Transport Infrastructure

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What a brilliant idea!

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

This is welcome, if delayed, news, in particular for Manchester and Greater Manchester. Will the Prime Minister ensure that metro Mayors and council leaders are hard-wired into the review? Will he also consider starting at Manchester and meeting in the middle, to ensure that we get the benefits early on, particularly for education, skills and jobs in my town?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will indeed be working with the metro Mayors and are already consulting them on exactly that.

Local Government Finance

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege to wind up this important debate. We all believe in the power of local public services, but you can’t do it on the cheap.

May I congratulate Government Members who have made their maiden speeches today? The hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Orpington (Mr Bacon) all displayed a real sense of place and community.

May I also thank my fellow Labour Members for their contributions? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is, of course, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which has done a great deal of work on local government finance and devolution in particular. He was very clear that unless we address the crippling pressure on adult social care and children’s services, there will be a £10 billion funding gap. He also commented on the real pressure on and costs for neighbourhood services, which we all see in our communities. Many of the services on which we rely have had to be removed so that adult social care and children’s services can be kept going.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out that the red wall Tories were all absent from this debate, even though the areas they represent—[Interruption.]

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) is waving, but he has not been here for most of the debate.

[Jim McMahon]

Better late than never. The hon. Gentleman has missed contributions highlighting the impact of austerity and cuts on many of the seats now represented by Conservative MPs. It is little wonder that the actual formula—the data, analysis and impact—has not been shared with the House at all. Why is that? The answer is that the Government realised that they need to go back—[Interruption.] I am going to continue, so that the Minister has time to respond.

Council tax increases generate very different amounts of money, depending on the locality and its funding base. A 5% increase in Wokingham would generate £5.2 million, while the same percentage increase in Knowsley would generate just half that amount, even though both areas have a similar population base. That is no way to fund adult social care. There is a genuine postcode lottery whereby house price valuations that are nearly 30 years old determine whether somebody gets looked after in their old age. I just do not think that is a fair way to do it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on her fantastic maiden speech. What stood out in particular for me was the sense of the power of community. In spite of deindustrialisation and the real pressures faced through austerity, it is the power of people and place that binds and makes communities. The Government just need to be a bit more on their side in future, compared with the past 10 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) highlighted that £300 million has been taken from his local authority budget, and noted that the fair funding review is far from fair. It takes money from areas of high deprivation and directs it to more affluent areas, which is absolutely the opposite of fair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) highlighted a £130 million cut and its impact on neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) highlighted the important role that councillors play in making sure that we have strong local leadership, but they need Government on their side. Far too often, when we ask the Government to step up and to do what is right, they are late in doing so, like some Members arriving in the Chamber. The example was given of the Government being far too late in responding to the cladding issues facing many tower blocks. I am afraid that that is just not good enough.

The truth is that the Government do not want to talk about finance. They know that they are not on strong ground on that issue. They certainly do not want to give any detail about the fair funding review, because it would highlight just how unfair the review really is. I am glad that the Ministers are sitting down, because this will surprise them: we are not going to accept the amendment tabled in the Prime Minister’s name. It does not mention finance; it talks about devolution. The Prime Minister wants to be able to pretend that his flavour of devolution is all about giving people power, but that is not what we have experienced.

Under this Government, many parts of this country have been denied devolution. There is no clear framework to enable local areas to know exactly what types of powers can be devolved to them. What we see with this Government is a flavour of devolution that goes from Ministers to Mayors, whereas Labour recognises that to give real power to communities, we need to start off in neighbourhoods and work up to the nation. Neighbourhoods and communities have not been central to the Government’s devolution agenda, and that has been the hallmark of all we have seen from this Government. I am glad that Labour Mayors are using their powers to ensure that the worst excesses of this Government do not filter down as strongly through to their communities they serve.

We have talked about the town centre fund. Clearly, all of us want to see investment in our town centres. We recognise their importance at the heart of our communities, and the decline that many have seen while retail has struggled to catch up with the online world. But frankly, we will never make progress if the Government are not willing to recognise that the business rates system is actively harming our high streets and town centres. It is not good enough to give just the local independents a boost. Of course that is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Doing only that massively underestimates the importance of anchor stores to bring footfall into big town centres.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think the shadow Minister said that the business rates system is driving the change on the high street. I speak as somebody who has a number of properties in my business, and that is not what is driving this change. It is a change in consumer behaviour that is driving the change on the high street.

[Jim McMahon]

It is right to reflect that the high street will always evolve. It will never be what it was, and it will of course be different in the future. But that does not mean that we should just give up and accept that decline is inevitable. The types of spaces that are often talked about are bespoke spaces. It might be possible to reuse a single shop front, but how it is possible to reuse a whole shopping centre that was built to be a retail core?

The Government’s agenda of only supporting independent traders massively underestimates the impact of anchor stores such as Debenhams or Marks & Spencer, which bring footfall through a town centre. How can it be right that companies such as Amazon can have very clever accountants to hide their profits away from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—which cleaners in their factories would not be able to do, by the way? How can it be right that Manchester airport’s warehouse distribution centre pays half the business rates of Debenhams in Manchester city centre? Where is the fairness in that system? If the Government really want a future for town centres and high streets, they really have to address that issue.

The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), was right to thank local government, but I am afraid that it will be beyond ironic to many that these thanks came from the Minister who has lorded over austerity and who tries to ignore the fact that the last 10 years have been under a Tory Government, whether in coalition or not. I am afraid that it is not good enough for him to disown the last 10 years as if they had never happened.

Most councils have done a fantastic job to survive. It has been the hard work and leadership of local councillors that has meant that many areas have not just been about decline, but have been offered hope. Council officers have worked so hard to ensure that public services can be delivered. But while thanking them, maybe we should give consideration to the fact that there are more than 900,000 fewer council officers today than there were in 2010; they have been sacked and sent out the door because councils do not have the money to pay them. That is the reality on the ground.

