Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to hear the debate and the passion that Members have for their areas. I quite liked the county competition for the most beautiful part of England, but I am sure that we can agree that England is magnificent coast to coast, and we should all celebrate that.

I will respond to the debate in due course, but I want to start by laying out some of the differences. We are using common language for things that are very different; I think that we are conflating devolution and the powers that will be devolved with the fair funding review and the funding that goes to local authorities. In some cases, there is no clarity on what a regional authority will do to the local authority and community governance, whether that is neighbourhood governance or town and parish councils. In this debate, it has become one and the same. I do not criticise that, and I recognise why that happens. We are all here to represent places and not units of government, so we care about whether our communities are getting the resources needed.

[Perran Moon]

On that specific point, part of the reason why there is a conflation of devolution and the local government funding settlement is that, because our local councils in some areas are so deprived of funding, they have to get funding from something like a visitor levy, which would not typically be allocated for that, in order to supplement the services they need to provide. That is potentially why there is a mix-up of views about devolution and the local government settlement. Does the Minister recognise that point?

[Jim McMahon]

In a sense, I recognise that there will be differences of opinion, depending on which local authority and what part of the country Members represent, about whether the fair funding review fully picks up all the particular circumstances. There might be more agreement on the sufficiency of local government finance. Whatever the allocation across the board, the fair funding review is intended to distribute it in the fairest possible way and in a transparent way, so that Members and councillors can see where the money is going to.

Since coming to power, the Labour Government have delivered long-overdue reforms to council funding through the first multi-year local government settlement in a decade. In doing so, we have delivered transformational changes to how councils are funded, which the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We have delivered on our commitment to give councils greater certainty and flexibility over their funding, ensuring that resources are fairly aligned to local need and simplifying the funding landscape by ending wasteful competitive bidding, which we all recognise pits one area against another.

The Government also have a very important role to play as an equaliser for local government income. During the course of the debate, I heard references to the amount of grant that individual councils get, and one grant total being compared with another. I want to be clear that the fair funding review is not intended to give every council the same central Government grant. That grant is intended to act as an equaliser for the system, so that in the end all councils have the resources to deliver the public service need in their local areas, while recognising that there are wide differences in England in the local tax bases of council tax and business rates.

As a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed relative need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up by about a third before the reforms. We recognise the different drivers in demand for services, the cost of providing them in different places and the different abilities of areas to raise council tax. We are therefore making funding available in such a way as to enable all local authorities to provide the same level of services to their residents.

For rural communities, the 2026-27 settlement was a key step in delivering a fairer system to address the issues that matter to local communities across England. It included recognising local circumstances, including differences in the cost of delivering services between rural and urban areas, and using the best available and most up-to-date data, including the latest indices of multiple deprivation to ensure that deprivation in rural areas is captured accurately. I will explain a bit more on that.

I heard references to the fair funding review not taking account of the differential cost of delivering services in rural areas. To be clear, we account for rural costs through the area cost adjustment, which is applied to all formulas. That adjustment captures the variation in wages, property rates, journey times, and a range of other factors that pick up the local variation that takes place. On top of that, we have a remoteness adjustment in social care. I hear representations that say, “Hang on. If it costs more to deliver adult social care in these areas, then surely children’s services and other services such as waste collection and other things ought to be included, too.” The area cost adjustment picks up that general difference of delivering a service in those areas. There is a balance here. We want a simplified system that can be scrutinised and understood. The more we adapt and change and really drill down on that, the more complicated it becomes, the more it has to be updated and the more that changes. There is always a balance to be had between simplicity, being understood and giving certainty over the multi-year settlement, while recognising the differences at a local level.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister says there is an area cost adjustment, and yet the leader of Devon county council says that Devon lost £14 million because of the rural services delivery grant, which was removed. How can those two things be true? If a grant that takes account of the fact that it is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area is removed and the council is £14 million short, the extra cost of rural services delivery has not been recognised.

[Jim McMahon]

We have always taken the view that the rural services delivery grant had, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base to support it. A political decision was made when the coalition Government came in and the grant that was given to largely urban authorities was taken away with almost no notice at all. It was replaced by the rural services delivery grant, but without the evidence base to support where it went to. Whatever criticism is applied to the fair funding review, what cannot be criticised is the evidence base that sits beneath it, because it is the best available data.

We are laying the foundations for reform more broadly. The multi-year local government finance settlement allows for £4.6 billion of additional funding to be available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. The Government are driving the biggest transformation in children’s social care in a generation, with the families first partnership programme backed by nearly £3 billion of investment over four years, including a historic £2.4 billion over the multi-year settlement. That will support local authorities, police and health partners to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision to early intervention and prevention services.

