fellow Cheshire Member, our paths will no doubt cross as we get involved in the megalithic integrated care system that covers our area, and it is good to see healthy representation from Cheshire Members, which shows the interest and passion that we have for improved health services in our area. He mentioned that he volunteered to use his medical skills on the frontline during the pandemic, and we thank him for his efforts, just as we thank everyone who contributed to the fight against covid, be it in the NHS, in social care or in any of the other many sectors that played their part. We recognise and value the commitment that was made by so many people over such a long period of time.

As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich set out, hospitals are more than the buildings themselves. It is the staff who make hospitals, and he brought that to the fore in his comments. He said that the site of Leighton Hospital has exceeded its original lifespan—I think it is as old as I am, which is a concern. Hopefully, I will not be up for a rebuild any time soon. It was a common theme of contributions to the debate that a lot of the buildings in Members’ constituencies have reached the end of their natural lifespans. It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether any assessment has been made of how many hospital buildings, and buildings across the wider NHS, have already exceeded their original lifespans. The hon. Gentleman made a compelling case for why a new hospital needs to be built in Crewe, and he mentioned that the local population has grown considerably.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Of course, Leighton Hospital is part of the Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which also includes Victoria Infirmary in Northwich. This would be a real opportunity to capture investment across the campuses, which serve a number of our constituents, and I would certainly welcome my hon. Friend’s support on that. As a Cheshire MP, it would certainly be very welcome indeed.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend probably needs to direct his pleas to the Minister more than me—at this stage, of course—but I would be delighted to visit the facility with him. I am sure that he will make a strong case for investment, as other Members have done. There is an issue with how the interplay works between some of the competing bids for what is obviously a very competitive process, which I will return to later. Like the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) has shown that there is cross-party support for the case for a new hospital that was made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who also set out why this is good for patients. He talked about some of the issues around privacy, dignity and infection control, and he said that a new build gives us an opportunity to invest in modern digital infrastructure. Of course, he also mentioned important stuff to do with COP26 and the energy efficiency of a new build. Those were all well-made points.

We also heard from the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who made a persuasive and passionate case as to why the current plans need to be reconsidered. He made a very interesting point about the accountability of trusts. He is probably not aware that the Minister and I have been debating this issue in Committee for a number of weeks, and it is fair to say that we have differing views as to how accountable the current system is and whether it will actually change at all when the Health and Care Bill receives Royal Assent. There is an issue with how large trusts have their own priorities, which are not necessarily in tune with the rest of the wider population and healthcare system.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a very strong case for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn; he highlighted the critical nature of the maintenance issues there, which are clearly having an effect on patient care now. The Minister will not be surprised to know that I will be referring to the maintenance backlog during my comments today. The hon. Member also set out very well how new builds can not only improve infection control, but enhance the patient experience. We should always remember that the patient journey is central to these things. A new hospital always has to have the interests of patients, and their perspective, at the heart of its plans.

The hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) made a strong case for why a new hospital is needed in Airedale. Again, it is a building that is past its original lifespan; it has critical infrastructure issues. Describing it as the “leakiest hospital is the UK” is not something the hon. Member will want to repeat for much longer. It shows again that many of these issues have been building up for some time.

I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) said about health inequalities; it was an important point, and perhaps a broader one than some of the others that have been made. She is absolutely right that the pandemic has shone a light on the existing health inequalities in this country. I agree that if we are serious about levelling up, reducing health inequalities has to be central to any policy.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made a compelling case about how investment is needed for her new hospital, and how the change and growth in local population has created additional demand. It is an important point that, because of the way that her town has built up, there is more demand from an increasingly ageing population.

All the Members have made very good cases today; if it was based on the commitment and passion of individual Members, the Minister’s job would be quite straightforward. However, I know there will be many other demands on the departmental budget. There is a serious point here. We need to have transparency on the criteria that will be applied when the decisions are made. It would be fair to say, if we look at levelling-up bids, there has been some consternation that the decisions are not always made on the merits of the case. It is important that the Department is crystal clear on why particular projects are getting the go-ahead, and why others may have to wait a little longer.