When we were told that austerity was over, I do not think that anybody really expected that we would go back to 2010, but nor do I think that anybody expected the cuts to go even deeper even faster, and that is exactly what will happen under the fair funding review. I challenge the Minister—if he is so confident that that his fair funding review is well thought through and genuinely fair, and that the evidence base is robust and can be tested, what is there to hide? Why not place the data in the Library by the end of the week, so that every Member of this Parliament can hold the Government to account?

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

I agree, but we also need to get on and discuss all the other issues. For example—this is not the most important thing for me, but it is important— St Albans has what claims to be the oldest public school in the world. It is right slap bang next to the cathedral. It is iconic. I have been in contact with parents—I am meeting another group on Friday—who are extremely concerned that the Labour party will remove the school’s charitable status if it is elected. They are extremely concerned that the Lib Dems will charge the school VAT. Businesses are extremely concerned that they do not have certainty about what to do next. People are pleased to hear about the £400 million investment in hospitals in St Albans and Hertfordshire, and they are extremely pleased that St Albans schools have received above-average cash injections. They want to hear about all these other topics. My hon. Friend is right that Brexit is drowning out the scrutiny of all these other things.

I want to remind the people in St Albans that the Labour Government left a little note when they left office saying that there was no money left. I want to remind St Albans that we now have the lowest number of unemployed young people since records began. I want to remind people in St Albans that there have been 500,000 new apprenticeships. I want to remind people in St Albans that we have lifted loads of people and families out of paying income tax at all, and that came from a Conservative Government. I want to be discussing those topics. The interminable vial of Brexit to which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) referred is being kept active in here.

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

It is dangerous to continue this “people versus Parliament” narrative, saying that Parliament is somehow frustrating the process. The reason we have not been able to coalesce around a deal is that the two deals that have been on the table have been terrible for this country. Diligence and integrity are required to ensure that we make the right decision. Has the hon. Lady read the impact assessment? If so, what does she make of the value of the trade deal to Northern Ireland? What does she make of the impact of this deal?

[Mrs Main]

I have, and the worst impact is the absolute uncertainty surrounding investment in our jobs and businesses. People do not know whether they can trade, whether they have to stockpile goods or what the arrangements will be because the dates keep moving. That is the worst thing.

All this flummery about Brexit is hiding the fact that we are not getting the business of this House done. Almost no one was here to talk about the Environment Bill, yet people are marching against plastic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

I think that I have dealt with the hon. Lady’s point.

Thanks to the Prime Minister’s efforts, we have a deal that we will be putting to the British people at the general election, and we will then seek to deliver the deal through the House on the back of a stable and sustainable parliamentary majority that will finally allow us to leave the European Union, as most of us have promised to achieve.

[Jim McMahon]

Now that the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill has had its Second Reading, we should be using this time to take it to the next stage instead of calling an election.

[Oliver Dowden]

The problem with the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman is that when we had the opportunity to get Brexit done and to get it done by 31 October, he and Opposition Members chose to vote against the programme motion that would have enabled that. The challenge facing us is that every time this House has had the opportunity to deliver on Brexit, it instead chooses further delay.

The deal that the Prime Minister has reached has confounded critics in this House and elsewhere. People said that we would never be able to reopen the withdrawal agreement, but we reopened it. He has nailed the naysayers who said that the EU would never let go of the Northern Ireland backstop by getting rid of the backstop. When people said that we could not ensure that the whole United Kingdom could leave as a single customs territory, he refused to accept it. This Government have made sure that the UK can leave the customs union as one entire United Kingdom that is free to chart its own course.

The Government’s position for some time has been that if Parliament cannot back the Prime Minister’s deal, we must surely have a general election. Up until today, however, that has not been the position of the Labour party. We have had the extraordinary spectacle of a Leader of the Opposition who spends every day castigating the Government’s failures—indeed, his party busily puts out leaflets demanding a general election—but when that golden moment arrives finally to have that general election, what happens? The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly spurned it. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has finally faced up to the inevitable, ensuring that we will make some progress with this Bill. I am confident that we can make that progress, and that we can get on and have that general election.

When the general election happens, we will have two contrasting visions for 2020. The choice in front of the British people is clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a deal that ensures that we deliver on the promises we made in the 2017 manifesto. We can finally deliver on Brexit and get the job done. Once we have got the job done, we can finally turn to the priorities that matter to the British people. The great one nation agenda being advanced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will allow us to deliver for our hospitals and for our schools.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Parliament needs to do its job and that is what we should be given the chance to do; we should not be rushed into this 17 hours after the Bill’s publication. I would also say—I was a trade union organiser and official before I came into this House—you do not give up what you have won and gained; you protect what you have and try to get better in the future. The Bill undermines workers’ rights in our country and in our society, and those who vote this thing through in its present form will find that many of our current rights will be severely damaged.

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

This place can be quite intimidating at times. I came here believing that people who sounded a bit posh and walked around with an air of entitlement somehow knew what they were doing. If nothing else, I thank the Prime Minister for disproving that at least.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Jim McMahon]

I was catching a breath—the Prime Minister wore me out; I was getting up and down so much earlier.

Opposition Members are genuinely agonising over the best way forward in reconciling constituencies that have very different views on Brexit, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the work he is doing to try to retain that coalition. Regardless of where people come from, surely it is important that we have the right information and the right risk assessment. Is it not wrong that the risk assessments are incomplete and that the Government’s own advisers have not even been able to rate their risk assessments because of the lack of time?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a distinguished former leader of his local authority, he knows the importance of going through documents in detail and having a chance to take advice on the implications. Even with the greatest brains in the world—I am sure this House does contain the greatest brains in the world, there is no doubt about that—17 hours is not very long to deal with 40 clauses and 110 pages of legislation.