The Government recognise that the current SEND system is not working for families, children or local authorities, and we have set out plans to reform it, backed by £4 billion of investment over three years, to deliver expertise without the need for statutory processes and embed new practice into the system. We have also heard calls for a solution to SEND deficits. All local authorities with a deficit will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related deficit. The grant is projected to be worth more than £5 billion nationally, and is subject to each local authority submitting and securing approval for a local SEND reform plan.

We recognise the spending pressures from home-to-school transport in recent years, particularly in rural areas. At the fair funding review, we introduced a bespoke home-to-school transport formula that estimates local transport need for pre-16 home-to-school transport, based on pupil numbers and home-to-school distances. Furthermore, following consultation on the design of the formula, the Government increased the distance cap to 50 miles, rather than the originally proposed 20 miles. That change will see only 0.4% of pupil journey distances capped and will avoid unfairly penalising local authorities where children travel further to get to school.

We know that the cost of living and homelessness services are causing challenges too, and that homelessness can present in a unique way in rural areas. That is why we are providing more than £4 billion of funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including £442 million launched last month, with new flexibility for areas to shape services to meet local need.

The Government are committed to making the changes necessary to transform public services and put local government back on its feet. Realigning funding with need and reforming the services that put pressure on local government will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities in rural areas and right across the country, as we have promised.

Devolution is a live issue for Cornish colleagues and those from other places. I give credit to Members for their representations on behalf of Cornwall and other areas. The truth is that devolution can happen only with local consent. We need areas to come forward, get local partnerships in place, and rally the support of local authorities. At a time of change in local government, when areas are also dealing with local government reorganisation, there is a lot for them to step up to. That is why we have provided support for local government reorganisation areas, as I covered in another Westminster Hall debate this week.

We want devolution to be rolled out to every area, but we recognise that the local partnerships in different areas are at different stages. There is an active discussion, which we should welcome, about what the role of community and neighbourhoods ought to be in the new settlement—devolution should go hand in hand with localism and empowerment—what the role of the local authority is, and what added value above and beyond that can be achieved if areas choose a mayoral model. To be clear, if an area is not ready yet for a mayoral model, the position is not that they cannot have devolution and that more cannot be given. I hope Members and people in local government continue to do what they have always done: rally their local areas.

Restoring Pride in High Streets

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

The condition of high streets, and the health of district, town and city centres, is a litmus test for national renewal. High streets bring people together to eat and drink, shop, access services, explore culture and heritage, or spend time with friends and family. They root a community and when thriving offer pride and quality of life for local people. The high street has a vital role anchoring communities in shared experience and physical togetherness, as well as supporting jobs and local economic growth.

For too long, though, communities have watched their high streets decline around them, with boarded-up shops, vape shops, and rogue businesses replacing the local services people rely on, and gambling businesses disproportionately found in the most deprived areas. This makes high streets unattractive to visit and undesirable to invest in, fuelling a spiral of decline.

This decline is not inevitable, nor is fixing these problems outside our control. Better living standards, mixed-use adaptation, raising the bar on quality, and businesses having breathing space are fundamental to reviving high streets. But giving local people a say over the composition and care of their high street, and clamping down on exploitation, can make a vital contribution now and in the future.

This Government are determined to restore pride in our high streets, support legitimate businesses, and give local people a stronger say over what happens in their town centres. That is why we have announced a package of measures to put power back in the hands of local communities, so that they can shape the future of their own high streets.

First, the Government intend to consult on changes to the planning system to account specifically for the rise in vape shops and adult gaming centres, and provide more control at a local level over the number of these opening on our high streets. At present, vape shops sit within the same broad planning use class as shops, cafés and financial services (class E). Changes of use within this use class do not require a planning application. Adult gaming centres are also not clearly defined in the use classes order. This can leave local communities feeling powerless when new premises open in inappropriate locations, including near schools, or where there is already a concentration of similar premises.

Subject to consultation, the Government intend to make vape shops and adult gaming centres standalone planning categories, or what is known as sui generis uses, in planning terms. This would mean a planning application would be required when the use of the land or building changed to that of either a vape shop or an adult gaming centre, where the change amounts to a material change of use. This would give local planning authorities and communities a proper opportunity to consider whether they are appropriate in that location. The consultation will also test how a vape shop should be defined to ensure a wide definition that does not incentivise businesses to try to avoid the rules by presenting themselves as convenience stores, and captures various uses of shops, where the main aim is to sell vaping products.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will also consult on removing the aim to permit rule in the Gambling Act 2005. This rule currently requires licensing authorities to approach gambling premises applications on the basis that they should generally be permitted where the relevant requirements are met. The Government recognise that regulated, responsible gambling businesses make an economic contribution and offer spaces for people to socialise and have fun. However, many councils, MPs and residents have raised concerns about the clustering of gambling premises, particularly adult gaming centres, on high streets, especially in areas already facing economic and social challenges, and too often local authorities seeking to prevent new openings have found their decisions overturned after a costly legal challenge.

