Points of Order

Debate between Justin Madders and Rosie Winterton

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentlemen for their points of order. First of all, I should say that the Chair is not responsible for what Members say in the Chamber, or whether they choose to correct it, unless a speech is against the rules of the House. We do not accuse others of malicious remarks. I think the best thing I can do is remind Members of what Mr Speaker said at the beginning of this Session, which I feel will answer the points they have raised. He said:

“The House asserts its privilege of freedom of speech…It is there to ensure that our constituents can be represented by us without fear or favour. It is an obligation upon us all to exercise that privilege with responsibility…The Speaker does not have the power to police the accuracy of Members’ contributions, including those of Ministers. It is therefore incumbent on Members to be accurate in what they say in this House, but if a Member is inaccurate by mistake, they should correct that mistake as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 2.]

That is what Mr Speaker said earlier in the Session about this very issue.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to ask you to confirm that Members are still entitled to speak out on matters that they believe are correct. Is it in order for Conservative Members to continue to raise issues about an individual Member when they know that they are not here and are not capable of attending because of illness?

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Rosie Winterton

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Let me repeat, at the outset, our opposition to the Bill and our intention to repeal the Act that it will become should we be in a position to do so in the future. It is one of the most illiberal, unconscionable and ultimately destructive pieces of legislation produced by any Government. We believe that the right to withdraw labour is a fundamental right, a human right, and one that should not be extinguished. Even if some Conservative Members cannot see past their hostility to trade unions and past the easy headlines, they should see that what they are asking their constituents to do is distinctly un-British, because it infringes on individual freedoms that ought to be—even for Conservative Members—a basic part of any open and democratic society.

Freedom matters, and valuing freedom sometimes means that we protect another person’s freedom to do something even if we do not personally agree with the particular course of action. But our objections are based not just on principles, but on practicalities. Ultimately, we do not think that the Bill will work. The Bill is counterproductive because it will not quell the concerns of many people in the sectors that have taken industrial action. Taking away the right to strike will not take away people’s concerns. We cannot legislate away people’s legitimate grievances about their working conditions. Because the Bill is so ill defined and poorly thought through, Parliament must have a proper opportunity to consider its ramifications.

The measures set out in Lords amendment 2D attempt to address some of those issues. The amendment also provides yet another opportunity for us to raise our concerns about the Government’s lax approach to proper scrutiny during the Bill’s progress so far. Let us go back to when the Bill was first published. It is surely a basic expectation of Government that they should provide an impact assessment before asking hon. Members to vote on a Bill. But no—we were asked to trust the Government that the matter was in hand and that all would be fine. We said it at the time and we say it again: that approach is completely unacceptable.

The Bill had been trailed in the press for months before it was published, so not to have the impact assessment ready at the same time was a failure of basic competence. When it finally appeared, we could see why the Government were so keen to keep it under wraps. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that it was not fit for purpose—it could just as easily have been talking about the Government—and no wonder, given that the assessment contains statements that undermine both the purpose and execution of the Bill.

The impact assessment states that the Bill

“could mean a general increase in tension between unions and employers. This may result in more adverse impacts in the long term, such as an increased frequency of strikes for each dispute.”

When Ministers told us on Second Reading that the Bill would reduce the disruption caused by strikes, what they apparently did not know was that the Government’s own impact assessment would say that it could, in fact, have the opposite effect. The impact assessment also says, on at least half a dozen occasions, that assumptions are being made about the level of service that would be required. That is the point of the Lords amendment: unless we have some idea about what these minimum service levels will be—in the six months since the Bill was published, Ministers have not come to the Dispatch Box and told us—we are legislating in a vacuum.

The point has not been lost on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which wrote in its assessment that

“there is nothing in the Bill saying what those minimum service levels are. We shall only know when Ministers make regulations after the Bill is enacted. This is small comfort to Parliament, which is considering the matter right now.”

The Committee’s recommendation was that the Government should publish indicative draft regulations alongside the Bill. As it rightly points out,

“the Government must have some idea how they propose to exercise these powers.”

It is no surprise that the impact assessment got a red rating. Of the 861 Bills assessed by the Regulatory Policy Committee since its creation, just 2.9% have been given a red rating. When legislation represents such a fundamental departure from past practice, the importance of impact assessments increases rather than decreases.