I am sure that the Minister would be disappointed if I did not make a reference to whether the Prime Minister’s claim to be building 48 new hospitals is in fact an accurate one. We take with a large pinch of salt the definitions from the Department’s playbook that the following count as a new hospital: they say this includes

“a new wing of an existing hospital (provided it contains a whole clinical service, such as maternity or children’s services).”

They also say this includes

“A major refurbishment and alteration of all but the building frame or main structure, delivering a significant extension to useful life which includes major or visible changes to the external structure.”

That may well be investment in buildings—which is of course welcome—but it stretches credibility to say that those are new hospitals. I will not repeat the whole debate again on whether those descriptions can be classed as new hospitals, except to say that the Minister will no doubt rely on his VAT notices to reach that figure of 48: we will rely on the good sense of the British public to judge whether a new hospital is indeed a new hospital. When we get to 2030, we will see how many new hospitals we actually have—although it is possible that both the Minister and I will have moved on by that point.

Let us return to the present day, move away from the headlines and the spin, and ask some specific questions about the programme. I will start with the cost issue. It is my understanding that the projects identified in phase 1 have been promised a total of £2.7 billion, although some reports suggest that a £400 million price cap is being applied to each scheme, even though some of the published plans for those schemes have exceeded that limit already. Could the Minister comment on whether there is in fact an upper cash limit on particular projects, and whether it is indeed £400 million?

Almost exactly a month ago, the Prime Minister made an announcement on round 2 of the health infrastructure plan, in which, incidentally, only three out of the 25 hospitals are in the whole of the north of England. I think that says something about the Government’s commitment to levelling up and bolsters the case made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich to push forward for a new building in Crewe. Could the Minister advise what period and how much of the total programme the £3.7 billion mentioned in that announcement covers? Could the Minister also advise if the £4.2 billion, announced in the spending review last week in relation to new hospitals, is the same money as the Prime Minister announced on 2 October or is in addition to that? If it is additional, what period does that £4.2 billion cover? We want a little clarity on how much has actually been allocated and the period that it covers. I am sure the Minister realises that, even if we add up all those figures, it would not be the total cost of all those projects moving forward to 2030.

We have had three separate announcements over the last year. I make that point because the foreword to the health infrastructure plan talks about ending the “piecemeal and uncoordinated approach”. We have an investment plan spanning a decade, but the necessary investment has been announced for only the first half of that decade, at best, to come out in dribs and drabs. I suggest that the Minister might need to read the foreword to the plan again to see whether the ambitions set out there are being met.

NHS Providers has said that the actual cost of the planned building projects would be around £20 billion, most of which will need to be found in the next few years. Even building an average-sized new hospital costs around £500 million, which rather puts the spotlight on the supposed £400 million cost limit I referred to earlier. I wonder if the Minister could put a total cost—

Income tax (charge)

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

First, I welcome the Minister back to his place after his period of self-isolation. I am sure that all parts of the House will agree that the current coronavirus crisis has demonstrated beyond all doubt just how important our public services are. We all know that this is a very serious time and that our constituents will be concerned. I know many are frightened by the way the crisis has escalated over the past week or so, so I start by sending our condolences to all those who have already lost a loved one including, sadly, one gentleman in my constituency. I also send our gratitude to those who are already working flat out to do their best to limit the impact of coronavirus, whether they are in the NHS, the rest of the public sector or the private and voluntary sectors, which are making a vital contribution as well.

As the Minister will know, we are supportive of the national effort to contain and delay the spread of the virus, and it would be irresponsible of us as an Opposition to make any attempt to exploit the pandemic for party political gain. I thank the Minister for his kind words in that respect. Equally, it would be irresponsible of us to ignore the concerns being raised by the public, the scientific community and the sector more widely. It is critical that we ask important questions on their behalf, especially when the limits of public service will be tested like they have never been tested before.