Removing the aim to permit rule will build upon the introduction of gambling impact assessments earlier this year, empowering councils to take local concerns into account when considering applications for new gambling premises. This is not about a blanket ban. It is about giving communities and their locally elected representatives a fairer say over whether additional gambling premises are right for their area.

The Government will also take action to strengthen enforcement against rogue businesses linked to organised crime or serious nuisance. Following a targeted consultation earlier this year, we intend to double the maximum length of closure orders from six months to 12 months. This will give police and local authorities more time to investigate premises, pursue prosecutions, and prevent criminal operators from reopening before investigations are complete. Tackling high-street dodgy shops remains a priority for the Government, and this effort is underpinned by £30 million over three years. The new cross-departmental high street organised crime unit in the Home Office is working at pace with national and local partners to ensure a more robust, co-ordinated response to the problem.

Finally, we will work with councils to improve the appearance and design of high streets. Poor-quality shopfronts, oversized signage and unsympathetic alterations can undermine the character and attractiveness of town centres. Over the next six months, the Planning Advisory Service will identify good practice and provide practical support to councils on improving shopfronts, signs and the overall look and feel of local high streets.

These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to restore high streets and shift power out of Westminster and back into the hands of local communities. We will set out further detail on our long-term comprehensive approach through the high streets strategy later this year.

[HCWS302]

Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, the progress made so far and the opportunities presented by this once-in-a-generation reform.

Before I get to the main points, let me say that it is clear from the contributions of the hon. Member for Huntingdon and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) that they are passionate about local communities—that is what makes our Parliament great—but that there are sometimes quite different views about how to achieve what they want. Life would be wonderful for central Government if at a local level there was a single answer to the question and our job was merely to say, “Thank you very much for the submission. Everyone agrees on that, and it makes complete sense.” Of course, that is not the position that the Government find ourselves in. We have to arbitrate over many competing views. We receive the proposals without predetermination, on the basis on which they were submitted, and we have to act in good faith. I assure the hon. Member for Huntingdon and others that, as a Minister, I will do that with diligence and in good faith.

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s exact points later, but let me say that it is not helpful to make accusations in this place or on social media that seem to cast aspersions on the process. I know how passionate people are about their places, their identity and the future of their local authorities, but it is important that we set the record straight. I will attempt to do that and to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

[Sam Carling]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating all Cambridgeshire and Peterborough councils on the collaborative way in which they have worked together on this process? Despite coming up with different options that they may or may not back, they have remained in a position where they have been taking to each other throughout. Those dialogues have been ongoing and I think that is something to be commended.

[Jim McMahon]

We have seen that across England in the two-tier areas. In many cases, people have come together across party lines because it is far better to agree a comprehensive proposal locally and submit it to Government than to have it done to them in another way. If there is more local organisation and agreement at that level, it is far better for local people and for the decision made later in the process.

Even where there is difference in nuance—there will be differences in some elements—the core fact remains that the two-tier system just is not working. For too long, too many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, duplicate costs and blur accountability. Residents often struggle to know which council is responsible for which services; decisions to build homes or grow our towns and cities take longer than they ought to; and resources can be spread too thinly.

The Government’s aim is simple: to have clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. As the Prime Minister said, ending the two-tier system of local government

“is a nettle…that’s got to be grasped.”

If we want to devolve more powers out of Westminster, we need a structure for local government in England that is equal across the board. Reorganisations are the building blocks for devolution, and I am really pleased with the progress made so far. Decisions have been taken in 19 of the 21 areas, and we are now working with councils to get on with the job of implementation.

I turn to the constituency of the hon. Member for Huntingdon. I understand his wish for further clarity about the previous Secretary of State’s decision and the next steps for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. On the decision itself, the former Secretary of State decided that more time was needed to consider which option, if any, to implement in that area. The decision was not taken lightly, and I say to the hon. Member for Huntingdon now that we will consider decisions on local government reorganisation closely. They represent a fundamental change that will affect residents for generations to come, so it is important that we make the right decisions in the right way.

We will aim to make decisions on which option, if any, to implement on or before October this year. That will still allow for elections to new councils in May 2027 before they go live in April 2028. I am grateful to the hon. Member, and to other MPs and councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, for their efforts to date. I assure him and them that we remain absolutely committed to delivering reorganisation across the area, and we will provide further updates shortly.