If this all sounds familiar to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is because it is. Only last week the High Court said, in relation to the consultation process for the regulations that allow agency workers to break strikes, that

“this is not a case in which the evidence is that the proposal had obvious and undisputed merit based on cogent evidence, and enjoyed strong support from representative bodies in the sector”.

It could have been talking about this Bill—no doubt, in time, it will be.

The pattern is familiar. The Government decide the policy, although “policy” is probably too strong a word. The Government decide the headline that they want to create, rush through ill-thought-out legislation and then ignore all the voices that point out principled and practical objections. That is to treat democracy with contempt. Parliament is not a rubber-stamping process to agree whatever the Government of the day decide. When Parliament is starved of its ability to properly scrutinise legislation, that impacts on fundamental human rights, as it does in this case. It should come as no surprise that there is pushback from the other place requiring that a robust process be followed.

The amendment is important because the International Labour Organisation’s conference committee on the application of standards called on the Government to ensure that existing and prospective legislation is in conformity with the convention that governs freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise. I would not have thought that is too much to ask of a modern liberal democracy. In fact, I am rather ashamed that the ILO has had to point it out at all.

All this amendment does is what the ILO is asking the Government to do anyway, which is to undertake genuine consultation before implementing minimum service regulations. This means that, when regulations are published, they would include an impact assessment and there should be genuine consultation on the regulations, including on the protection for workers named in work notices and the reasonable steps a trade union needs to take to ensure compliance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is why it would have been so interesting to see what the consultation responses were to the draft regulations, because those might have told us whether employers were saying, “Don’t do this; we don’t think it is going to work.” We know that a long list of employers’ organisations are opposed to this Bill, and I will come on to that in a moment. They understand that, ultimately, it is not going to help industrial relations but will sour them.

In summary, the Bill’s impact assessment turns up late and is inadequate; no pre-legislative scrutiny or evidence sessions for the Bill took place; the Committee stage is rushed through in one day; and subsequent consultations are incomplete and leave many questions unanswered. Yet the Government still say that this Lords amendment is not necessary. The evidence to date and the opinion of the ILO say otherwise. I referred to the fact that the ILO is not alone in expressing concerns about the Bill. Many organisations have expressed alarm, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, NHS Providers, the rail industry, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the TUC, and the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Transport Secretary and the Education Secretary have also done so, and I could give more names, but I have only an hour for this debate and so I will leave it there.

When we have the shameful spectacle of the ILO calling this Bill out, Members need to think again. By rejecting this Lords amendment, the Government are, in effect, saying one of two things: either they do not know whether they break international law; or they do know but they just do not care. We ought to care, we ought not to be trailing behind in workplace protections, and we ought not to be mentioned in the same breath as Turkmenistan. We ought to be leading from the front, as an exemplar for other countries to follow and a leader on the international stage that says, “Yes, good workplace rights and strong trade unions are a key component in any prospering modem economy, and the right to withdraw your labour is a fundamental one.” However, this Bill is the hallmark of a weak Government who have run out of steam, have nothing left to offer but division and want to silence the very people who keep this country going—shame on them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson

Privileges Committee Special Report

Debate between Justin Madders and Rosie Winterton

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

Given the hon. Member’s point about how we in this House are custodians, does he agree that a report of this nature should at least provide some evidence when it makes a statement such as

“the most disturbing examples of the co-ordinated campaign”?

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that statement. If you are custodians of the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows, as happened previously with the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), that he must not address other Members directly. “You” means me—okay?

[Justin Madders]

There is evidence—it is in the annexes. It is pretty clear that there was a co-ordinated campaign from a Conservative organisation to lobby Committee members. If people are insisting that what is there in black and white is not what happened, we are in a very strange place indeed. We will not survive if that is how we carry on.

Our democracy is fragile and needs to be protected. It cannot be taken for granted. It has to be cherished, supported and nurtured. We are its current guardians. Sometimes, we have to accept that we have said things that we should not have said, and we have to apologise and move on. We have to accept that saying the right thing is not always easy. Sometimes, “sorry” is the hardest word to say. Sometimes, we have to accept that someone on our own side may not have met the standards that we would expect everyone to adhere to. No one should be bigger than democracy—no individual, no Government.

