Justin Madders
MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards.”
“As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone.”
“Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon.”
“Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance.”
“She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have di…”
“That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,481 lines we hold for Justin Madders, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 62 of 170.
“I want to say a little about some of the impacts that is having on constituents. An individual who has a child with ADHD came to see me. They have just begun the EHCP process, which they understand will take a number of months, but in the meantime they are struggling to find a school that will take their child. The child has already been removed from one school because of challenging behaviour, and now they are being kept off school for their own and other children’s safety. My constituent has had to give up work, meaning both she and her child are losing out. From talking to parents, it seems that more and more children are dropping out of the school system altogether for a whole range of mental health issues. The number of pupils who are no longer on any school roll is a national scandal on which we need far more concerted action.”
“I discovered that the ratio of educational psychologists covering the Cheshire West and Chester area was one for every 5,822 children and young people. That is a stark comparison to figures from 2017 to 2019, when a report from the Department for Education found that the average number for the whole country was one for every 3,500 young people, and in the north-west it was one for every 3,900. I would be interested to see whether those national and regional figures have changed in the last two or three years; I suspect they have gone in the wrong direction. I know the Government have spent around £32 million on more support and on training for educational psychologists, but if we do not have the people able to undertake the assessments, we will never get the backlog sorted.”
“Members have said, not everything is rosy in the education system now. Every Member of Parliament will be able to tell us about how parents feel they have to fight every step of the way just to get a referral. Then they have to fight to get adjustments in the school and seem to have a constant battle to ensure those provisions are maintained. When the umpteenth constituent came to see me this year about delays in receiving an EHCP, I looked into why that was the case and found there is a huge shortage of educational psychologists. When one constituent was recently informed that their child could not have the assessment within the legal timeframe required because there were no educational psychologists available, I decided to look into the numbers.”
“Could the Minister indicate whether action will be taken to ensure that my constituents can be seen in a timely manner, and actually seen at all, when GPs are referring them for an assessment? Surely refusing to see patients or assess them for specific conditions is discrimination. It is certainly against the founding principles of the NHS. Once we realised that that was a problem, we noticed that it was not only a problem with adults. As we have heard, there is a huge issue in education. The fact that more adults are now seeking diagnosis points to past failings in the education system. There is certainly increased awareness in our school system now, but that begs the question of what opportunities have been lost because people were not diagnosed or identified as needing assistance at an earlier stage. However, as hon.”
“I have been informed that part of the reason why the trust closed its doors to new referrals was that the funding it was allocated between April 2018 and March 2019 was enough to provide capacity for 79 assessments, so when it received 362 referrals in that period it was clear that it would not be able to manage. However, to close altogether to new referrals is completely unacceptable. The fact that the trust was telling people that they might wait up to five years for an assessment is also completely unacceptable. We would not accept a five-year wait for a physical condition, so we should not accept it for ADHD. We certainly would not close our doors altogether to new referrals in that case.”
“We have heard of some horrendous waiting times—I know that a recent FOI request by The Guardian showed that some people were waiting up to three years for an ADHD diagnosis. However, I am afraid that in my part of the world it is even worse than that. My local adult ADHD service, provided by the Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, has been closed to new referrals since April 2019. Despite the trust saying that it would be taking new referrals from last year, we are yet to see any notification of that happening. It is really letting down people who need help.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on introducing this debate and on the many important points he made. I will certainly not repeat all the statistics that have been stated, as it is clear from what Members have said that there is a very serious issue here. Instead, I want to focus on one particular statistic, quoted by the chief executive of the ADHD Foundation, which suggests that there has been a 400% increase in the number of adults seeking a diagnosis nationally. Between July and September alone, an estimated 170,000 people were prescribed at least one drug for ADHD, a 20% increase on the figure for the previous year. That is a huge increase in one year, and services have clearly been unable to cope with that increase.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this urgent question, but the truth is that he should not have had to do so. As soon as the police made the apology, there should have been a Government statement, and it should have been the Home Secretary giving that statement. I am afraid this gives the impression that this issue is not a priority, which, given the history, is completely unforgiveable. Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), I suggest to the Minister that he should go back to the Home Secretary this afternoon and express in the strongest terms that it would be sensible for her to come back at the next opportunity with a concrete date by which the Government will respond to the bishop’s report.”
“As an economic strategy goes, it is little wonder we are the only country in the G7 with negative growth, when our great hope for prosperity is a few rich people spending more money in restaurants. We believe that everyone should pay their fair share in tax and that people stashing away money in offshore accounts is not acceptable, and we do not think that the wealthiest in society should be able to get away with this any longer.”