On reorganisation more broadly, we recognise that it is a demanding process, and we would not have made the progress we have without the hard work and dedication of local councils and officials. The Government have announced that £63 million will be made available to support the transition across the 21 reorganised areas. As well as the unprecedented £900,000-worth of transition support to each new unitary, areas will receive up to a further £150,000 per each new unitary council to support leadership capacity and continuity in children’s services, adult social care and public health. That will bring the total transition funding for LGR areas to more than £1 million per new unitary created. In addition, up to £1 million of funding in total will be available to support the small number of areas with complex fire and rescue authority transitions, building on the funding already given to Surrey.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Should the Government choose an option that sees the Huntingdonshire area split in two between two unitary authorities, what additional support will be given to fully disaggregate the district council’s responsibilities, given the complexity involved? Could the Minister also offer any clarity on local services? For example, the boundary would go in between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, which are separated only by a small bridge—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Jim McMahon]

I am keen not to predetermine what decision we may or may not take. It may well be that a decision leads to disaggregation, but equally it may not, and until we get to the point of reviewing the proposals put forward, we are not in that position. However, as a matter of principle, I accept that having a new unitary authority made up of districts in their entirety, where assets, liabilities and workforces are transferred en bloc, is different from having to disaggregate because it is being split in a number of different directions. I will certainly take that away for consideration; it is a fair point.

Hopefully the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that this is a comprehensive financial support package, which is about supporting local authorities. We should not lose sight of the fact that reorganisation is a real opportunity not just for more efficient services and a clear line of sight on responsibility, but for devolution and our communities. It is an opportunity to give local leaders the funding, powers and capacity to drive growth, to build the homes their communities need, to deliver better public services and to improve the lives of the people we serve.

I hope that, whatever differences of opinion there are, there is the same collaboration at a parliamentary level as I have seen at a local level. I see that local authorities, councillors and officials are working hard and recognising the direction that the Government have set, with many realising the advantages that will come with a unitary authority with a single mandate for their area. Importantly—and hopefully all Members have heard this—the new Prime Minister is coming from being mayor of a major city region, hungry for more devolution and recognising that this country, for far too long, has held power, resources and decision making in this place when it should be out across the country instead.

Question put and agreed to.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the reflections of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). It is in the nature of this place that, when called to rise to the moment, the House does so. I think that that has been reflected across the Chamber today.

We often say that we should be more like Jo; it has become part of our common exchanges. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that I would like to be a bit more like Kim. She stewarded a very testing private Member’s Bill on a matter that was so profound and made us all think about those final moments when our time comes to an end, and she created a safe political space for all views on such a sensitive issue to be reflected. She does not just say the words; she embodies them. I really appreciate that and thank my hon. Friend for it.

Jo’s words really matter to us because they challenge us to be better. All of us come into politics because we have a desire to change the bit of the world we care about and feel connected to—our community, our town, our borough, our city—which we know can be so much better and often feel is held back from realising its potential. We come here to try to make a difference. This is a fairly odd place, let us be honest, with its quirk and its custom, and I think at times we do not always credit ourselves for the amount of work that goes on cross-party, when we pull together. That common interest—Members of all parties really care about and, I would say, love the place they represent—drives most of us in politics. Perhaps if we displayed that a bit more, we would build more trust in politics and its ability to make a difference. Jo’s words, that

“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

are not just an anchor; they must be a challenge to all of us.

Sometimes we can meet that challenge through small acts of kindness such as saying hello to somebody walking down the corridor; they do not always have to be big gestures. If somebody is sitting at a table in the Tea Room by themselves, we should pull up a chair and join them. If a Member is feeling under pressure in their constituency—we all feel that, and try to get through it and keep our own house in order—reaching out to them and saying, “Do you know what, I saw what was going on in your town or city and I was thinking about you” goes a long way in recognising that we are not isolated. When we come down here to London, many of us are away from our support networks: our families who love us are not there when we go back to our accommodation at night. The people we rely on are generally the people in this place and sometimes that bit of decency means a great deal.

When I eventually move on to a different place, I will reflect on my time in Parliament. Of course I will think—hopefully—about the big things that I was able to achieve with the special privilege of being an MP, but I will also reflect on those small moments of kindness that made me realise why I got into politics to begin with. I think we can all do those things a bit more.