The Prime Minister is trying to blindside Parliament to force through this deal, and this Parliament must challenge him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

There comes a time in politics when we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror—me included—and ask the following question: are we up to the level of events? Are we truly going to serve the people who put us here?

I have the honour of speaking last in what I think we would all agree is the most pivotal of parliamentary debates. I suppose that, for me, there is a sort of symmetry in this, because of the long association that I have had in supporting our membership of the European Union. I was a proud remainer, someone who campaigned assiduously for membership, and for whom the result of the referendum in June 2016 came as a bitter blow.

I have just heard the word “traitor” uttered sotto voce across the Chamber. That concerns me, and it should concern us all. I do not believe that anybody in this place is a traitor. I do not believe that anybody, whatever view they might have, is somehow disloyal or dishonourable or dishonest or below the standards that we would expect in this place, because I believe that not only do we call ourselves honourable Members, we are honourable men and women. And we come here with the best of intentions: we come here in all sincerity to try and find a way through for the people we represent—to make a decision; a hard, a fast, and a specific decision at that. It is not easy, but we are here to do difficult; that is our job. We are sent here by each of our constituents to get on with it, and over the last few months the voices I hear in my constituency, as right across the country, come out loud and clear whether we were leave or remain: “For the love of God, get on with it,” is what I am being told.

I want to deal for a moment with the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who I thought put it extremely well. He in many respects has found himself in the sort of moral dilemma that a lot of us in this Chamber have been placed in in the last three years. He resigned from the Government because of his convictions, and that is an act that speaks volumes. He put it well when he said that the best way in the circumstances—the only way—to avoid what he would regard as the problem of a no-deal Brexit is to vote for both these motions this evening. I say both these motions because the one will not work without the other.

We are left with a fixed date, a date that was not chosen by us. It was never the subject of an application that we made to extend article 50, but it was a date that was chosen by our friends in the European Union: 31 October. And 31 October was not a mere caprice plucked out of the air; it was something real and meaningful for the 27. It was in their interests; it was administratively important for them, but backed by proper reason, and therefore it is something that we should respect. For a moment let us put ourselves in the shoes of our negotiating partners. They want certainty; they want to be able to move on; and they want to know that in their negotiating partner they have somebody who they can trust and rely upon.

[Jim McMahon]

On that point, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel our negotiating partners look on this Parliament, which was prorogued at a time when we could have been spending time on this issue? We would have had more than 21 days to debate it in that circumstance.

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman, who has been here a good few years, has lived, like all of us, through this process, and the hours, the days, the months and the years that we have debated this issue amply demonstrate that every one of the 650 Members—or those who are able to take part—have had their say.

The elements of the withdrawal agreement that have been significant and different relate of course to the provisions on Northern Ireland and the future relationship, but we would be kidding ourselves if we did not admit that large elements of this agreement were elements that we have known about, we have debated and we have aired and analysed over the last few months—more than the last few months, the better part of a year.

Votes at 16

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered votes at 16.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. In November 2017, I brought this subject forward in a private Member’s Bill, which sought not only to modernise the age at which people can vote, but to reform political education in schools and much more. After many years of debate and campaigning to extend the franchise, the time has now come to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.

I feel a great deal of pressure, not because of the grandeur of this place, but because of the young people from my town who inspired me to present my private Member’s Bill and to continue the debate after that, because they believe so passionately in this issue. When I presented my private Member’s Bill, I had the pleasure of having members of the Oldham youth council in the Public Gallery. They were disappointed that the Bill did not proceed, but I am continually inspired by their faith, spirit and continued vigour as they seek to achieve their aim of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Across all age groups, people in Oldham generally say, “I didn’t know what I was about when I was 16 and 17, so why should we extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds today?” It strikes me that we are setting the bar much higher for 16 and 17-year-olds than for over-18s when it comes to taking part in our democratic exercise. If we wanted to be completely flippant about it, we could say that the only test at the moment when it comes to our franchise is whether someone believes what is plastered on the side of a bus. The truth is that there is no real age test when it comes to participation in our democratic and civic institutions. It should be about spirit, commitment and making the effort to be an active citizen taking part in our democracy.

I am always impressed at the quality and tone of the debate in my local youth council and the Youth Parliament. I am also impressed at how much research goes into everyday issues that we might take for granted. These young people are thinking about their lives and what the future brings, so certain issues mean much more to them.

Extending the franchise is not about left or right. Some Conservatives are concerned that a lot of 16 and 17-year-olds will be more left-leaning, and they think, “They’re not going to vote for us, so why on earth should we prioritise giving them the franchise, when it could be to our detriment at the ballot box?” I do not believe that that is a robust argument, but it has been used.

When I go to my sixth-form college, Oldham College or my local youth council, there is a genuine range of views across the spectrum of political opinion. It is not the case that all young people are Labour left voters; there is a richness of debate and challenge when they take part in political exchanges. I genuinely say to our Conservative friends that there is nothing to fear. However, we all need to make an effort to reach out and to convince young people that we are worthy of their vote. That is healthy for democracy.

The fact is that our democracy and our franchise have always evolved. Some 200 years ago, men and women marched from my town to Peterloo in Manchester, demanding the right to vote—no taxation without representation—and for us all to be treated equally. A number of those people did not return home: five people from my town were killed at Peterloo demanding the right to vote. Last year we reflected on 100 years of women’s suffrage. In my town, we fought for two years to raise funds for a statue of our heroine, Annie Kenney, not only to remember her contribution, but to remind us that what we too often take for granted today was hard fought for by generations that went before us.