“That means that just under half of those earning more than £5 million a year have chosen not to pay their fair share of tax to the UK coffers. What kind of country are we living in when those with the broadest shoulders get to opt out of paying their fair share? That shows that non-dom is a loophole for the rich. We still have people defending this archaic status in the House. They argue that removing it would damage the economy, as those registered would leave, taking their riches and spending power elsewhere. I even remember the Chancellor arguing just a few months ago that if we scrapped non-dom status, those people would leave the country and spend less money in restaurants.”
“Look at how the bulk of these people live in the wealthiest parts of London, making a mockery of the levelling-up agenda. It is also worth saying that some of the people who choose to live in this country then decide not to live by the same rules as everyone else, because they believe they will be wealthy if they do not pay their full taxes in the UK. Perhaps the most striking thing about this group is not just that they are incredibly wealthy, but how numerous they are as a proportion of the country’s highest earners. Research published last year from the University of Warwick and the London School of Economics found that 30% of those earning in excess of £5 million were registered as non-doms in 2018, and a further 10% have been non-doms at some point in the past.”
“Taxes ought not to be viewed as something to avoid; they should be viewed as part of everyone’s contract with society—a contract that says, “Pay your dues, and in return we will provide security, education, healthcare and transport.” In short, it is the bargain necessary in every civilised society, and it is crucial to securing a fair country that works for all, providing the services on which we rely and security and prosperity for all. There should not be a two-tiered approach to taxation, where the super-wealthy can shield their riches with expensive accountants and the rest of us have to pay more as a result. Put simply, such loopholes should not exist, because they benefit a tiny proportion of some of the world’s wealthiest individuals at the expense of everyone else in this country, and frankly they are laughing at us.”
“A week is a long time for some; it appears that 220 years is not long enough when it comes to helping your wealthy friends or even your spouse escape from paying their fair share of tax. In many ways, the intransigence we see in the face of mounting opposition to this outdated law shows the Government’s poor approach to the UK tax system. They have failed and continue to fail to act upon and prevent basic abuses of the tax system. I have no doubt that some on the Government Benches believe that people who avail themselves of such loopholes as non-dom are being clever or aspirational, as we have heard several times today. I suppose they might say, “Why pay more tax if you can use these loopholes to your advantage?” That misses the point.”
“This place is a contradiction. Look at the speed at which this place operates when the Government are determined to bring about a change in the law—from the minds of Ministers to the statute book in just a few weeks. Then I look around, and I see the archaic practices that this place still reveres. Yes, it can be argued that traditions have their place, but when we look under the surface and see some of these ancient laws that not only remain in place, but that some seek to defend, it becomes clear that the forces of conservatism are alive and well here. Non-dom is a legislative hangover from the 18th century. Far from being an ancient and noble right, it is nothing more than a tax avoidance device.”
“May I point out to the Secretary of State, who chastised the previous Labour Government for not abolishing leasehold, that most of the industrial-scale scandals we are now familiar with developed over the past decade? I think we are all agreed, are we not, that leasehold’s time is up, so can he give us a date by which all our constituents will be free of that feudal practice?”
“During the passage of the Health and Care Bill in 2021, safe staffing levels in the NHS came up, and the Government told us then that they “do not believe that there is a single ratio or formula that could calculate what represents safe staffing.” –– [ Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2021; c. 773.] Is the truth not that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is not about safe staffing levels, but about preventing nurses, doctors and paramedics from exercising their fundamental right to withdraw their labour, because they have lost all confidence in this Government?”
“Following on from the question from the Select Committee Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), many of my constituents are required to seek a housing solution in the private rented sector, but cannot afford it due to the freezing of local housing allowance and the increase in rents. Can the Minister have a conversation with his colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to see whether they can do more to enable councils to widen their lists for the housing register to ensure that people can access housing they can afford?”
“My constituent Gary Arnold entered into a business with the Saudi royal family some years ago. Unfortunately, that relationship soured, but rather than this matter being resolved through the courts, he has been subjected to a campaign of unlawful detention and travel bans, and he has been convicted, with a two-year prison sentence, in his absence. When I wrote to the Foreign Office, it said, understandably, that it cannot get involved in legal disputes, but this is far more than that—this is state-sponsored persecution of one of my constituents—and I think we can do an awful lot more than that to protect our countrymen. May we have a debate on what more the Government can do to protect our citizens who are faced with these situations?”