We know that many aspects of life will have to change or stop altogether, albeit temporarily, but it is hoped that accountability, transparency and the ability of Opposition parties to scrutinise Government decisions will continue. We are under no illusions that, at this time, our ability to do that comes with a particular responsibility, so I hope the House will understand that I will focus mainly on the challenges of the immediate crisis facing us and ask some of the many important questions that have been raised. I appreciate that there will be a statement later, and I will understand if the Minister refers some responses to that, but we will have slightly more time in this debate to discuss important concerns that have been raised with us by many in the country.

Let me turn to the Budget, as this is a financial debate. We have previously acknowledged the extra funding announced in the Budget for the NHS and social care as part of the covid-19 response. That is something we have long called for, but there remain unanswered questions about how that funding will be precisely allocated. Can the Minister tell us exactly how the extra funding will be allocated and what will happen once the money is depleted? The NHS said last week that it needs to scale up intensive care beds sevenfold. That new pot of money is going to run out at some point, and it will need topping up. Will another Budget be necessary then, and what will the process be for determining resources at that point?

While we welcome the extra funding, we are aware that it is in the context of the NHS already facing extreme pressure, as usually happens over a busy winter period. We know from the last NHS winter report two weeks ago that 80% of critical care beds were occupied and that 93% of general and acute beds were also occupied. We know that the proportion of people being seen within four hours at A&E is the lowest on record, and the target has not been met since July 2015—the best part of five years. We know that the number of people on waiting lists in England is the highest it has ever been—nearly 4.5 million people are on a waiting list for treatment—and the waiting list target has not been met for nearly four years. Sadly, some cancer targets have not been met for over six years.

Those figures should tell us that the NHS is already stretched to capacity and that we are not starting from the optimum position. But it also tells us why the Government’s strategy of delay is one that has to be supported. Even if we take at face value the Government’s insistence that they have provided enough NHS resources to deliver the commitments in the long-term plan, we must surely all accept that the covid-19 outbreak will lead to an increased demand on trusts, meaning that resources in the system will have to be reallocated. Should trusts be expending time and resources on working on control totals and end-of-year accounts at this precise moment?

Will beds from the private sector be made available to covid-19 patients, and at what cost? What will the process be for trusts that have particularly large outbreaks and increased demand? Is any audit being undertaken of disused hospitals or other public sector facilities that may be required at some point? For example, is there any way that the brand new Royal Liverpool Hospital building could be brought on stream more quickly? Are the Government sourcing more ventilators, and when can we expect to see those available? Many manufacturers export all around the world. Will steps be taken to ensure that the NHS is at the front of the queue when those goods are produced?

I want to say a few words about the workforce. We know that, before we entered the crisis, the NHS was already short of over 100,000 staff, including 43,000 nurses and 10,000 doctors. The impact of staffing shortfalls manifests itself across the whole spectrum of NHS performance, as I have just outlined. It is therefore more critical than ever that those people who work in the NHS and whose good will we rely on already get adequate protection. It is evident that, in order for patients to have the best care possible, the NHS must support its staff to ensure that they stay well and can provide that vital care. That means a continuous supply of the right equipment and facilities. Personal protective equipment is vital in that respect. I hope we will hear, either in the Minister’s response or the statement later today, about what is being done to secure supplies of equipment and whether there is enough capacity in the system to ensure continued supply.

We would also be grateful for more information on the plans mooted to get retired staff back into the health service. Will some of the money announced in the Budget be used to deal with the anticipated increase in the wage bill that that would mean? Can we have an explanation as to how those people would be protected given that, by definition, the majority of them are likely to be over 70? What oversight will be put in place to ensure that they are delivering safe care if the revalidation process is to be suspended for retired returnees? Those on the frontline who I have spoken to are concerned about identifying the point at which an individual has been away from practice so long that it becomes impractical to reintegrate them in a safe and effective way. Will guidance be issued on what that point might be? What consideration has been given to those in the existing workforce who might be in a more vulnerable category because of their age or an underlying health condition?

