The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-10-21.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of proposed changes to tax credits on (a) nurses and (b) other NHS staff.
Damian Hinds
No such assessment has been made.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-10-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the homelessness prevention grant.
Mr Marcus Jones
I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 15 October 2015, to the rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), PQ 11365.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-10-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has for additional winter pressures monitoring commencing in December.
Jane Ellison
Public Health England publishes a ‘winter health watch’ webpage each week throughout the winter.This includes a summary of the findings of our routine surveillance suitable for a non-technical audience, as well as links through to specific surveillance bulletins including surveillance for all- cause mortality, seasonal influenza, and norovirus.
In addition, data will be collected and published from acute NHS trusts with a major accident and emergency department to provide an indication of where there are winter pressures in the system. This additional winter monitoring will commence on 1 December 2015, and will continue through to the end of February. NHS England will publish the first data on 11 December 2015. The data will be published every Friday over winter with the exception of the Christmas and New Year holidays where the data will be published on an alternative day. It is a routine collection that has been published weekly since 2010.
The routine collection and publication of monthly NHS performance statistics by NHS England will continue as normal during the winter months. NHS England data can be found at:
http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/winter-daily-sitreps/
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-10-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress he has made on introducing independent medical examiners to the death certification process.
Ben Gummer
We will provide an update on our plans once the Spending Review has been completed.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-10-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what progress has been made with delivering £22 billion of efficiency savings in the NHS identified in its five-year forward plan.
Alistair Burt
The Government is committed to investing £10 billion to fund the National Health Service’s own plan for the future, and the NHS needs to deliver efficiency savings in order to live within its means.
Since May 2015, the Government has taken action to help hospitals clamp down on excessive agency staffing costs, use of management consultants and fees charged by lawyers. Lord Carter’s interim report has outlined how hospitals can save around £5 billion by reducing variations in the way operations and treatments are carried out. Further programmes at work are under way in partnership with NHS England and others.
The Department is working together with the health service, our partners and patients to further develop the programme required to fully achieve the efficiency savings set out in the Five Year Forward View.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-10-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether on any occasion under-qualified pilots have been provided in the compulsory pilotage area at Londonderry Port.
Mr Robert Goodwill
The Department does not hold this information.
The parliamentary question asked by Justin Madders, the Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Like every other Member here, I get weekly concerns from constituents about mould in properties. Sometimes we are able to help them and we get there. It takes a long time and unfortunately problems often come back. Sometimes people come to see me who I helped when I was a councillor almost a decade ago and the problems have re-emerged, so there is something far deeper going on here—it is not just about trying to put these things right. The issue is across the whole sector. Every housing association in my constituency has these problems. There are issues of capacity, funding and accountability. I do not think these associations are accountable to the communities they represent. Can the Secretary of State say something about what he can do about that?
Michael Gove
The hon. Member raises at least three very important questions. First, in fairness to everyone, many RSLs have inherited housing stock—particularly that built in the ’60s and ’70s—that was simply not fit for purpose when it was constructed and is well beyond its natural life span as anything approaching decent accommodation. He is absolutely right that they have inherited significant problems. Secondly, we need to make sure that housing associations and RSLs are more accountable generally. One thing that our reforms seek to do is to ensure that the tenant voice is louder and more clearly heard. However, there can be an open debate into the future about how we improve stock overall and ensure better democratic accountability.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much in real terms the NHS spent on administration in each year since 2011-12.
Alistair Burt
The information is not available in the format requested.
The comments made by Justin Madders, the Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, on Twitter on 1 November 2022.
Very clever of the Tories to get Matt Hancock eating kangaroo testicles so we don’t talk about the broken asylum system, the impending recession, the crisis engulfing the NHS, the cost of living crisis, growing inequality and the crumbling public sector more generally.
The speech made by Justin Madders, the Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, in the House of Commons on 21 June 2022.
The origins of this debate are more than six months old and lie in the farce that was the investigation into the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. I call it a farce not because I want to undermine Lord Geidt—I cannot hold a candle to the Prime Minister in doing that—but because it is clear that he was led a merry dance by the Prime Minister in the first place, when the Prime Minister failed to disclose a series of crucial WhatsApp message between himself and Lord Brownlow.
The accidental omission of those messages in the “dog ate my homework” style that must have been forged in the gilded halls of Eton made sure that Lord Geidt was pretty embarrassed that he had been taken for a fool in that way. He said as much in the second letter he wrote to the Prime Minister about the investigation:
“It is plainly unsatisfactory that my earlier advice was unable to rely on the fullest possible disclosure of relevant information.”
That is a very polite way of putting it. The nub of it is when he wrote that
“this episode demonstrated insufficient regard or respect for the role of Independent Adviser.”
That was a very clear warning sign about where this was all heading. What did we get then? The Prime Minister, without a hint of irony, wrote back to Lord Geidt and said:
“I very much value your work as my Independent Adviser. The role is critical for the effective government of this country.”