“What a sad state of affairs it is that the only way that the Government think they can get officials to function properly is to legislate for them to do so. Imagine if we got ourselves into a position where every time the Government wanted the civil service to work to a deadline we had to put it in a Bill. It is an explanation that is as threadbare as the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill.”
“We are told that it is an imperative that we free ourselves of the shackles of these regulations by that date and that we must hurry along and free ourselves of the 2,400 or 3,800 regulations—or however many it turns out to be—that are holding us back. I understand the importance of having a target to work to, but the date has been plucked out of thin air, seemingly at random, and we should not accept it unless a compelling and rational argument is put forward, especially, as I shall go on to explain, as it carries far greater risks than benefits. We were told by the Minister at the Committee stage that, in essence, the cliff edge is being used as some sort of management tool to ensure that civil servants remain focused and can deliver the work necessary to clear the statute books of all this legislation.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak in support of the amendments that appear in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our amendments, even if they are all accepted, cannot completely cure this fundamentally defective Bill, but we will see where we go with that. Let me add my appreciation, as the Minister did, to those on the Committee for their efforts in scrutinising this Bill and to the Clerks for assisting us in doing that. First, turning to amendment 18, I have yet to hear any rational justification for the deadline of 31 December 2023 for the jettisoning of all EU regulations.”
“The House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee even complained about a lack of engagement from that Department after not receiving a response from it to five separate letters. We know from a written ministerial answer that the Department itself does not know how much the exercise will cost or how many staff it will need. If the deadline is meant to focus attention, it has not succeeded in doing so yet.”
“I will go on to explain why that deadline is inappropriate and, indeed, impractical. The Government are using the Bill as a motivational tool. That message has not got through to DEFRA, which, as we know, is considered to be the Department with the most regulations, although, of course, until we see a definitive list, we cannot know that for sure. At the moment, according to the Secretary of State, there are probably about 1,100 regulations in DEFRA that are subject to the sunset. I will not get into whether the word “about” is good enough in this context, but the number of civil servants that we have been told are working on this in that Department is three. It is no good this Bill being used as a way of focusing Departments’ minds if they do not have the resources to do the job properly in the first place. This is a serious issue.”
““The sun has set on your employment rights, your consumer rights and your environmental protections.” Indeed, the sun has set on parliamentary democracy. Overall, the Regulatory Policy Committee puts a red rating on the impact assessment of the Bill as not fit for purpose, yet here we are, ploughing on as if it will be all right on the night.”
“The arguments for removing it and putting it on a more realistic footing are much stronger. The potential for things to be missed is clear. If worse comes to worst and some vital regulation ceases to be law by accident and nobody notices until it is too late, our constituents will rightly ask us, “What on earth were you doing? What were you thinking of?” No wonder the impact assessment on the Bill is silent on the issue of the sunset date. The Regulatory Policy Committee has made it clear that it believes that the analysis of that sunset date is inadequate. This is a deadline in search of a headline. Presumably, that headline will be, “Free at last”. I would suggest that a more apposite headline might be.”
“If people are going to intervene, they should read the Bill and the amendments, because they would see our suggestion for a deadline. Of course, as everyone else in this Chamber seems to know, we have already left the EU, so this is not about leaving the EU, but about the remaining laws. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that setting a deadline is not enough and that a stronger argument is needed for choosing that particular date, and we agree. What is far more convincing than the arbitrary date that we are presented with are the warnings that we have received that there is not sufficient capacity in the civil service for a genuinely effective appraisal of the regulations that the Bill seeks to remove in the timescale allowed. The case for the cliff edge is incredibly weak.”
“I am sure that those were the glory years—the right hon. Member’s favourite period of time. This is about protecting the rights that we have, and this Bill allows those rights to fall by default if no action is taken. That is why we are so concerned about the Bill.”
“In this context I refer to the written evidence of the Bar Council, which raised the alarm when it said: “The setting of an arbitrary, and in all the circumstances, impractical sunset date, with the consequent and entirely unnecessary risk of the disappearance of rules of critical importance to businesses, consumers, employees and the environment (some of which, due to their sheer numbers, may only be missed once lost) without adequate consideration or any consultation, and conferring an entirely unfettered and unscrutinised discretion to Ministers to disapply or delay the sunset provision or not; as well as the attendant risk of rushed replacement legislation”. That sums up exactly why we should be voting against the Bill.”