A major concern is the lack of clarity about when people should be tested. We are hearing of many frontline NHS staff displaying symptoms but not being tested. What does that do for morale, if nothing else? The World Health Organisation has said that we should be continuing to test and contact-trace those suspected of having the virus. As a matter of importance, we should have a full explanation of exactly why we are currently diverging from WHO advice. It has been reported that labs are overwhelmed and tests are now taking several days to come back with results. Is the current ambiguity on testing policy a question of capacity rather than anything else? Will the Government be putting more resources into those labs, and if so, when will this materialise? It seems to us that continued testing is vital not only to stop the spread of the disease, but to understand when its peak has been reached. It may also be that efficient and accurate testing means fewer people having to self-isolate unnecessarily, which of course has an unnecessary economic knock-on effect.

[Mike Amesbury]

A GP has been in touch with me today to say that they were in close proximity to a patient who is likely to have coronavirus and have been sent home to self-isolate, but they have not been tested. How on earth will they know, when they do return to work, that they are not a risk to others? Surely testing should be extended to such vital GPs.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend makes very well the point that I was making. It is evident that if that particular GP does not have the virus, it would be better for us all if they know that sooner rather than later, so they can get back in and treat patients. It is also worth restating at this point that people who have suspected symptoms should not be turning up at their GP practice because that is one of the ways, unfortunately, that we will spread the virus.

Retail Strategy

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate about a topic that is vital to the survival of our high streets, as evidenced again by the number of Members present. I say “again” because this is not the first time we have gathered to discuss the causes of town centre decline and what we should do about it. Indeed, I took part in a debate on urban regeneration shortly after being elected to this place four years ago.

Very little has changed since then. In fact, things have probably got worse. In 2018, nearly 85,000 retail jobs were lost in the UK as businesses continued to go bust. In the past 18 months alone, the following big chains have gone into administration: Greenwoods, HMV, Berketex, Crawshaw, Evans Cycles, American Golf, Orla Kiely, Poundworld, House of Fraser, Gaucho, Warren Evans, East, Carpetright, Toys R Us, Maplin, Mothercare, Homebase, and L. K. Bennett. Many household names; many long-standing companies. It is a crisis.

The British Retail Consortium’s monthly footfall tracker showed that store visits hit a six-year low in May this year, with declines experienced in every region and across high streets, retail parks and shopping centres. According to a new report, online shopping will account for more than 50% of retail sales within the next 10 years. The report states that that growth will be powered by three primary factors: the changing demographics of the UK adult population; the development of faster, cheaper home deliveries; and fewer physical stores.

Our high streets and small business owners will continue to be hit by those changes in shopping habits. The Centre For Towns showed that the decline of our high streets has picked up pace in the past 10 years as consumers shop online rather than visiting the high street. The Office for National Statistics reported that the number of retail businesses and the number of high street retail jobs fell in every region of England except London between 2012 and 2017.

Those trends are reflected in the two main towns in my constituency: Ellesmere Port and Neston. Both have a retail offer significantly smaller than it was five years ago, due to the dramatic changes we have heard about. The town centre in Neston has lost all its banks, which has had a negative impact on both customers and retail businesses. A lot of retail units are in private ownership, many of them too large for what retailers are looking for nowadays, and shops in Ellesmere Port are closing regularly, and are not being replaced. When banks close branches, they undergo what I consider to be a cursory consultation that changes nothing and does not require them to think about their wider responsibilities for the vitality of our town centres.

[Mike Amesbury]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather confusing to look at the ownership of some of those banks? Of course, we stepped in some time ago—they were bailed out to the tune of billions of pounds—so there is ownership there, but where is the control? It is as though the referee has just walked off the pitch. Do we require Government intervention?