I came into Parliament on a by-election. By-elections are, as a number of Members will know, very weird things. You are caught in the storm of the noise of hundreds of thousands of people descending on your town—my thoughts are with the people of Makerfield at this time. I was going to say that it is a circus, but that does not quite do it justice. It is inspiring that so many people rally to get you over the line, but of course you soon realise that you were a mere legal necessity—a name required on the ballot paper. You arrive here among your new friends, and you wonder where your locker is, how to get your IT to work and so on. Jo was one of a number of people who reached out to me as a by-election candidate. She invited me to the party on the houseboat to make me feel a part of the 2015 intake. That is who she was. She did not know me any more than anybody else did in this place. I had not met her before, but she made an effort to reach out. I cannot say just how much that meant to me, when I came here. I see friends in the Chamber who did the same and I hope they feel that at times I have repaid that. Being a good person in this place goes a long way.

The reason why “more in common” strikes a note today is that it should endure. It feels self-evident: of course, we have more in common. Whatever troubles we have in our country, in the place we call home, our futures are bound together. What else have we got in common if not that shared endeavour and the future for ourselves and our families? In politics, that feels more contested today than it has ever been before. That is not because we have less in common, but because a lot of the political debate is consumed by what differences there are and what divides us. Too often, our politics encourages us to see what separates us before we see what binds us together. At times, those who take a different view are treated as not simply having a different perspective, experience, or background—simply coming at an issue from a different way—but as wrong and somehow lesser.

Jo understood that politics involved disagreement. She would never have pretended that there were not difficult issues to confront, but she also understood that words matter, and that those in positions of influence have a responsibility not merely to represent divisions in society but to lead people through them. Many Members in this place, as well as our mayors and our councillors, will have experiences that illustrate just how toxic parts of our political environment have become.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I am sorry not to have known Jo, because she seems like someone who I would have got on incredibly well with. I am delighted that I have got to know her sister, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and that we have worked cross-party on a number of issues. I know that Jo would have campaigned on similar issues, such as violence against women and girls. Recently, we had some awful protests in Epsom; they were about women’s safety, but they were hijacked by the far-right. Rather than being peaceful, the protests were violent and protesters attacked a property that housed vulnerable adults. They were trying to find immigrants. Does the hon. Member agree that today more than ever we must come together? As he mentioned, we need to discuss and debate the differences that we have, and if we protest we must do so peacefully, because we absolutely do have more in common than that which divides us.

[Jim McMahon]

I will come on to social media and the way that division is amplified and monetised, and how bad behaviour is often rewarded more than being a good citizen in that debate.

I am proud of our country and believe that the vast majority in this country are decent, hard-working people who want the best for themselves and their neighbours, whatever their background, race or religion. However, we have to look in the mirror collectively, as a country, and ask what has taken us to the point where an attack that all of us see as horrific, which has played out in Belfast over the last couple of days, could in any way justify the scenes of a family—women and children—running away from their house, which has been left in flames and smoke. That is where division has got us. How can we find ourselves in a situation where a woman fleeing war in Ukraine who has been homed in Belfast, finds her house being attacked, while violent protesters are egged on from Russia?

We have to reflect on the fact that cohesion does not happen by accident. People do not come together unless there is leadership that brings them together. Maybe we all need to be a bit more determined in calling out what is in plain sight. We must also accept that it has been a characteristic of politics in Britain since the EU referendum. At that moment, something changed. Being online has of course made it worse; the way that those divisions are exploited, and how extremism now has a platform that it did not have in the mainstream before, is all part of that.

I am not convinced that mainstream politics is adequately responding to the scale of the challenge that is in front of us. I do not feel that we have the regulations. At some point—my god!—Ofcom might realise that it is a regulator, and then who knows what it could achieve. We must ask whether the architecture is in place to deal with the scale of the challenge.

As we see homes set on fire, businesses damaged and people attacked, I would say that this is a national emergency. In a civil emergency, we would respond as a nation and a Government in a more determined way than we have seen. I fear that the power being held by a handful of very wealthy, powerful, connected individuals, who control our social media in the way that the old media was controlled by the wealthy and powerful for vested interests, is almost placing the Government into a position of fear—fear of the response if they take action. These things are not easy, but taking no action —or cautious action—is not rising to the challenge ahead.

I have three reflections on where we find ourselves. First, every elected representative has a responsibility not just to challenge views they disagree with but to build bridges across political differences and seek common ground wherever it can be found. We are elected to represent whole communities, not factions of communities. We should lead by example in the tone we set, the respect we show, and the openness with which we are willing to engage. That is not always easy—political disagreements are deeply felt—but little can be achieved without it.

Secondly, I continue to believe—although this is tested on a regular basis—that social media can be a force for good. It offers opportunities to connect people, to learn to organise, and to bring people together around shared interests and common causes. In fact, we all use it in this House—there is no one here who is not on one social media platform or another for those reasons. I do not begin by looking at social media from a point of cynicism about the technology itself. We have got to be honest about social media’s flaws, however, because too often the incentives that are built into platforms reward outrage over understanding, division over dialogue, and conflict over compromise. In many respects, previous generations could have barely understood the scale and pace of that, but the Government have to recognise and step up to the scale of the challenge.