We are not just the beneficiaries but the custodians of those rights—they are fragile, important and precious, and we should value them. However, they come with a responsibility to take on reforms in our generation too. Extending the franchise to be more inclusive is the democratic challenge of our generation, and it is one we should take up. Let us bear in mind that less than 50 years ago, 18, 19 and 20-year-olds were denied the right to vote. Our democracy and our franchise have always been evolving, and we have sought to expand them, rather than to narrow them down, and to include and engage people.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about extending the franchise and about democracy being a progressive, ongoing process. On that basis, would he rule out extending the franchise to 13-year-olds? What is it about 16 that means it should be the limit? Why not go lower still?

[Jim McMahon]

That is a fair challenge. At what point do we draw the line? I would say it is at the point at which young people take an active interest in politics, which is generally when they go to sixth form or college or they begin their life as an apprentice in the world of work. That is also the point at which they begin to pay national insurance, and there is that fundamental point about those who pay direct taxation wanting to have a say in how the Government spend that taxation on their behalf. No taxation without representation—that matters as much for 16-year-olds as for 18-year-olds.

In truth, this is not about 16 and 17-year-olds at all. Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, if we gave people the right to vote on their 16th birthday, it would be another five years until they could vote in a general election. It does not mean that, at the point at which they turn 16, they will elect a Government; it is the point at which they become part of the franchise, taking part in local, mayoral and devolved elections.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

In terms of devolved institutions, the Welsh Government are currently consulting on extending the franchise to 16-year-olds in local government elections and the next National Assembly for Wales election. That is being done collectively, across all parties in the Assembly. It is interesting to see the different approach taken by Government Ministers here, compared with the cross-party approach taken in the Assembly. However, does my hon. Friend agree that we must have a franchise across the whole United Kingdom that goes right across the age range, starting at 16? As he pointed out, paying national insurance is quite significant, and people should have a say from the time at which they are required to pay tax.

[Jim McMahon]

That is a fair point, and I will come on to how diverse the franchise is becoming across the UK.

How many of us, as parliamentarians, receive emails about local council issues, such as street lights not working, potholes and bins not being collected? That shows a basic lack of understanding on the part of people who are currently part of the franchise about where power and responsibility sit. In some cases, they do not know what the council or the Government are responsible for.

Many people also do not understand the role of the judiciary in our politics and democracy. That is why some newspapers can put pictures of three judges on their front pages, calling them “Enemies of the people”, and the general public swallow it. People do not necessarily understand the important role the judiciary plays in terms of checks and balances in our democracy.

A key component of my private Member’s Bill—it was not just about extending the franchise—was about providing democratic and civic education in schools so that every person who has gone through our school system on their route to becoming an adult is fully equipped to hold us all to account. If they do not know who is responsible for what, they do not know who to hold to account. It is easy for politicians, in whatever tier of government, to pass the buck and not take responsibility. That basic education was an important component of my Bill.

Throughout the campaign, we have heard many of the same arguments that prevented the vote from being given to women, the working classes and 18-year-olds in the past. “How on earth will they know what they are voting for?” “Surely if we extend the franchise to women, it will bring down democracy.” There is a common thread between the arguments that were used in times gone by and those used today to deny 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Is the problem not the inconsistency of that argument? In respect of the 2016 referendum, Brexiteers, who are, by and large, in favour of keeping the franchise as it is, often say, “Oh, people knew what they were voting for.”

[Jim McMahon]

There are lots of inconsistencies in the arguments that took place during the Brexit referendum and that continue to take place. In the political debates we have in schools and colleges with 16 and 17-year-olds, there is a richness—they explore ideas. We all hold street stalls and sessions where we engage with members of the public, and I would say that that education and willingness to reach out should not be restricted when it comes to 16 and 17-year-olds. If politics is to be renewed—we are in quite a depressing state when it comes to trust and faith in our democracy—that will require a different approach.

There are two very different approaches in this place. On the one hand, there is the sense that, if we restrict the franchise to the fewest possible people, it will be purer. We see that in individual voter registration, in the need to produce ID at polling stations and in several other cases. On the other hand, there is a contradiction, because a couple of weeks ago we considered the Overseas Electors Bill, which seeks to give indefinite voting rights to people who do not live in this country but who live abroad as British citizens. There is an inconsistency in how we apply these things.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. On the issue of women being given the right to vote, the first woman to take her seat in Parliament was elected in 1919. She represented Plymouth, Sutton, which is the same seat that I represent. In many cases, the same arguments were used against her standing for Parliament as are used against the fantastic young people who protested outside my office during the climate strike. Does he agree that these young people are passionate and determined and want to take part because they realise that the changes that take place here and in local councils affect them?

[Jim McMahon]

I absolutely agree. The world of information and knowledge-sharing has changed so much in the time I have been involved in local and national politics. Social media, and the self-organisation that takes place across social networks, are huge, and they connect people across the world, so issues and protests that take place on the other side of the world can be relevant and spark activity here too. I am not sure that our politics has got its head around what that means for our democracy, politics and activism or how we might respond to that. The general sense is that we should expand the franchise, rather than narrowing it down to its purest possible sense, which is what the Government will say they believe in. I believe that our democracy is enriched by having the most participation possible.

In many local elections, only one third of the voting public turn out. If we consider the numbers, not just by ward, but by polling district, in some cases the turnout is 10%. Whole communities are self-selecting to be disconnected from our political process, but that is not their fault—it is ours. We have collectively turned our backs on communities that have chosen not to vote, because we narrow down the type of people we speak to, canvass and reach out to. The debate is about not just extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but renewing our democracy more broadly.

The evidence is there. In Scotland, 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds turned out to vote in the 2014 independence referendum. Such was the passion of young people during that campaign that the leader of the Scottish Conservative party professed to being a

“fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club”.

So this is not a partisan issue. When people take the time to search out and understand the evidence of what is taking place in the UK, it is compelling.

In Wales, young people are due to be given the right to vote too, so if we fail to modernise, young adults in England and Northern Ireland will be denied that which their Scottish and Welsh neighbours have by right. For our United Kingdom to be truly united—by common rights and responsibilities, and with people having an equal voice in our democracy—we must have democratic equality.