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend and neighbour makes an excellent point. Indeed, the power that central Government have through procurement and their control over many of those private enterprises should be used for the wider benefit of communities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) mentioned, post offices are a great example of where we have lost control of an organisation. A number of the post offices on high streets in my constituency are closing, without any regard for the wider community impact. We really must begin to take back control, to coin a phrase.

Most of all, it is our town centres that are in need of a retail strategy. They are the heart of our communities, and their importance must not be underplayed. A new approach that regenerates our town centres is vital if we are to preserve their character, restore civic pride and give people a positive reason to visit their high streets. Local authorities have the knowledge and tools to tackle this, but they cannot do so without significant financial support. However, local authority funding has been cut like never before and the money needed for a true transformative approach to regenerate our town centres simply is not there.

As my hon. Friend Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) said, we need to be much more joined up in how we approach these things. The move to electric vehicles is one such example. It is not entirely clear who is in charge of the charging infrastructure, but it would be great if there were joined-up thinking, with charging points located in town centres used to encourage people to use the town centre facilities while they charge up.

As we have heard, unfortunately the Government’s plan to address the crisis is to pit towns against one another in a competitive bidding process known as the future high streets fund. Only a lucky few get a slice of the pie. I learned this week that despite putting in an excellent bid for Ellesmere Port, my local authority was not successful in the process. What does that say to the people of Ellesmere Port about the importance of their town, compared with others? What will the Government do to support Ellesmere Port town centre? Will there be a second round of funding? Will there be other initiatives, or will we have a rerun of the 1980s policy of managed decline for parts of the north?

My local council is doing what it can, but the multifaceted challenges we have heard about in the era of austerity cannot fall entirely on its shoulders. The trends are there for all of us to see. The evidence is clear that the capacity to meet such challenges has been hollowed out after a decade of cuts. It will take sustained, focused and locally driven but nationally supported investment. It will take imagination, requiring a change from the old way of doing things. It will take central Government to realise that one of the reasons why so many people feel disengaged and disenfranchised is that when they go to their town centre and see empty shops—

Transport: Cheshire

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport in Cheshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am glad to see you here, and I thank the other hon. Members present for attending.

The debate is about transport issues in Cheshire, but we could not possibly deal with all the issues in the time available, so I will talk about two issues with a common element that has been causing much anger, frustration and consternation in my constituency and beyond. I refer to the River Mersey and the tolls my constituents face to cross it, be it by the Mersey tunnels or the Mersey Gateway. There is now no way they can cross the river for work, for family reasons or for medical treatment without paying a fee. Of course, there have always been fees for the Mersey tunnels, but not ones that discriminate against people because of where they live.

Let me start with the principle of the tolls. The fact that the Mersey tunnels have always had tolls does not make the tolls’ existence any more defendable. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why they are still in place, given that we have heard repeatedly from Ministers how the removal of tolls can improve an area’s economic performance—an argument that seemingly won in south Wales, where the Severn crossings had their tolls abolished; in Scotland, where the new Forth crossing is not tolled; and in the true blue Tory shires of England, where plans for the A14 upgrade to be tolled around Huntingdon and Cambridge were scrapped.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Would there not be a considerable outcry if just one of the 36 bridges over the River Thames in London were tolled? Is this unfairness not a case of a real north-south divide?

[Justin Madders]

I agree, and London seems to do better than the rest of the country in terms of per-head transport investment, too.

None of the crossings in Northern Ireland is tolled, none in Scotland is tolled and, as we have heard, London is equally blessed. In fact, more than 90% of tidal crossings in this country are toll free. The argument that tolls harm economic growth seems to be accepted everywhere, except on the River Mersey.

