Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think I am not allowed to refer hon. Members to what I wrote on this subject before I joined Government—which are, of course, not necessarily the views I hold any more. I will undoubtedly make representations on behalf of my hon. Friend to the Chancellor, because it is worth bearing in mind that cutting stamp duty has boosted an industry that employs nearly 750,000 people. However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the Government need some revenue to pay for all that the Government have to do.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to raise a point of order in relation to what I believe was a misleading statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. He said—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot use the word “misleading”.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, “inadvertently” would be a nicer way of dealing with it.

[Jim McMahon]

I am more than happy to take that advice, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

The Prime Minister said:

“It was only recently that the shadow Transport Secretary was saying that quarantine measures should be relaxed.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 366.]

He went on to repeat a similar comment. This relates to a statement that was made over 200 days ago in July last year and had nothing at all to do with current regulations or our current covid rates. It was in response to the Government themselves lifting quarantine restrictions for a list of countries. We have been critical of the Government for failing to have a proper track and trace system and failing to do pre-screening and testing on arrival, so, far from calling for relaxation, we were criticising the Government for their own failures. I think the record should be put straight.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but hopefully those on the Treasury Bench will have picked up on it. If nothing else, it is now on the record. I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.

Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It seems to me that my hon. Friend raises a very important issue. There is nothing more annoying, nor does it bear down on people in a more irritating way, than pettifogging rules being introduced by incompetent councils in search of moneygrubbing schemes to get money out of hardworking taxpayers.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

This week the Greater Manchester Co-operative Commission delivered its report, which was accepted in its entirety, to Mayor Andy Burnham. May we have a debate in Government time on the value of the co-operative sector to the UK economy?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

One of the issues about things being devolved is that the authority then rests there rather than necessarily coming immediately back to the House for debate, but it may well be suitable for an Adjournment debate.

Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am always happy to meet right hon. and hon. Members who want to propose procedural changes and that would be the case in the right hon. Lady’s situation.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can I say to the Government that there is a crime crisis in this country? In Greater Manchester, it is evident to every single person who lives in our community. Every single day, 600 crimes in Greater Manchester are not even investigated because the police do not, after a cut of £183 million a year, have the resources to deal with them. We are now at the stage where local communities are actively pursuing setting up private security companies to police our communities. How can that be right and fair, and what does it do for the future of policing in this country?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. It is absolutely right that we do everything we can to ensure we keep our communities safe. That is why the Government have provided an extra £970 million of investment in the policing system next year. It is the case that the Opposition voted against that. They need to answer the question as to why they did that. It is vital that police and crime commissioners have the resources they need to deal not only with the problems of serious violence and knife crime, but the rising levels of cyber-crime, drug-related crime and so on. That is why the Government have prioritised extra resources for the police system.

Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am sorry not to be quite as brief as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), but I want to speak to the specifics of the motion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that this constitutional innovation is deeply unsatisfactory. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) rightly said that it is an indication that the House no longer has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. The whole point of the Government having control of the timetable is that that is an expression of confidence. I am even quite sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 that has created an element of constitutional muddle, where we have a Government who obviously do not command official confidence but none the less carry on as if they did.

We need to get to a situation where the business of the House and the Government go together once more. This approach is deeply unsatisfactory because there is no means of holding anybody to account for it. The motions can be passed one way or another, and they then go off to Europe to be discussed—if they are to be discussed—by people who do not believe in or support them. Those people may come back having failed, and they may have done things in a way that the House might not have liked, but the people who proposed the motions do not go out to discuss them with Brussels because they are not the Government. Therefore, this approach leads ultimately to chaotic relationships between the legislature and the Executive.

This business of the House motion is itself unsatisfactory. Paragraph (1)(c) states that

“notwithstanding the practice of the House, any motion on matters that have been the subject of a prior decision of the House in the current Session may be the subject of a decision”.