Educating and empowering people will have positive and long-lasting results, and will equip future generations with a refined understanding of our politics, our Parliament, the judiciary and how our country is governed. That knowledge will be carried through a person’s life and across generations, and the habit of voting, too, will be instilled at a young age. Extending the franchise will help to increase voter turnout by inspiring young people to participate in political life from an early age.

The Labour party is fully committed to making votes at 16 a reality for 1.5 million young people in our country. It has been included in our three previous manifestos, and there is a real determination to make it happen. Support in Parliament does not stop there, however, because hon. Members from the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green party are also fully behind votes at 16, as are many Conservative Members. It is a genuinely cross-party issue; we just need the time to make it a reality and bring people together.

I strongly believe that defending and extending the franchise go hand in hand, so now is the time to stop talking about giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and to provide time in Parliament for a full debate to make it a reality. If we believe in a United Kingdom, we have to have a united say and a united stake in our democracy. Let us give young people in England and Northern Ireland the same powers, rights and responsibilities that young people in Scotland have, and those in Wales will soon have, and genuinely bring our country together.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing this debate; I confirm that I will leave a little time for him to conclude it. I also thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and all hon. Members who have taken part.

Voting age is a really important topic. Like all hon. Members present, I have followed the arguments closely over the years. I stand here at the age of nearly 37; I was first elected to this place when I was 27; and, like many in this Chamber, at the age of 17 I was taking part in youth forum politics. Crucially, the arguments are not being made only by young people; they need to be considered across age groups and across society, as we have done in this thoughtful debate.

I want to take on some of the arguments that have been made, furnish a little more detail and crystallise the choices that we face. I will come on to how the Government are setting out to engage and educate young people, which is very important, but let me start with the fact that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to retain the current franchise for parliamentary elections. In response to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)—my Front-Bench opponent but also, dare I say it, my hon. Friend, because we have shadowed each other in this brief for a while—let me say that if we are talking about the core concepts of democracy, one of them is manifesto commitments. Those commitments mean something to people who follow politics, and it means something for us to stand up and say that we should have faith in the decisions that we offer the electorate and expect to defend.

I will address some points that were made about public opinion and then move on to the issues that were raised about the standard age of majority. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred in passing to the state of public opinion, so let me furnish hon. Members with some detail. In 2004, in one of the most comprehensive reviews and consultations to date on lowering the voting age, the Electoral Commission found that two thirds of people thought that the right age was 18. Instructively for our discussion, it found that more than half of 15 to 19-year-olds agreed. In 2008, the then Labour Government established the Youth Citizenship Commission, which found that although the majority of 16 and 17-year-old respondents were in favour of lowering the voting age, all older categories of respondents were opposed to such a change—an interesting detail.

[Jim McMahon]

The 2004 Electoral Commission report also recommended that a further review be carried out in four to five years, but that review has not yet taken place. Will the Minister commit to it now?

[Chloe Smith]

I almost misheard the hon. Gentleman and thought that he said “45 years”, but he rightly notes that the recommendation was four to five years. No, I am not in a position to commit the Government to such a review today, because the Electoral Commission’s own review concluded that the age should not be changed and, as I shall set out, the evidence still says so.

In 2013, a YouGov poll of voters of all ages and political views found that they opposed changes to the voting age—even the majority of young people did not want 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote. More recently still, in April 2017, a very large poll of adults found that only 29% were in favour of lowering the age to 16, while 52% were against it.

The international state of play has been discussed, but I will not dwell on it because hon. Members’ examples were well given. The topic that I really want to address, and that the bulk of our debate has focused on, is the age of majority. We have to face up to the fact that 18 is widely recognised in this country as the age at which one becomes an adult. Rightly, we have a range of measures to protect young people below that age. It is a concept in our laws: there is a wide range of life decisions that entail taking on significant responsibility, for which this Parliament has judged that 18 is the right age.

Not only is the Government’s stance built on a bedrock of public opinion, from which we take our manifesto commitment, but there is a clear consistency to it. I do not think that the same can necessarily be said of all the arguments that have been made in this debate. Either someone is old enough or not—both cannot be true, so which is it?

Let me start with health. We generally seek to protect children and young people, who can be some of the most vulnerable members of our society, from actions—either by themselves or by others—that could be detrimental to their health. For example, Parliament has raised the age at which a young person can buy cigarettes; private vehicles carrying someone under 18 must now be smoke free; and we have introduced legislation to ban under-18s from buying e-cigarettes. As I suspect hon. Members know, the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health recommended only last month that the age at which someone can buy cigarettes ought to be raised from 18 to 21.

The arguments are fundamentally about health and damage; I wonder whether there are hon. Members present who voted against such measures, because they have an argument to answer about consistency. We as a society determine that young people need that additional support and protection. If we consider them to be minors in that area, why do we not in another area?

A further health example is sunbeds, which have been mentioned. Another, which draws on the point about how we differ in parts of our country, is that the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 raised the minimum age for getting tongue and intimate piercings in Wales to 18. That is a recent way in which the age has gone upwards. A non-health example is that of buying fireworks, which has also been mentioned.

There is a serious consistency point. Someone is either old enough or they are not, and that is not only an idea that is based on health examples—there are plenty of other areas where Parliament has made the same judgment. It includes the right to take out credit, to be able to gamble, to sit on a jury, to own land or property and to legally sign a contract. We could also look at the way the criminal justice system works, where young people are treated differently, with different types of courts and institutions.