That strikes me as quite a contrast to the position six months later.
It is still not entirely clear, despite what the Minister said, whether the Government believe an ethics adviser is necessary. Even worse, the Culture Secretary said this week that nobody gave “a fig” about him resigning. Well, I certainly disagree with that view most profoundly. Where I find more common ground with the Culture Secretary is when she said that Lord Geidt was always complaining that he had too much work to do. I can well believe that with this Government and this Prime Minister, anyone concerned with ethics would certainly have a heavy workload. Perhaps we need two ethics advisers in future. We find ourselves in a position where six months ago the ethics adviser effectively put the Government on notice that he was very unhappy with the way he was being treated.
Last month we had the annual report from Lord Geidt in which he states:
“It may be especially difficult to inspire that trust in the Ministerial Code if any Prime Minister, whose code it is, declines to refer to it. In the case of the Fixed Penalty Notice recently issued to and paid by the Prime Minister, a legitimate question has arisen as to whether those facts alone might have constituted a breach of the overarching duty within the Ministerial Code of complying with the law.”
There is a pattern here. As with the missing WhatsApp messages, anything inconvenient is ignored in the hope that it will eventually go away. But of course the Prime Minister could not ignore such a clear signal in the report. We need not have worried, because he wrote back to Lord Geidt and said he did not think he had broken the ministerial code and how silly it was for any of us to think that actually breaking the law might also be a breach of the ministerial code. All of us can see the benefits of being judge and jury, and why robust checks and balances need to be in place.
On the resignation letter, Lord Geidt said that an intention to breach the ministerial code deliberately in advance
“would be to suspend the provisions of the code to suit a political end”
and that would make a mockery of the code. I agree with him, but I think we reached the point of mockery of the code when the previous adviser resigned after his recommendations were also ignored. We cannot pretend that what Lord Geidt said there is anything other than a damning statement. For the Prime Minister’s own ethics adviser, appointed by the Prime Minister, to walk away after having his patience tested repeatedly, having warned repeatedly that trust was being eroded, is a state of affairs that should send a shiver down all our spines. Every single one of us in this place who is concerned about the probity of Government, who thinks that it is our job to uphold the law, not to break it, should see that statement as the ringing of the loudest of loud alarm bells.
The ethics adviser is not there to provide cover for the Prime Minister who wants to bend the rules. The ethics adviser is not there to be ignored when the advice proves inconvenient, and the ethics adviser is not there to be made a fool of. They are there as a safeguard for the wider responsibility, which we all have, for the way that politics is done. None of us is here for ever, but while we are here, we need to remember that we are the guardians of democracy. What we say and where we set the limits of adherence to the rules while we are here matter because they become the starting point for the next generation to work from.
If we do end up in a position where the Government of the day decide that an ethics adviser is no longer needed, or we never get to a point where one is appointed, even though, six months ago, it was said to be a critical position, where does the conversation go after that—to a further erosion of the safeguards that any mature democracy needs? Let us be clear: we do need those safeguards, because democracy is fragile and it cannot be taken for granted; it has to be cherished and defended by us as its guardians. Every watering down of the rules, every reduction in transparency, every erosion of accountability have to be fought against because many Governments want—to coin a phrase—to take back control. Most Governments, however, also have a respect for the rules, understand their place in history and know that having clear rules to which everyone is accountable is the glue that holds our democracy together.
When we have a Government with a track record like this one, it really is up to us to push back against that. Whether it be breaking the law in a specific and limited way, trying to wriggle out of treaties signed, changing the way that the standard rules operate, or excusing breaches of the “Ministerial Code”, this Government have shown, time and again, that they do not think that they need to abide by the rules. However, rules do matter. The rules about how our politics is conducted should be there long after we have all gone and they should not be jettisoned because it is convenient for the Government of the day to do so.
Parliament should be the beacon of fair play. It should be an example for others, both in this country and abroad, to look at and say that, yes, democracy is a good thing, and that it can change people’s lives for the better. Not all politicians are self-serving, but when we see a bending of the rules, the ignoring of them, or the changing of them to suit a short-term political agenda, those looking in on this place can rightly say, “Who are you to lecture us about responsibility? Who are you to tell us about showing leadership?”
Leadership is what this is all about. Those at the top need to behave with honour, to respect conventions and to recognise their wider responsibility to the body politic. That is all put at risk when those in power do not see the importance of that, and the weaknesses in our unwritten constitution become all too apparent. That is when our democracy is diluted, and with a Government who, because of the size of their majority, grow contemptuous of the need for probity and bit by bit dismantle the safeguards that we need, we enter this dystopian world where newspaper stories mysteriously disappear and the Prime Minister tells the world that no rules were broken when they clearly were.
This motion tonight will not reverse the dark path down which we are already heading, but it will slow it a little, and with persistence and, dare I say it, a little more courage from the Conservative Benches, we might begin to reverse it. We owe it to ourselves and to the democratic ideals in which we must all at one time have believed to do just that.