Mr Speaker, as you pointed out to us, that goes against the most ancient practice of the House dating back to 1604, but it is also a considerable discourtesy to you personally. On Thursday, you ruled that the Government could not bring forward a paving motion to allow them to bring forward their motion again—a decision that everybody in the House accepted and thought was reasonable. Therefore, to have slipped through under your nose in this motion something that allows a paving motion for motions that have already been determined is a discourtesy. If I had been as discourteous as that to you, I would not have the gall to move the motion standing in my name. Indeed, I would feel it necessary to make a public apology for such a shaming state of affairs.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman’s real objection is not that Parliament is trying to balance control away from the Government, but that his power has been seriously weakened by Parliament asserting its own authority in trying to find a way forward.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The shame is not that Parliament is trying to wrestle power from the Government, but that Parliament is wrestling power from the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. The shame is that people who stood on manifestos saying that they would respect the result of the referendum did so with forked tongues.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are plenty of people in the Gallery today who will be here to see the magnificent historical features of this building. They should pay particular attention to the parts that are currently held up with scaffolding, which represent the places where MPs have been banging their heads against the walls for nearly three years in trying to make sense of the chaos that the Government have created. No MP resents coming into this place, because it is a pleasure and a privilege to be here to represent our constituents, but it is extremely disruptive when the Government are so chaotic and when they refuse to plan ahead and to communicate well in advance so that we can make proper arrangements. We saw that in the February half-term, when MPs with childcare responsibilities and other responsibilities were disrupted, and we are likely to see it in the Easter recess as well. Again, no MP has an issue with being here—it is a privilege to be here—but we have arrangements to make, so clarity would be appreciated.

When the Leader of the House returns to the Dispatch Box, it would be helpful if she could help me to understand something. Currently, the local government elections are due to take place on 2 May. If, for whatever reason, the business is not passed tomorrow, we might be heading towards a position in which we have to elect Members to the European Parliament. The European elections are currently scheduled for the end of May. Would the Government intend to reschedule the date of the local government elections to coincide with the European elections that take place 21 days later?

Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, may I congratulate the Boys’ Brigade in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency? It is the most amazing youth movement right across the world and it really is an example of what can be done to encourage young people to engage with the world around them, particularly during Parliament Week. Just last year, we celebrated 100 years since some women got the vote. Congratulations to everyone on their work. I do think there would be popular calls from hon. Members to discuss this issue, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to talk to the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it could facilitate such a debate.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Greater Manchester spatial framework is causing a great deal of anxiety in my constituency. The plan, with a Government-imposed housing target, will mean a net loss of green-belt land. At the same time, insufficient funding is in place to redevelop brownfield sites that the community is desperate to see redeveloped. How can it be right that landowners, through no positive action on their part, can be made millionaires overnight through a simple change in land use policy, when brownfield sites, which are desperate for funding from the Government, are being left to rot? How can that be a fair settlement for the community?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious point. We all recognise the urgent need for much, much more house building, so that more people can meet the aspiration of owning their own home or being in secure living accommodation. It is vital that we do that, but the way in which we do it is incredibly important. Local Government questions are on Monday 28 January, and I encourage him to raise that with Ministers then.

Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman sought an urgent question on this subject, and I think we were all horrified at the photos in the news of the appalling flooding in his area. It is Welsh questions next week, and I encourage him to take up that matter directly with Ministers.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us an insight into “The Italian Job” meeting that took place, but I should manage expectations: it is going to take a hell of a lot of carrots to see though this darkness.

It is half-term next week and the week after, and some MPs will be taking charge of their children while also coming into the House to vote. Can we look at the arrangements whereby our children have to go through security screening coming into the building, in a way that MPs do not?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point—not the first point; the second one. I am meeting the head of security in Parliament this afternoon to raise a number of issues, including the security arrangements. Obviously, we have to take security very seriously—we cannot cut corners—but there has to be a balance between enabling people such as Members’ children to come in, as well as young work experience students and so on, and protecting everyone who works in this place. I plan to raise that this afternoon.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I have not really been speaking at length—I had only been speaking for about a minute when I generously gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The Government do have to spend public money wisely. As they said, spending money on the people—the people—of Northern Ireland, who had to suffer over many decades from the impact of terrorist violence and a divided society, is a perfectly proper spending of public money. I, for one, am very pleased that we have got to a situation where the public realm in Northern Ireland is much more peaceful and the communities are living much more closely together. Dealing with some of that legacy of the past is a very welcome and very proper thing for the Government to spend public money on.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fully appreciate that there is a cost to putting right some of the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland, but why was that not an issue for the Government before the general election?