This place should be a force for good. It should be here to tackle injustices in all their forms. When there is an assault on the rules that govern this place—as we have seen in this report—to suit a short-term political agenda, we will all pay a much harsher price in the long term. This all about leadership. We are all required to be leaders. Our parliamentary system has relied on people behaving with honour and according to respected conventions. When a strand of political thinking does not respect the rules and does not think that constitutional road blocks are anything other than something to be driven around, the weaknesses in our current system become all too apparent. Over time, democracy will be eroded until we end up in a place where no authority is respected, no rules matter and nobody believes anything we say any more.

It will not have escaped Members’ notice that deepfake videos are becoming more commonplace. We face a huge challenge as a Parliament and a country to maintain trust in the face of that and the cesspit of social media. We need to put in the hard yards to ensure that people can believe the words that come out of our mouths—that they are ours, and true to our values and principles—and that honour still matters in this place. Attacking the institutions that uphold the veracity of what is said in here is causing an additional problem that we could do without. By God, we have enough challenges as a country without making it harder for ourselves by attacking each other over what we believe is a question of integrity.

We can do better. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Parliament should be the beacon of fair play, and an example for others both in this country and abroad of how democracy can work, how it can be a good thing and how it can change lives for the better. Despite our differences, we are not always so bound up in our own tribal disputes that we cannot agree what the truth is and, most importantly, that the truth always matters.

NHS Funding Bill

Debate between Justin Madders and Rosie Winterton

Legislative Grand Committee & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Programme motion
Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division only Members representing constituencies in England may vote.

Clause 1

Funding Settlement for the health service in England

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

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) The amount spent on mental health services in each financial year set out in the table must be set out in a statement laid before the House of Commons by the Secretary of State no later than 30 June in each year.

(1B) The statement in subsection (1A) must be accompanied by a statement on the Secretary of State’s plans to achieve parity of esteem in mental health services.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the amount actually spent on mental health services, and on the Secretary of State’s plans to achieve parity of esteem in mental health services.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) For each year in the table in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must specify the amount of the allotment that is for mental health services.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to specify the amount to be spent each year on mental health services.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) For each year in the table in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must specify the amount of the allotment that is for training for staff to improve maternity safety and care for mothers and babies.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify the amount to be spent each year on improving maternity safety and care for mothers and babies.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“and that the sums set out in the table are not permitted to be augmented by or composed of any virements from NHS capital budgets.”

This amendment would stop the Secretary of State meeting the NHS England allotment for resource spending by using funds from NHS capital budgets.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Annual report on mental health spending—

“The Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons an annual statement of the outturn of NHS England spending on mental health services no later than six months after the end of each financial year, beginning with the year ending 31 March 2020 and up to and including the year ending 31 March 2024.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report each year on the actual level of spending on mental health services.

New clause 2—Annual Report on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services spending—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons an annual statement of the outturn of NHS England spending on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) no later than six months after the end of each financial year, beginning with the year ending 31 March 2020 and up to and including the year ending 31 March 2024.

(2) The annual statement from subsection (1) must report figures on—

(a) CAMHS expenditure per head,

(b) the percentage of the annual NHS England budget allotted to CAMHS, and

(c) the percentage of the annual mental health budget allotted to CAMHS.

(3) The figures in subsection (2) must be broken down by standard regional units in England or by such territories as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) Each statement under subsection (1) must include an assessment by the Secretary of State on whether expenditure on CAMHS has met the aims of the NHS Long Term Plan.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report each year on the actual level of spending on CAMHS. It requires figures to be broken down by regional units and for the Secretary of State to include an assessment of whether expenditure on CAMHS is meeting the aims of the NHS Long Term Plan.

New clause 3—Allocation of funding—

“The Secretary of State must lay a report before the House of Commons no later than 31 July each year setting out how much in percentage and in cash terms in relation to the amounts set out at section 1(1) has been spent on mental health services in the most recent year ended on 31 March.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the amount and proportion of NHS England spending devoted to mental health services.