Thirdly, we have to address the underlying tensions that drive fear, anxiety and anger. Where people feel insecure in their jobs, worried about their family’s future, unable to access housing, or disconnected from the opportunities available elsewhere, those concerns cannot simply be dismissed or ignored. We must respond with great urgency to the conditions that people feel, particularly when they say that they are unheard and feel left behind.

Alongside all that, we have to recognise that social cohesion is not a passive state. It does not happen by accident. It requires effort, compromise, and a willingness to listen, understand and sometimes disagree without condemning, rather than everything being a culture war or about identity, where the winners of the argument are those who can shout loudest, not those who can convince. That was the lesson that Jo Cox tried to teach us, and it remains as important today as when she first said it.

For some, those concerns might sound abstract. Quite often, we talk around the houses about social media regulation and its impact, but in a town such as Oldham, where we are now 25 years on from the Oldham riots, we know the cost when communities are torn apart and division is normalised. We know the cost when people live completely separate lives, not interacting in communities, the education system, the housing system or even in the economy; where the opportunities to meet people from a different background are the exception, not the rule; where people self-select to live a separate life, because it is easier and maybe more secure than making the effort to reach out and build bridges across different communities.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

To highlight the hon. Gentleman’s point, after the murder of Mr Nowak, Tommy Robinson said:

“The whole system is set against white people. And it must be smashed!”

In recent days, Musk has reposted messages claiming that the British Prime Minister hates white people and “millions must go”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the language of incitement to hatred and violence, and that wherever it is possible for our law to reach, the Government and law enforcement agencies must tackle that behaviour with the strongest force of the law?

[Jim McMahon]

It is clear that extremists will capitalise on the anxiety, fear and frustration that people feel in the country, and on the everyday problems they face. People are facing difficult circumstances now when trying to get a house that is affordable and secure, keep a job that can provide a good standard of living for themselves and their family, and feel safe in the community they call home where they are raising their kids—those are real issues that people face—and it is the oldest trick in the book to blame thy neighbour rather than the real cause of the problem.

I remember doing a kind of test at secondary school— I am not sure whether this is still done—in which the classroom was divided by the eye colour of the children in the class, with the blue-eyed kids on one side and the brown-eyed kids on the other. I was on the side with the blue eyes. We were given a handful of sweets to share among ourselves—a much bigger group of kids—while the brown-eyed kids were given a big bowl of sweets. There was more than enough for everybody in that group—they were stuffing their face and enjoying themselves. Within seconds, we had stopped looking at where the bigger bowl of sweets had gone and started squabbling among ourselves over the few sweets left on the table. Of course, the message was that when people are left to fight for scarce resource, they fight the person nearest to them, who is trying to fight for the same resource; the lesson was to look where the resource had been taken before it got anywhere near our table.

I say that because in a town like Oldham, people from every background are working hard, but there are not enough sweets to go around the community to give people a good standard of living and to make them feel safe in the communities where they live. I hear it from the white community and I hear it from the Muslim community. I hear it from people from every background, because we are all part of the same place, with the same hopes, fears and concerns about the future. It poses a real question for the Government about the economy and the fact that the wealth that we are creating is not being fairly distributed among society. The workers who are creating that wealth are fighting for scarce resource in a society that is, frankly, still setting working people against other working people.

The fact that race, religion or however many generations someone happens to have been British are dividing lines in an argument makes me really fearful. When it comes to matters of asylum and refugees, my town has a strong history of supporting people fleeing persecution. I have always thought that when looking into the eyes of a child in such a situation, we must think to ourselves: there but for the grace of God go I. If that was my child, what would I want as a response to protect the child I love? I expect our country to provide what it would for my child for children who are fleeing war.

Let us be honest, though: our asylum and immigration system is not working for people who are fleeing war and persecution any more than it is for anybody else. We have to get a grip of the system. It can be a bit too easy in politics to talk firm without outlining what is fair. We need to make sure that there is balance and equity in that debate. If we do not, those divisions will be exploited.

Oldham has had to literally rebuild itself and its community from the ashes of riots in which the town set itself on fire. Looking at our history, I think we can be a bit too complacent in our assumption that the malign forces might suddenly go away and we can regulate the online world better and sort out the algorithms.

By the way, we should not allow Members of Parliament to be paid by platforms for their insightful posts. Parliamentarians should, of course, post on social media, but they should post in the public interest. They should not be doing so for the financial kickback they get. I do not know whether this is the case, but they certainly should not be using paid parliamentary staff to post content online in order, ultimately, to get paid a fee through the back door on these platforms. We should all be driven by public service and by wanting to represent our constituents.