As I said, the tolls on the Mersey tunnels have always been with us. They are not popular, but they have always been part of life. However, an unconscionable decision earlier this year by the Liverpool city region metro Mayor has made them far less acceptable. Regular tunnel users can apply for a fast tag, which gives a discount on the normal fees. From 1 April this year, the fee for those who live in the Merseyside area was reduced from £1.20 to £1, but the fee for those outside the Merseyside area was increased by a whopping 50%, from £1.20 to £1.80. That decision was made with little notice, no consultation and complete disregard for the economic impact on those living outside Merseyside.

Although my constituency is in Cheshire, we are very much in the hinterland of Merseyside—the number of Liverpool shirts I saw over the weekend is testament to that. We are less than 10 miles from Liverpool city centre, and our economic, cultural and family connections mean that people travel there daily. When my constituents ask me whether it is right that they have to pay nearly twice as much as someone who lives just down the road from them to go to work or visit their elderly mother, I tell them, “No, it isn’t.” It is discrimination by postcode, and it is not something I believe anyone who wants fairness in this country can support.

To be fair to the metro Mayor, he would like to be able to get rid of tolls altogether. I am happy to work with him and anyone else who wants to join me on that campaign, but that is a longer-term aim. In the short term, he has defended his decision robustly. He rightly points out that the Liverpool city region has experienced the largest Government funding cuts anywhere in the country, and that the people he represents cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of austerity. His conclusion is that he cannot have non-city region residents’ travel being subsidised. I understand what he says, but he is simply wrong about subsidy.

The Mersey tunnels, for which I understand the tolls are the third highest of their type in the whole country, are operated under the Mersey Tunnels Act 2004, which permits any operating surplus to be used by the transport authority to achieve public transport policies in its local transport plan. In 2017-18, the surplus from operating the tunnels was £16.7 million, so my constituents, far from asking for a subsidy, clearly subsidise the rest of the Merseytravel operation—indeed, all tunnel users do. Given that level of surplus, the decision to increase the costs for my constituents by 50% cannot be said to be critical to Merseytravel’s operations. There is no room for doubt about that. It feels much more like racketeering.

One might argue that the surplus is used to provide good public transport services across Merseyside and beyond, which of course benefits my constituents, albeit to a lesser degree than Merseyside residents. However, a closer look at rail fares suggests that when my constituents use cross-border Merseyrail services, they are again subject to indefensible price differences. For example, a day return from Eastham Rake on the Merseyrail line—the first stop in Merseyside when travelling from Cheshire—to Liverpool is £1.50 cheaper than a day return from Little Sutton. That is 25% extra for just two stops down the line. Although Capenhurst station is not in my constituency, it is used by many of my constituents and it is also just two stops down from Eastham Rake, but a day return to Liverpool from Capenhurst costs more than £3 extra.

It feels like the residents of Cheshire are seen as a soft touch—a cash cow. Sadly, I feel there is a bit of reverse snobbery here, the implication being that people who live in Cheshire are a bit better off, so they can afford to pay more. That just is not the case for the majority of people. My constituency has some pockets of wealth, but it also has some of the most deprived wards in the country. Some of the examples constituents have given me of the hardship they have suffered demonstrate that they are not people with loads of spare cash floating about, waiting to be squeezed until the pips squeak.

Loan Charge

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I hope that I can complete my speech before rain stops play—I think it is probably some kind of symbol of how many people view Parliament as broken, but let us return to the matter at hand.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) on securing the debate. Clearly this issue has caused much distress, and brutally so at times. Of course, if tax is due, it should be collected. Without the ability to raise funds from taxation, our public services will obviously grind to a halt, but my concern, and that of many other hon. Members, is about how the loan charge and the recovery of it has been handled to date. It raises many questions about how HMRC can say in all honesty that each individual case is being looked at properly before the menacing letters are sent out. Let me make it clear that if, following due process, it is determined that money is owed, it should be recovered in a fair, consistent and reasonable manner. However, what I have heard raises questions about HMRC’s capacity to deal with these issues properly.