Let us move on to the two areas that require parental consent: marriage, other than in Scotland, and joining the armed forces. Those concepts have been discussed in today’s debate. We have to be able to return to the central point of understanding whether someone is or is not old enough, and we should be honest on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. It is more fundamental than extending the franchise; it is about our whole democracy and the value of our politics. I find myself not only coming to the conclusion that our politics is broken—repairable, I hope, but broken—but wondering how broken our United Kingdom is, and how little voice English residents have. Scotland and Wales have taken the initiative, because they have devolved institutions that want to take the lead. In England, we are being held back by the UK Parliament, which will not even facilitate a debate on the Floor of the House to test the will of Parliament on this issue. That is the frustration.

We know that there are different views—we take a different view on some of the arguments that are deployed—but we have been denied the opportunity to test the will of Parliament and have a vote on the issue. For me, that is the most scandalous part of how our democracy works. We have seen the private Members’ Bills process frustrated time after time. We have seen parliamentary gymnastics deployed to make sure that the Government do not have to face up to difficult decisions.

It is correct to say that the Conservative party manifesto is one that the Government seek to deliver, but let us be honest about the parliamentary gymnastics that were employed when the Overseas Electors Bill came to the Floor of the House as a private Member’s Bill with the Government’s support. They deliberately arranged for it to be talked out because they did not want to face a potential vote on votes at 16. Their own manifesto commitment was denied because they did not want to face a vote on this issue.

To be frank, some of the explanations that have been given on objections do not hold water. My son Jack, who is an apprentice, is old enough to pay tax on the income that he earns. He is affected by public transport when he goes to work, in the way that every other worker on that bus is affected, and he contributes to his taxes for that. He is old enough to have taken driving lessons and before he is 18, he is very likely to be driving a car. Where the age line sits is not an argument that really holds water, for the same reasons that have been explained around consideration being given for some public health issues moving from 18 years to 21 years. It would not follow that the age of voting is then increased to 21—that is a nonsense.

I would respect the Government more if they really stated why their objections on this issue are so firm. It is not about the age of maturity. It is not about a common age across public health and protection issues. It is because they just do not believe that 16 and 17-year-olds will vote Conservative. It is as cruel as that. It is the same reason that we are seeing ID being introduced at polling stations, denying the right of people to cast a vote in some cases, when the evidence base is flimsy. We have seen that with individual voter registration, where people are deliberately pushed off the register. We see it through the stuffing of the House of Lords with people who are more likely to vote the Government’s way—I accept that every Government does that, so it is not an entirely partisan point. We see it at every opportunity, including the proposal to reduce the number of MPs. Why? It is about gaming the system, rather than expanding our democracy.

I appreciate the debate that has taken place. I would like to have won the hearts and minds of the Government, but I have to accept that we are running out of time, and maybe it is a fight for another day.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered votes at 16.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I think it would be premature to say anything about whipping at this stage, because we do not currently know exactly what the content of any options might be, what amendments to them might conceivably be tabled, or which of those amendments the Chair might be willing to accept. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will have heard my hon. Friend’s representations.

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

The reason the Prime Minister’s statement last Wednesday was so disappointing—and we are hearing it today—is that this is not about the 17 million any more than it is about the 16 million; it is about everyone who lives in this country and has a stake in its future. People are looking at what is happening and feeling absolute frustration and despair, because the people whom they elected to make decisions and make this work have not found a way through the difficulties. Now, with the indicative votes that are coming, we have an opportunity to make a breakthrough and find some common ground, but it would require the Prime Minister to depart from the red lines and learn to compromise. What advice would the Minister offer to her in this circumstance?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that one thing about which I am very clear indeed is that I am very willing to—and do—offer advice to my right hon. Friend, but I talk about that advice to her in private, not in the House.

Overseas Electors Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I think that my hon. Friend is the one doing the chiding. I suspect he is probably right to do so. I was unable to find the time to do that, and he is right to pick me up on it. If I had, colleagues might have had more of their questions answered. I listen to him a great deal, and particularly on these issues pertaining to Fridays, how things should be done and the importance of their being done, he tends to be right.

[Jim McMahon]

I say this advisedly, but can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he wrote the amendments he has tabled? With almost every intervention, he has been unable to answer a single question that has been put to him.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has not had a very good record on interventions in this debate so far. Most of them have been wholly inaccurate. I think that it is fair to say that I have tried to answer every question that I have been asked.

Occasionally, there was a technical question. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked not about the amendment but about whether particular permissions from the Scottish Executive would be needed; I do not know the answer to that question. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is obviously some kind of know-all, so given that he seems to know everything about everything, perhaps he could answer the question. No doubt, as a fine parliamentarian, he has studied every last word of the amendments, although his previous interventions would not suggest that. Given his expertise on the subject as a know-all, does he want to intervene again and answer the question asked by my hon. Friend? I will leave him to do it.

[Jim McMahon]

One thing I do know about is the amendment tabled in my name and those of many others who support votes at 16. I can answer in a great deal of detail on that, because of course it is my amendment. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to be able to answer questions about his own amendments, if they were indeed his own amendments. Did he write the amendments that have been tabled, or not?

[Philip Davies]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in need of some medical attention, but I fear for his wellbeing. Perhaps he was not listening, or perhaps it was not even here—he is in a different place now, so perhaps he absented himself from the Chamber and then beetled back in. I think that I have made it abundantly clear at the start of every amendment that they have often previously been tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester. I have made that clear. Was the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton not listening? I have said at the start of each amendment that most of them were tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester and I thought that they made very good points that were worthy of further consideration in the House.

