Summer Adjournment — House of Commons, 2020-07-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
Justin Piers Richard Madders (Labour, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to speak today. I have been hugely impressed by the efforts that have been made to ensure that the House has functioned as normally as possible in these unprecedented times. I would have liked to say a little more about that but, as I have a whole smorgasbord of matters to raise before the adjournment, I do not think I will have time to do so, so I just want to put on the record my thanks to the House staff for keeping the show on the road and, indeed, to everyone in the country who has joined in the fight against coronavirus As we come out of lockdown, the immediate issue facing countries is how we best protect the parts of the economy that are not going to recover as quickly as other parts. It has been a tough time for businesses, as it has been for everyone. The support that has been there so far has been invaluable, but we cannot afford to stop it now. What is the alternative? Do we allow companies that have traded successfully for many years and been responsible for thousands of well-paid, permanent, high-skilled jobs to go under because of a short-term disruption that has impacted on everyone Some of the biggest employers in my constituency, such Vauxhall and Airbus, fit that description. They should play a huge role in the future prosperity of my area, but currently they have uncertainty. The aerospace sector is strategically vital in the UK economy: it supports thousands of jobs directly and more than 100,000 more in the supply chain. We cannot afford to lose it. We are about to lose 1,400 jobs at Broughton, which will have a devastating effect on the economy of the whole of north Wales and the north-west. We know that once those jobs go, they are not easily replaced Thankfully, production at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port is going to start again next month, but it seems that we are behind other plants in Europe that have already restarted production, often with state assistance. Coupled with the continued absence of a decision on the next model for the plant, that leaves us all fearing for the future. It is not too late: we can act and do something to save these jobs—and with them the entire future of motor manufacturing in the town To stimulate the market, we need a consumer-support package that is open to all technologies and has additional environmental incentives. It is no exaggeration to say that the previous Labour Government’s car-scrappage scheme made all the difference to Ellesmere Port and many other parts of the automotive sector. We need a modern equivalent of that, or we risk losing the many great strides that we have made in the automotive sector in the past decade. We also need the job retention scheme to continue, in order to meet the automotive sector’s needs, because it will not come out of this crisis as quickly as other sectors. We need support soon, or we risk losing the car industry altogether. The proud history of motor manufacturing in my town could be lost for good. I want to say a few words now on leasehold reform. As co-chair of the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform, it has been my pleasure to work with some great campaigning individuals. I will not name them except for one today: Louie Burns, who sadly passed away last month. He was a rare beast—a lawyer with conscience. I say that as someone who considered himself such a person before entering this place. He was the best of us. He had a formidable intellect and a passion for justice that always saw him stick up for the leaseholder, so rest in peace, Louie I am sure Louie would have been pleased to see yesterday’s report from the Law Commission on reforming leasehold, which has been long awaited and at last recognises the fundamental unfairness and problems with the system. The challenge now is for the Government to ensure those recommendations are implemented swiftly and without being watered down by the powerful lobby who wish to protect freeholders’ interests. I really hope that time is now up for the unfair, exploitative and outdated system of ownership that is leasehold Since I came to this place, I have consistently talked about the importance of the high street; other Members have talked about that today. Many people want to have pride in their local town. They want to see it thriving and they want an end to the drift we have seen in recent years away from our high streets and our town centres. That decline has sadly been accelerated by coronavirus. I was pleased, therefore, when the Government announced last year the towns fund and the high streets fund, because I thought that Ellesmere Port would be one of those places likely to benefit from that initiative. I was therefore disappointed when we lost out on those funds, because we had been told we were well placed, but that disappointment turned to anger when I saw the list of towns that were successful I have nothing against those towns, but I saw a pattern between what looked like marginal and target Conservative seats and successful bids, so I asked the National Audit Office whether it could look into this. Its report yesterday confirmed my suspicions that the entire process was tainted by what I can only describe as a blatant subversion of the rules for party political purposes. Criteria were applied by civil servants and towns were ranked high, medium and low priority. All the constituencies that contained a low-priority town that were selected by Ministers were Tory target seats at the general election last year. Some 84% of the towns chosen by Ministers that were ranked medium priority were also Tory target seats last year, so the pattern is clear and some of the justifications given by Ministers for favouring lower-ranking towns over those with greater need are frankly embarrassing Take Cheadle, ranked 534th out of the 541 towns considered—almost the lowest priority of the lot, yet somehow it was chosen. This is what the report said: "Cheadle is strategically located between Stockport and Manchester Airport, with strong motorway links to relevant job opportunities and a new link dual carriageway. The area is part of Stockport Borough Council, which is looking to set up a Mayoral Development Corporation." I have no beef with Cheadle, but that reasoning is an absolute nonsense. Most towns are strategically located between other places. Actually, what is the logic of having a fund to boost town centres if one of the reasons a town is chosen is that it has good transport links to go elsewhere? This is an absolute disgrace and we see right through it. We will not forget this manipulation and I will not stop fighting for support for my town. This kind of gerrymandering might have helped the Government win the general election, but in the long run it will do them damage, because people will see it for what it is—a squalid fix from a Government who are supposed to govern for everyone, not just the areas from which they won support.