I previously raised the issue of my constituent Mr Crook when we debated the matter in Westminster Hall back in November. I recounted the six times that he had contacted HMRC about his potential liability without any response. I explained the immense anxiety that he was feeling, because he was not getting any answers and feared bankruptcy. Since my involvement, there have been responses from HMRC. I am sure that it was entirely coincidental that they came the week after the Westminster Hall debate.

I wish that I could say that we had somehow managed to reach a happy ending, but we have had tales about spam boxes and deleted emails and about how, in that wonderful phrase, my constituent’s request will be “progressed within the normal timescales”. Yet here we are, 360 days after my constituent registered his interest with HMRC, and still no agreement has been reached. My constituent is not the only one in this position, so I repeat the question that I raised back in November: does the Department consider that it has sufficient resources to deal with this issue?

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I have a constituent called Jeff, who has lived by the rules and played by the rules, and who submitted tax returns year in, year out, yet he is also suffering this retrospective injustice.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the retrospectivity of this that is really difficult for people to reconcile with what they consider to be a fair and transparent process.

I have had constituents raise concerns that if they manage to reach agreement with HMRC, they will be required to sign a settlement document that stops them reclaiming money from HMRC if they are later judged against in a judicial review. The retrospectivity of this sits uncomfortably with me, but the idea that the Government will not be bound by future court decisions goes very much against the rule of law that we are used to in this country.

That is the wholly unsatisfactory situation that we face, but I want to return to where we all started on this. My constituent tells me that, having submitted his tax returns each year when he was working, they have never been queried—[Interruption.]

Vauxhall Factory, Ellesmere Port

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Initiatives such as the Automotive Council have seen the UK car industry go from strength to strength. As we know, however, every time a model comes up for renewal, it gets a little harder, the demands are greater and the workforce have to sacrifice a little more. It is a challenge we have always been equal to in the past, but the convergence of factors undoubtedly makes securing the next model our biggest challenge yet.

The latest edition of the Astra became European car of the year in 2016. It enjoyed great success, particularly in the sports tourer model, which led to 80% of the vehicles built in Ellesmere Port being exported to Europe. Despite that, in recent months, tastes have changed and there has been a dramatic slowdown in sales for that type of vehicle.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our Vauxhall plants, including Ellesmere Port, are among the most productive in the PSA Group family?

[Justin Madders]

Yes, I would like to say that they are, but we are now being judged by a new benchmark. I will go into some detail about how things are being counted against the workforce’s excellent productivity.

The cuts in sales have led to cuts in the workforce, with 400 jobs going in October and another 250 earlier this year. In the past, a downturn has led to agreements between the unions and management about reduced hours to protect jobs, but the new owner, the PSA Group, has shown a different approach. That must act as a warning that we cannot expect any sentimentality from it, and that, as it has said consistently from the day it took over, plants will be judged on their efficiency.

History tells us that the local unions and management are well capable of meeting that challenge, but numerous factors are at play that will impede their ability to do that. It is our job—not just the job of the Opposition, but of the Government—to help them to overcome those obstacles in a highly competitive market.

Let us start with the big challenge: Brexit. Uncertainty across a sector can have a real impact on investment decisions. As we know, investment decisions in the automotive sector are traditionally made three to five years in advance, so decisions about investment in the post-Brexit world will begin to be made shortly.

In that respect, the timing could not be worse, as the current model in production in Ellesmere Port is due to be discontinued around the same time, in 2021. The chief executive of the PSA Group recently said:

“We cannot invest in a world of uncertainty.”

Some might say that is an excuse. Some might call it a distraction. I do not mind what it is called, as long as we do not ignore it.

After the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, the PSA Group and other manufacturers in the sector made similar points about the lack of the clarity, so I asked her to provide certainty by confirming that the trading arrangements in the automotive sector will be no less favourable than they are now. I am sorry to say that her answer did not give any clarity and there was certainly no unequivocal guarantee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Mike Amesbury

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border transport links between Wales and England.

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

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border transport links between Wales and England.