I am not entirely sure which bit of this provision, originally tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for City of Chester, is difficult for the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton to grasp, as the point seems straightforward. Is it difficult for him to understand? Does he not understand those words? The provision on the Royal Mail that I mentioned was one I tabled and we had discussed it; my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked a detailed question about why I had included subsection (3), and I gave a detailed answer about that point. Perhaps the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, as he seems to be in a particularly grumpy mood, not only about the amendments I have tabled, but about the ones tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester, who, apparently is his best friend, even though he seems to think that all the amendments he has tabled are a load of old nonsense. I will leave the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton to explain to the hon. Member for City of Chester why he thinks his amendments are ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to get sidetracked from the Bill, but the point I make to the hon. Lady is that many of the new clauses I have proposed and will go on to propose are about making the system robust, so that we have an honest result and we do not have any problem with the result being disputed in any way. Given the problems we have faced, certainly in my Bradford district, at polling stations and in postal votes, I support the Government in believing that we need identification at polling stations. In many cases, presiding officers in polling stations have faced a nightmare in terms of being able to identify people properly. That has been an issue for some time. I believe the same happened in Northern Ireland and they dealt with it there, but unfortunately some of those problems persist in the rest of the UK. It is right that the Government do something to make sure that the results of elections are robust. I am getting sidetracked, Mr Speaker, because this is not really relevant. The point I am trying to make is that I do not see a conflict.

For the benefit of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, new clause 11 is on a subject raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Nottingham North. I hope that is clear enough for the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton to understand. The new clause is about the offence of registering to vote as an overseas elector in more than one constituency. When he suggested this change in a new clause in Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North said that it was his

“last stab at allaying the concerns that electoral administrators have expressed following the publication of the ‘votes for life’ document and the Bill.”

He was talking about their concerns relating to double registration. He went on:

“The principle is that when electoral registration officers use address data to verify someone’s eligibility to register, they will establish whether someone has lived in that place. However, they will not try to establish whether that is the last place where the person lived, or whether they have lived in multiple places and are having the same conversation with multiple electoral registration officers around the country, and possibly voting in two or more places.”

He rightly pointed out that there was therefore a

“live danger that might merit an individual sanction”.––[Official Report, Overseas Electors Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2018; c. 115.]

That is what new clause 11 provides. It says that somebody commits an offence by registering to vote in two separate parliamentary constituencies as an overseas elector. That is absolutely right. It comes back to the point I made before about making sure that the results are robust and without question and all the rest of it. Currently, there is something lacking in our system in respect of people voting in more than one constituency at parliamentary elections, and there have been complaints about that. I genuinely do not know how widespread the issue is, and I am not sure that there is any great evidence one way or the other, but, anecdotally, people are concerned that the system is not as robust as it should be. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to highlight this potential issue, and we should do what we can to stop it.

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am going to crack on. I do not think anyone could say that I have not been generous in giving way.

Amendments 68 to 70 are linked to other new clauses that we have already discussed. I want to mention amendments 75 and 76. Amendment 76 would delay the coming into force of the extent, commencement and short title provisions by 12 months. I want to raise that because, whatever the merits or otherwise of a general election outside the fixed-term rules, it seems to me that if a general election were to be held sooner rather than later, this Bill coming into force immediately could cause some problems. Amendments 75 and 76 would delay the implementation of the Act for two years, which would give more time to prepare for the next general election, or even the one after, if we have one before the five-year term is up.

We could end up with people who are eligible to vote not being able to because the systems are not in place to cope with the rush. It would be blatantly unfair on qualifying overseas voters if some of their votes counted and some did not, and if some were able to register and some were not. I think that that can happen already, to be honest, but the problem would be made much worse if we extended the franchise and brought the provisions in very quickly. We would almost certainly create a problem.

All in all, I am sorry that we have had such a truncated operation and that my speech has gone on far longer than I anticipated. Obviously I was agitating some Members, and I wanted to accommodate their requests, because in all seriousness, that is how legislation should be debated in this place. We end up with better legislation when we listen to everybody’s point of view. We have heard in interventions today people making some very good points that we should bear in mind and that expose some of the flaws in the amendments I have tabled. That is why it is important that we go through this scrutiny of important pieces of legislation.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire for bringing his Bill this far. I hope that the provisions of the Bill will be introduced at some point, but with the necessary improvements. I urge the Government to listen again to the arguments made in Committee by the hon. Member for City of Chester and the hon. Member for Nottingham North in particular, because if their suggestions had been taken on board, this would have been a much better piece of legislation.

[Jim McMahon]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing this point of order; I appreciate your generosity. Clearly time has run away with us, and we have had three urgent questions. That means we have not moved on to the second group, which would have included a debate on votes at 16. I recognise completely that that is legitimate in terms of how Parliament works, but I would like to place on record the names of members of Oldham Youth Council who submitted their personal responses about what votes at 16 would mean to them. Roshni Parmar-Hill, Charlotte Clasby, Samah Khalil, Liam Harris and Tia Henderson all sent in representations. I want to thank them and place on the record our appreciation for those submissions.

[Mr Speaker]

That is perfectly fitting and has been done with characteristic grace by the hon. Gentleman. I hope he feels that he has achieved his objective and secured in the circumstances a consolation prize, albeit a modest one.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It would be a decision for the House to take were that to happen. It was open to the hon. Gentleman to table an amendment to that effect today had he wished to do so. These are matters for the House as a whole.

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

The 2014 Euro elections cost £100 million, which seems like a lot of money, but the Transport Secretary could spend it in a morning, so I would not worry too much about that. The real issue today, though, and it continues to be the issue, is that unless we can secure an agreement that gets majority support in this House, we are going to continually go round in circles on this. So surely the Minister must agree that the only way to move forward and unite people is for compromise from the Government to actually get a deal that we can support.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent: the only way we can move forward, whether we are looking at the immediate future or the longer term, is for this House to come behind an actual deal embodied in text which the European Union is also willing to accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Well, I have to say that on the Chequers deal, for example, we went through the whole ramifications of enacting the 2018 Act including the date of 29 March, but then, on 6 July, we had it completely overturned. That is why I said in a previous debate I had lost trust in the Government and the Prime Minister. That is my point. I am asking a lot of big questions simply because I have grave doubts as to what we will be confronted with. The Bill that will enact into domestic law the arrangements that are supposed to be included in the withdrawal agreement, to which I have been so vehemently opposed because it undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, Parliament and the vote, is my reason for stating now that I retain my concern and my distrust.