“I am grateful for that intervention. That is exactly the problem here. If Ministers decide to remove laws, there will be no opportunity for us to challenge it, which is why we are concerned. The Minister told us in Committee that the sunset date was chosen because it is the quickest and most efficient way to enact retained EU law without taking up additional parliamentary time—so the Government are doing us all a favour by giving us less work to do.”
“That probably takes us slightly away from the thrust of the Bill. But what is this Government’s record on employment rights? They doubled the time to be able to qualify to claim unfair dismissal, taking millions of people out of being able to claim that right. They slashed the consultation periods for people on redundancy. They introduced employment tribunal fees. Their record on employment protection is not a good one. There is a whole back catalogue of Ministers and Cabinet Ministers saying why they want to get rid of these burdensome employment rights. We are right to be worried about where this is all heading.”
“I do not want to be faced later this year with having to make a choice between a reduction in the number of days’ paid holiday that people are entitled to and their having no rights at all—and that is a choice that this Bill could force upon us, if we are pushed up to the precipice due to timescale.”
“I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what the Bill does. It hands the power to Ministers, not to Parliament—that is why we are so concerned about it. Taking back control was about this Parliament, not giving power to Ministers. I turn back to the Bar Council’s clear warnings. It is not some sort of anarchist organisation, it is not part of an anti-growth coalition—it is the Bar Council, for goodness’ sake. Anyone who is concerned about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability and who wants to make this country work should listen carefully to what the Bar Council says and its warnings about why the Bill is inappropriate. The sunset clause is interrelated with the question of Ministers’ powers and the ability of Parliament to effectively scrutinise changes.”
“He said that it did not necessarily provide “a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward.”, and that he would be encouraging Secretaries of State “to minimise the use of delegated powers where possible.” For once, I agree with him; I am sorry he does not agree with himself any more.”
“My hon. Friend articulates well why her constituents and indeed many people across all sectors of society are concerned about the impact of the Bill. It is not about Parliament taking back control. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has said that the “abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”. As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is here, I will quote his response, when he was Leader of the House, to the Committee’s report on the frequent use of skeleton Bills.”
“I think we would be reassured if that was what the Bill did, but the Bill does not give Ministers the power to improve the situation: specifically, as we have heard, it prevents burdens from being increased so—”
“As we know now, that 100 is probably more like 1,400, so we cannot accuse him of over-promising and under-delivering. He also told us: “Government officials are currently working to quality assure this data and any amendments to the data will be reflected in an update of the dashboard this Autumn.” It is 2023 now and, as of midday today, that dashboard had not been updated at all since this Bill was first presented, so it is certainly not comprehensive or authoritative—it is actually not very helpful either. That is undoubtedly not a sound basis on which to be legislating.”
“That is a very good point. If the Government cannot even tell us how many rules are covered by this Bill, how can we be confident that things will not be missed? The 2023 date is a deadline in search of a headline; it is not a serious proposition or the action of a responsible Government, and it should be rejected. The cliff edge is even more absurd when we consider that the Government do not know what rules will be covered by this Bill. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) in his place; when he was on the Front Bench, he told us, in answer to a written question: “The dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue of REUL.” He told us in response to a written question on 21 October: “we anticipate over 100 additional pieces of legislation will be added to the REUL dashboard”.”
“My hon. Friend is right that we must answer to our constituents about what is going to happen with these rules. That is why we have tabled our amendments.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The deadline was pretty risky to start with, but it now looks completely foolish. That is why we will be moving an amendment later to make sure the deadline is put back three years, to give us confidence that things will be done properly.”
“The Regulatory Policy Committee described the Bill’s impact assessment as either “weak” or “very weak” in every aspect, so any Member who is thinking of handing over those powers should, in the light of that warning, think very carefully before doing so.”
“This centuries-old Parliament, having taken a historic decision to wrestle back control from those unelected Brussels bureaucrats, finds itself in the ludicrous position of having another unelected person telling us that laws will be changed if they are “not right”. What that phrase gains in brevity it loses in clarity. It can mean absolutely anything, and of course—crucially for this place—it puts all the power in the hands of Ministers. Surely, as a Parliament, we can do better than that; surely we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard when we change legislation. We should not legislate on a whim, and Parliament should not hand powers to Ministers enabling them to do just that.”
“It would be nice if they had done so by then—it would be even nicer if they let Parliament know, and nicer still if they afforded that courtesy to the rest of the country, so that people were able to plan. We cannot have the Government changing the law on a whim. There must be proper accountability and scrutiny. We cannot have unaccountable Ministers changing the rules without reference to anyone else—that is not what taking back control was supposed to look like. When this Bill was first mooted and Lord Frost was still a Government Minister, he said that the policy intention behind the Bill was “to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK.” I think we need something a bit more detailed than a general feeling that something is not right for the UK.”