New clause 4—Annual statement on performance—

“The Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons no later than 31 March each year setting out—

(a) whether in the Secretary of State’s opinion the amount specified in section 1(1) for the following financial year is sufficient to meet the performance targets set out in the NHS constitution, and

(b) if in the Secretary of State’s opinion the amount specified in section 1(1) for the following financial year is not sufficient to meet the performance targets set out in the NHS constitution, what steps Secretary of State is taking to ensure that those targets are met.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on whether the allotment to the health service specified in section 1(1) year is sufficient to meet the performance targets set out in the NHS Constitution and, if not, what steps Secretary of State is taking to ensure that those targets are met.

New clause 5—Inflation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons in the event that the annual rate of inflation as set out in the Consumer Prices Index is greater than 3.3% in any six months out of twelve after the date on which this Act is passed.

(2) The statement under subsection (1) must specify whether, and by how much, the allotments to the health service in England set out will exceed the amount specified in the table in section 1(1).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a statement on the impact of inflation above a certain rate on the allotments to NHS England.

New clause 9—Annual parity of esteem report: spending on mental health and mental illness—

“Within six weeks of the end of each financial year specified in the table, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the ways in which the allotment made to NHS England for that financial year contributed to the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the mental health of the people of England, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by mental health services that year from the overall annual allotment has contributed to the improvement of mental health and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.

New clause 11—Annual review of adequacy of allotment to NHS England—

“The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament within 14 days of the Treasury laying the annual main estimate for the Department of Health and Social Care an assessment of the extent to which changes in the costs of pharmaceutical treatments, medical devices and service delivery since the date on which this Act is passed have affected the health outcomes in England achieved as a result of the amounts in the table in section 1 of this Act allotted to NHS England.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual assessment of the impact of changes in the costs of pharmaceutical treatments, medical devices and service delivery on the expected outcomes from the allotted amounts under this Act.

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie. In my speech I will address amendment 2 and, as we are dealing with everything in one go, the other amendments and new clauses submitted in my name and the names of my right hon. Friends.

It seems that Members across the House are anxious that the Government’s laudable aims on parity of esteem for mental health services are given some legislative teeth. The NHS long-term plan rightly calls for more investment in mental health services to give mental health the same priority as physical health. That is the right approach and it is one that we support. However, as we can see by the amendments that have been tabled today, there is scepticism about how that will actually be delivered. Investment in mental health services has been seriously neglected in recent years and mental health patients are some of the people who have been most let down by the Government in the last decade.

No doubt we will hear from those on the Government Benches that mental health spending is increasing, and that the funding set out in the Bill will benefit mental health services, but the reality is that on this Government’s watch, we have seen a mental health crisis emerge. We are not getting the investment at the level required and services are simply unable to keep pace with demand. As a consequence, the number of people living with serious mental health problems is rising. Patients are unable to access vital psychological therapies within six weeks and often have to wait over 100 days for talking therapy treatments. Thousands of mental health patients continue to be sent hundreds of miles from home, because their local NHS does not have the beds or the staff to provide the care they need. These are often young people in desperate circumstances being sent away from their family and friends—their support network, as it were—and that to me sounds a long way away from parity of esteem. We know that adults in need of help with eating disorders are waiting more than three years for treatment, while hospital admissions for eating disorders increase year on year. The number of people living with serious mental health problems is continuing to rise and suicide levels are at their highest since 2002.

Even against this awful backdrop, however, it is children’s mental health services that are suffering most from the chronic lack of funding. Children’s mental health services account for just 8% of total mental health spending, and the Government’s continual failure to prioritise children’s mental health has led to services for children effectively being rationed. We know that on average, children and young people visit their GP three times before they get a referral for specialist assessment. They then have to wait more than six months for treatment to start. Suicidal children as young as 12 are having to wait more than two weeks for beds in mental health units to start treatment, despite the obvious risk to their lives.

Three out of four children with mental health conditions do not get the support they need. With over 130,000 referrals to specialist services turned down, despite children showing signs of eating disorders, self-harm or abuse, the problem has become so bad that some children and families are being told by their GPs to pretend that their mental health problem is worse than it is to make sure they get the help they need. Four hundred thousand children and young people with mental health conditions are not receiving any professional help at all—400,000. That is a scandalous figure. We know that mental health conditions in adults often begin in childhood, so it is not only an outrageous dereliction of duty to our young people; it will also end up costing the NHS and society far more in the long run.