Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q3. Prime Minister, your responses today have been deeply unsatisfactory. The President of the United States has advocated torture, misogyny, racial discrimination, sexual assault and isolationism. The leaders of Canada and Germany were able to respond robustly, but your response was to jump on a plane as soon as possible to hold his hand. Does this country not deserve a leader who is willing to stand up for British values?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have issued no response and the hon. Gentleman not only should not breach parliamentary protocol but should not tempt me.

Tributes to Jo Cox

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and John Bercow

Monday 20th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a speech I could not even have imagined giving just a few days ago. How bitterly ironic it feels to be here, in one of the greatest debating chambers the world has ever known, and yet no words can do justice to our sense of loss or the grief we feel for Jo’s family.

My wife Claire and I have known Jo and her husband Brendan for many years. They are a couple very much like each other—driven, passionate and impatient to change the world. I remember before the last election having dinner with them on their boat and encouraging Jo to stand for selection if her home town constituency of Batley and Spen came up. I thought she would be a brilliant candidate for Labour and a huge asset to Parliament. Her whole life had been spent serving others. I told her she could continue to do that here in Parliament, yet her willingness to enter public service has now cost her her life.

Over the weekend many people have rightly praised Jo’s maiden speech or cited her campaigning on Syria and refugees as the way that they will remember her, but a different sort of story about Jo as a friend and a mother has been the memory most on my mind. It was at Labour party conference about five years ago, when my wife was breastfeeding our daughter at a fringe event and feeling quite self-conscious about it—some older comrades were still not at ease with that sort of thing—[Laughter.] Jo saw that and she sat down next to Claire and began to feed her own son, just to show solidarity with Claire and to make her feel better—[Laughter.] It is just one example of how Jo always thought of others in her everyday life. They went on to work together through Labour Women’s Network, which Jo would chair while also changing the world through her day job and raising her young family with so much love.

Through Labour Women’s Network, Jo would fight for other working-class women to have the same opportunities as her, to end everyday sexism and to make politics a safer space for women. What agony it is that her life is now for ever testament to just how important those causes are. Jo was right to believe in public service, she was right to believe in making the world a better place, and she was right to believe in this place.

In the overwhelming grief of this story there are shards of hope that exemplify just what this country is really about: the two unarmed police officers who wrestled her assailant to the ground; the 77-year-old retired miner, Bernard Kenny, who dashed from his car to try to save her; and her assistant, Fazila Aswat, who was with her when it happened. Theirs are the true faces of the Britain that we love.

Most of all, there is Jo herself. Once, when I had my own daughter with me in this place, she turned to me and asked, “Daddy, can little girls become the Prime Minister?” When our daughters ask us that question, let us tell them and inspire them with Jo’s story—Jo the parliamentarian, Jo the campaigner, Jo the mother and Jo our friend.

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues, thank you to everyone who has spoken in tribute to Jo and in support of her family. There is a tributes motion and I have to put the Question, but I hope that, when I do so, it will attract the loudest unified response in the history of this House.

The Question is that this House has considered the matter of tributes to Jo Cox. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] To the contrary, No.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tributes to Jo Cox.

Colleagues, we will adjourn formally in a moment or two. Before we do so, may I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to follow me in processing behind the Serjeant at Arms via Central Lobby and St Stephen’s Entrance to St Margaret’s Church across the road for a service of prayer and remembrance for the life of Jo Cox? Perhaps I can take this opportunity to re-emphasise that our chaplain, the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin, will be at the service and will also be available in days to come to support Members, the staff of Members and the staff of this House.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I appeal to colleagues to have regard to each other’s interests. We do not keep a formal list on Report, but I suspect there will be intense interest in these exchanges, so colleagues should look after the interests of each other.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will certainly endeavour to do so.

I rise in support of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), to which I have added my name, as have many other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am completely opposed to any changes to Sunday trading regulations, whether it is their extension or their devolution to local councils. I am sceptical of what benefits, if any, it would bring to our economy but, more importantly, my concern lies with retail workers and my desire to keep Sunday special.

As a Greater Manchester MP, I am a huge supporter of devolution, particularly to a city as great as ours. However, to me the measure does not feel like beneficial devolution; rather, it feels like a dishonest manoeuvre from a Government who seem obsessed with introducing the policy even though there appears to be no public demand for it. I also have concerns about how the Government have gone about the process, in particular their flawed consultation, which I will address.

I am happy to declare an interest, in that I am an USDAW-sponsored MP, which I am particularly proud of. USDAW has led from the front in this campaign, representing the concerns of ordinary retail workers and ensuring that their voice is heard.

Lots of good, strong arguments were put forward in the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. I, too, intend to focus my speech on the family and faith aspects of Sundays but, first, I want to express my serious concerns about how the Government have gone about attempting to introduce the change. I believe it is at best mischievous and at worst a borderline fantasy when the Government say that the Bill in itself will not enact any changes to Sunday trading regulations, but leave that open to local councils to decide. They know as well as all hon. Members do that the measure will result in extended opening hours on Sundays. As soon as one council does it, neighbouring councils will soon fall, one after another, until extended hours are uniform.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and John Bercow

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The number of Government political advisers is up to nearly 100. The number of political advisers on the highest pay grade is up 150%. The Prime Minister’s reportable salaries have increased by 51% and the Chancellor’s reportable political salaries have increased by 277%. When the Minister told us, just minutes ago, that the Government were tightening their belt on their political budget, did he deliberately mislead the House?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think understand what the hon. Gentleman was driving at, but it is wholly disorderly to deliberately mislead the House. The notion that somebody might do so should not be put to a Minister. The hon. Gentleman is extremely felicitous of phrase and I feel sure he can find another way to convey the thrust of what he wishes to communicate to the Minister. I very politely now invite him to do so.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It appears that the facts contradict the Minister, so I just wonder if he made an inadvertent mistake in the statement he has made to us today.

[Mr Speaker]

Very dextrous.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and John Bercow

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

An ingenious but unsuccessful attempt, I am afraid, if Members look at the terms of the question on the Order Paper.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Labour supports the extension of high-speed rail services to Scotland. To get there, however, we will have to get to the north of England first. Why are we still waiting for Ministers to confirm the route and the stations for HS2 north of Birmingham, and does the Secretary of State understand that this lack of progress is placing their commitment to HS2 in the midlands and the north in doubt?

Public Transport (Greater Manchester)

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I assume the hon. Lady has the consent both of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and of the Minister.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

indicated assent.