“We do not legislate in this place by website; we legislate by legislation, and the intention of that legislation should be clear. There is a solution in sight to this rather unsatisfactory state of affairs, in the shape of amendment 36 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which would at least enable us to see what laws Ministers want to revoke and allow Parliament—yes, Parliament—to express a view on whether it wishes to see those laws taken off the statute book, in the true spirit of taking back control. Crucially, the amendment would require Ministers, at least three months before the cliff edge, to set out which laws they intend to revoke. One would hope that, by September this year, Ministers would have formed a view on which laws they wanted to keep and which they did not.”
“If you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to take any more interventions for a while, because I appreciate a lot of people wish to speak. Just for a minute, I ask hon. Members to imagine they are a business trying to plan for the next year and having to navigate a dashboard that is not complete, but might be updated at some point. That business is looking at the dashboard just to understand what rules might be changed under the auspices of the Bill, never mind whether they should be changed or whether those changes will affect the business. If the Government do not even know what the Bill covers, how can they expect anyone looking to invest to do so? That is an absurd way to proceed. No wonder groups as diverse as the TUC and the Institute of Directors oppose this Bill.”
“That brings us neatly to our amendment 20, which deals with workers’ rights. The regulations that it lists represent, as far as we can identify, all the major employment rights within the ambit of the Bill—rights that people enjoy every day; rights that nobody voted to squash; rights that those on the Labour Benches will do everything in our power to protect. To protect them and remove any scintilla of doubt, we need to take them outside the scope of the Bill. I heard what the Minister said about there being no plans to remove those rights, which ought to mean that she has no problem with voting for the amendment. After all, if that is what the Government are going to do anyway, what is there to lose?”
“Friend’s Bill navigates the private Member’s Bill lottery, it would extend the time period for protection against unfair redundancy to a six-month period after the return to work from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. That is, by the way, something that the Government committed to in 2019, but under this Bill they would not be allowed to implement it because it would increase the burden. I am not sure how that circle will be squared, but it illustrates the point that this Bill could prevent the Government from implementing their own policies. Although most of us on the Opposition side would want that to apply to just about everything this Government introduce, when it is confined to things that might actually benefit our constituents, it is a cause for concern.”
“Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce the number of EU regulations in our system, which in itself will reduce the regulatory burden, but when Ministers are looking to update or replace these rules, why must we insist that they do not add to the burden? What even counts as a burden? I am saddened that Conservative Members think it a burden to ensure that our workplaces are safe and that people are protected against discrimination, and to protect natural habitats. If it was thought that reviewing the laws on maternity discrimination, for example, was actually a good opportunity to strengthen protections—possibly along the lines of the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)— this Bill would not allow that. If my hon.”
“Likewise, new clause 3 would create a requirement for there to be genuine consultation if the powers under sections 15 and 16 are to be exercised in revoking, replacing or updating a regulation, and, again, for Parliament to be sighted on that consultation and on the Government’s assessment of the proposed changes. I hope that we are not being too revolutionary by wanting accountability and transparency for Ministers’ actions. While we are on the regulations, why are we tying Ministers’ hands—we have already touched on this—by insisting that anything that replaces them cannot add to the regulatory burden? Why is the language of rights and protections always expressed as a burden?”
“Or will we have to wait until the end the year to find that some law that has slipped off the books is causing problems with, for example, the trade and co-operation agreement? Is it not better for us to know about that now? Ministers will know what the issues are, so why do they not share that knowledge with the rest of us? New clause 2 would give Parliament sufficient time to express a view on all that, putting power back into the hands of Parliament, which is what I thought all those who campaigned to leave the EU actually wanted to happen.”
“As our amendment 26 sets out, there needs to be some recognition that tearing up 50 years of legal development overnight might just create a little bit of uncertainty—as, of course, will revoking thousands of laws. New clause 2 would require some thought to be given to what the impact of all that might be and, crucially, would require it to be shared with everyone else. We therefore think that it ought to be a matter of agreement among everyone who wants to see democracy prosper that the replacement regulations under the Bill should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate and scrutiny, not simply by ministerial decision—or, as the case may be, by non-decision. All we are asking Ministers to do is to publish their work on how these laws will affect our constituents, which they ought to be doing anyway.”