[Jim McMahon]

We need to call out the idea that the Irish Government are trying to deliberately cause problems to push for a referendum to try to get a united Ireland. The Irish government have been trying desperately to make sense of the confusing negotiations led by this Parliament and by this Government, making sure that their own interests of course are aligned. However, it is not the case that the backstop does not provide a problem for the Good Friday agreement and for Northern Ireland, because it does, and that has been the lion’s share of the debate here. If we are not part of the customs union and the single market, we must have a border somewhere. Whether on the island of Ireland or in the Irish sea, it has to be somewhere, and the idea that that can be cast aside as if it is not important is negligent. We cannot continue to have that kind of vacuous debate in here. Let us talk substance.

[Sir William Cash]

I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that, having been involved in these European issues for about 34 years and having some knowledge of constitutional law and the way in which these things operate in practice, I am not going to trust anybody or anything until I see a copy of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will be rammed through this House. If we do not have a chance to look at it beforehand, it would put us at considerable risk. That is my point, and I think we need to take it into account.

I now turn to the framework for our leaving the EU lawfully under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Subject only to the extension of time, this is the law of the land and it is how we assert our sovereign constitutional right not merely to reaffirm but to guarantee in law that we control our own laws in this Parliament as a sovereign nation, in line with the democratic wishes of the British electorate in general elections.

The European Communities Act itself was passed on the basis of the White Paper that preceded it. In that White Paper there was an unequivocal statement that we would retain a veto on matters affecting our vital national interests. Gradually over time, since 1973, there has been a continuing reduction, a whittling away, of that veto to virtual extinction.

Leaving the EU, however, in the context of article 4 of the withdrawal agreement raises this question again as an issue of fundamental importance. We are no longer living in the legal world of Factortame—that was when we were in the European Union. When we leave, the circumstances change. We simply cannot have laws passed and imposed upon us, against our vital national interests, by the Council of Ministers behind closed doors during the transition period, or at any time. That would be done by qualified majority voting or consensus and, as I said to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in my first intervention in the previous debate, it would subjugate this Parliament for the first time in our entire history, as we would have left the European Union. It would therefore be a radical invasion of the powers and privileges of this House, which I believe would effectively be castrated during that period of time. We would be subjected to total humiliation.

I therefore regard it as axiomatic that, in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, we must include a parliamentary veto over any such law within the entire range of European treaties and laws. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I know that we currently have about 200 uncleared European provisions and, in my 34 years on the Committee, we have never once overturned a European law imposed on us through the Council of Ministers.

Just think about it. This House will accept laws by qualified majority vote without our being there and with no transcript. Where we were once in the EU, we will now have left. Leaving totally changes the basis on which we conduct our business. Under our Standing Orders, my Committee has the task, in respect of European Union documents, of evaluating what is of legal and political importance, and it has the right to refer matters to European Standing Committees or to the Floor of the House, particularly where the Government accept the latter.

We can impose a scrutiny reserve, which means that Ministers cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, agree to any proposed law passed in the Council of Ministers in defiance of our scrutiny reserve. However, that is not a veto. Once a matter has been debated, or once the scrutiny reserve has been removed, any such law becomes the law of the United Kingdom and is thereby imposed on our constituents.

Leaving the European Union

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Honda made it very clear that its announcement was related to changes in the global car market and not to the issue of Brexit. I have answered the question on a vote. It is so important that we actually deliver on the result of the referendum and that we do not go back to the people and ask them to think again, which is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

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

If this process was at all “simples”, it would be comparethesinglemarket.com, whereas the Prime Minister seems to be very much stuck in confused.com territory. For us to get a majority in this House behind any kind of deal, the Prime Minister is going to have to decide fundamentally who she wants to negotiate with. There will not be a deal that will satisfy her hardliners in the European Research Group and the majority of MPs in this House. Those two views are just not compatible, so please, put the country ahead of party interest and find a deal that can command the majority of support in this House.

[The Prime Minister]

I know who I am negotiating with: the deal will be negotiated between the UK Government and the European Union. This House made clear on 29 January the basis on which it was willing to accept a deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I do not believe that there is any Member of this House whose reaction to that ghastly news yesterday was other than horror and the most deeply felt sense of sympathy with the family and friends of the children and parents involved. Thinking through what that family have had to live through, and must face living through in the future, it strikes one that it must be almost unendurable. On behalf of the whole House, I hope, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the emergency services—let us not forget that, for those who were called out to the scene, this would have been a traumatic experience—and to the local schools. The fire and rescue service will lead an investigation into the causes of this tragedy, and obviously we will have to await the outcome of that before deciding whether any further lessons should be drawn.

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

Q8. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) opened her heart to share the story of her son Martin and the pain that she went through when he died as a child. The Prime Minister committed to establishing Martin’s fund, a children’s funeral fund that would mean that parents would not have to bear the cost of burying their child, yet nine months on, 3,000 families have had to find the funding to bury their children because the Government have not put the fund in place. When can we see the fund and, importantly, will the Government commit to backdating payments to the date on which that announcement was made?

[Mr Lidington]

As the Prime Minister has said, it is not right that grieving parents have to worry about how to meet the funeral costs for a child. We have confirmed that parents will no longer have to meet the costs of burials or cremations, and fees will be waived by all local authorities and paid for instead by Government. We have been working, as I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, on the most effective way to deliver the fund, because we need to make sure that we get this right, but I take his point about the need to step up the pace. We will provide an update to Parliament on implementation as soon as possible, and I will certainly draw his comments and the support that he has from other Members right across the House, on a cross-party basis, to the attention of the Ministers concerned.