[Mr Harper]

I do not want to be taken off the central point that I was making, Madam Deputy Speaker, much as the hon. Gentleman tempts me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall keep my comments brief, as I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) needs to respond to this very important debate.

I would like to take at face value the comments made by the Leader of the House about her being a champion for the Chamber. I will not go as far as other Members, but I will say that we have to do far more on the rights of Back-Bench Members to secure new legislation. When I presented my private Member’s Bill to reduce the voting age to 16, it was not the money resolution that blocked it. We had 150-plus MPs present to move a closure motion, but unfortunately the previous Bill was deliberately talked out by the Government. That is very difficult, because the Bill that was considered before mine was legitimate and important, and was on a subject that was very sensitive. How could I object to that? But that tactic is deployed regularly on Bills with broad support in order to frustrate the process a bit further on.

If David Cameron was serious about reducing the cost of politics, it cannot be right that the payroll vote, as it stands, is the biggest since 1979. The number of people who are paid or unpaid members of the Government —Ministers or Parliamentary Private Secretaries—is high, at 21% of the House of Commons. If the number of MPs is reduced to 600, nearly a quarter of all members of the Commons will be on the Government payroll, which will reduce even further the ability of this Chamber to be independent, to hold the Government to account in the way that a democracy ought to, and to have good governance in place because of that.

Every Prime Minister has the right to nominate Members to the House of Lords, and every Prime Minister in my memory has exercised that right, but it is hypocritical to say that the decision to reduce the number of MPs by 50 is about reducing the cost of democracy while in the same breath appointing more Members to the House of Lords. If that proposed change goes through, there will be 215 more Members of the House of Lords than of the House of Commons, so the second Chamber would be significantly bigger than the elected Chamber.

I want to say this in defence of MPs—

[Nick Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jim McMahon]

I am not going to, just because I have only about a minute left.

In defence of MPs, we ought to be very careful not to downgrade the work we do to represent our constituents. It is all right to say in a flippant way that there could be fewer MPs and the public would not even notice, but what I can say is that in my constituency on a Friday and Saturday there are people who need help. I do not just come to Parliament to make laws; I go back to Oldham to give people support and to help them navigate the system of Government Departments. We do our best. If Member support is part of the cost, it cannot be right for the Government to have it in mind to reduce the number of caseworkers or researchers who support parliamentary activity. MPs have to be given the right support to do the job properly.

The truth is what we will really be saving is the money around the edges—MPs’ salaries and minor travel and accommodation costs—because the staffing contingent, which is the largest budget, will remain the same. Let us be honest about this: it is about gaming the system, in the way that individual voter registration has gamed the system and in the way that we have seen the House of Lords packed—be honest about it, and at least defend it.

Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is very heartening to know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that the debate is taking place and that it is his. That is a good start.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I and a number of other Members have been raising with the Government the 1984 Cammell Laird strike. That campaign is currently undertaken by the GMB trade union. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a GMB member and sponsored MP. We have been raising that for a year, including in the House at Justice questions last April and October. We have been waiting for meetings that have now been withdrawn. How on earth can we hold the Government to account when they refuse to answer questions in this place, offer meetings and then withdraw them and have us going round the houses for nearly a year?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry that I am unaware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman is raising with the Justice Department, but if he emails me, I can certainly look into that on his behalf.

Business of the House

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

If the hon. Lady writes to me on that point, I will certainly take it up with the Ministry of Justice on her behalf.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Collective Spirit Free School in my constituency has closed, displacing 200 pupils. We have had an Adjournment debate on this, and I have met the Minister for School Standards, the regional schools commissioner and the National Audit Office, while we have also asked written questions and put in FOI requests, yet the Government still refuse to release the internal audit report on its financial probity and where the money eventually went. May we have a debate in Government time on the oversight of academies, free schools and university technical colleges?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point about a school in his constituency, which would be highly appropriate for an Adjournment debate.