What we learned in Oldham was that every politician in every party has to take responsibility. It is the one thing that I feel we have lost in some of this debate.

I also want to reflect on David Amess. We are here reflecting on a decade passing since Jo passed away, but many of us were also affected by David being killed in his advice surgery.

My final words are not for the people in this Chamber—we speak about ourselves quite a lot. Instead, I want to thank the families of Members of Parliament for allowing their loved ones to serve in politics. I am sure that when Members set off on a Monday morning to head to this place, or when they go out on a Thursday or Friday or on the weekend in their constituencies, there will be times when their family members wonder whether the person they love will return. Our politics have to be better than that, but we should not underestimate what families who support MPs offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the Minister, who knew Jo very well—much better than I did. We experience that loss deeply, but I am heartened by the work that my hon. Friend and others across this House, including in other parties, continue to do in Jo’s memory.

We must never forget that Jo was murdered by a far-right terrorist who believed in white supremacy and was obsessed with fascist and far-right groups. She was a target because she stood for everything that the far-right hates: community, understanding, compassion, love. The sad truth is that there is more anger, hostility and hate a decade on in our country. There is more disinformation, more lies, more racism, more misogyny and more hate. There are more people making money from sowing discord—monetised hatred made possible by social media algorithms and pernicious AI fakery. Deepfake content and disinformation are infecting our online space and spilling over into hate, hostility and violence on our streets. Online hate, with its real-life consequences, has cost us dearly.

[Jim McMahon]

In her parliamentary career, my hon. Friend has dealt with a lot of hostility and a lot of hostile actions from malign forces, and she has always risen above it. However, she should not have had to—the system should have been there to step in and intervene sooner. We talk about social media on one side, but we also need to reflect on the police. Police forces in different parts of the country approach this very differently, but I think there are two main issues. First, does my hon. Friend agree that they just think that this is all politics and they just accept it as par for the course, when it ought not to be? Secondly, they have not quite understood that online is on-street too, and that these are same people, creating the same content and making the same threats.

[Rushanara Ali]

What my hon. Friend says highlights the fact that when some of us entered politics—I did so in 2010—we were outliers in the hostility and harassment that parliamentarians and candidates experienced. Sadly, that is becoming increasingly mainstream. My hon. Friend has also experienced threats and intimidation. It is staggering that our system is still not fit enough to deal with those threats systematically.

One of my greatest fears is that, despite the tragedy of what has happened, lessons have not been learnt fast enough. If they had, perhaps we would not have seen further fatalities and the loss of another dear colleague, Sir David Amess. I, and I know others, do not want to see the day when yet another elected representative—a Member serving our public—finds themselves under attack. Too many have been under attack.

We must redouble our efforts to protect our democracy, and that means protecting those who stand for public office. Too many are being put off. Too many—particularly women and particularly those of colour—are being targeted and being driven from the public square and out of frontline politics because the price paid for being in politics has become increasingly difficult and costly. It is costly when it takes the form of losing our colleagues. Frankly, in the 21st century, in this democracy, I never thought that would happen.

I never thought that, and I do not think any others who came into politics at that time could have imagined a situation where our politics could have descended into the spectre of losing a dear colleague from our party and then, again, another colleague from the Conservative party. And we must not forget the far-right extremist, radicalised on the internet, who attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) in 2010. Thankfully, he survived and is providing a great service to our nation as a Minister, but that should have raised the alarm bells then, because a number of us were on that person’s target list.

As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) mentioned, in the past we have seen assassinations in our country. Now, however, the online space is creating an even greater threat. That is why we must ensure that Members of Parliament do not have to live with the fear of threats against their families, those who are close to them and their staff. Too many mistakes have been made, and we must ensure that we really do learn from them if we are to protect our democracy.

Representation of the People Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.”

When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation.

To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.

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

In 2017, I was fortunate enough to be selected in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, and Oldham Youth Council asked that it be about votes at 16. They have seen votes at 16 go from being a campaign to being in a manifesto and, today, to being in a Bill on the Floor of the House. If they saw this coming in a manifesto, why did the right hon. Gentleman not?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers.

Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech.

I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right?

I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought.

It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill.

Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.

Local Government Finance

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight how we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we have tried to take account of that need. That is why we are including a journey times adjustment in our assessment of cost for all services. We are also increasing the cap in the home-to-school transport formula from 20 miles to 50 miles, in recognition of the fact that the original distance cap would penalise local authorities that have no choice but to place children further from home. We are also including a remoteness adjustment in the adult social care formula to address the point that he mentions. Overall, the point cannot be made enough that we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we all need to take account of that.

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

The fair funding review is significant. It is the first multi-year settlement for a decade, and the first real attempt at fairly distributing resources based on need, cost and the ability to raise revenue locally. It represents a serious piece of work by decent public servants, and I pay tribute to the finance team in my hon. Friend’s Department. The consultation asked councils to make their case for adjustments. London councils asked for housing to be included in the measure of deprivation, and we can see that in some of the changes that have been made, but that sees a significant shift towards London. The recovery grant has made a significant difference and I am pleased to see it continue, but it shows that fundamentally the formula is not yet picking up the real cost pressures being felt by local government as a result of the previous Government.

Much has been said about council tax, but the inequality goes much further, as the Minister knows: our car parking income is £2 million, but Westminster city council alone generates £90 million. That is more than the entire recovery grant for Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield and Leeds combined, so there are much wider structural issues that need to be addressed. My hon. Friend will also know that, despite best endeavours, councils will still find this settlement very challenging and that bigger reforms are needed, so can she make the case—I know she will—to her colleagues in the Treasury that, if the Government want the benefit to be felt on every street in every community, in the end local government will need more money put into the pot more generally?

[Alison McGovern]

First, I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this. I might be putting the ball in the net today, but he was the midfielder who created the goal. It is his work to reconnect deprivation and council funding that we are delivering today, and I pay massive tribute to him. He asked whether we might go further to persuade our Treasury colleagues to invest in local government. I think that the best way to do that—I will welcome his support in this—is to show the results that councils get when they are properly invested in. We see that nowhere more than in his home city region of Greater Manchester and his council of Oldham, which show time and again that they provide value for money and they are growing our economy.

Local Elections

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me be very clear: it was not us who briefed the media. We cannot control what other parties do—we always want to update the House, as well as local authorities. It is incredibly, incredibly important to be very clear that this is not about the cancellation of elections—[Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that are subject to a statutory instrument being laid and they are subject to consent. For all the reasons that I have set out, at the moment the Government are minded to have those elections in 2028, and we will work with the local authorities that are impacted to get consent to do that.

On the fundamental point about investment, we are as committed to investment as the hon. Lady. That is why we have announced £200 million for those areas over the next 30 years. We are urging all areas to produce their investment pipeline, because we want to see things happening on the ground. We have committed to a third, but we will continue to work with areas to ensure that if they have viable investment propositions, the Government are walking hand in hand and side by side with them to unlock that. It is good for the areas, but fundamentally it is good for the growth of the economy and for national Government.

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

I need to be blunt, as I usually am: we need to be better than this. Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same. Postponing last year’s elections allowed for these mayoral elections to be agreed, consulted on, the statutory tests to be met and funding to be confirmed, all of which was done, leaving just the legislation to be laid for polling day on 28 May. That is why Labour and other parties have already selected their candidates. The Government have a moral and a legal obligation to honour their side of the bargain. Following a statutory process, all involved had a reasonable expectation that these elections would go ahead. The Government know that trust is hard won but easily squandered. Given that we are where we are, will the Minister confirm that the mayoral elections will go ahead as planned in Cheshire and Warrington and in Cumbria in 2027? Will she update the House on the progress of the Lancashire devolution deal, which was due to be presented by autumn this year, given that we are now in winter?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that he put into getting us to this place. The fact that we are in a position where we have devolution deals and places undergoing the process of local government reorganisation with the good faith he talked about is testimony to the work he has done. But it is absolutely right that we, as a new ministerial team coming in, look at the facts and at where we are and that we make a judgment.

Ultimately, what drives my hon. Friend and the decisions he made with colleagues, and what drives us and the decisions we are making, is ensuring that, when we look back on this in 2030, we will have effective, powerful unitary councils across the country delivering for their people, and strategic authorities built on strong partnership working—we know that is critical for unlocking development—and powerful mayors. With every area I speak to, the objectives are the same.

Our judgment is that if we give ourselves some breathing room to go through the process and do that with those places in the time required, we will be better and stronger on the other side. We will do this in partnership with local areas. Yesterday, I personally spoke to every single leader directly. We are going to do this in partnership, because there is a common agenda at the end of it. But it is absolutely right that my responsibility, and the responsibility of the Government, is to do everything we can to ensure that the process delivers the outcome that I think hon. Members across the House adhere to.

Homelessness: Funding

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate hon. Members on their speeches so far.

The homelessness crisis is a national scandal, and it has a human cost that we all see in our constituencies. In Oldham, there are 517 households, including 633 children, in temporary accommodation. Over half of those are in nightly procured accommodation, and a quarter are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Even though we call it temporary accommodation, many young people are there for such a significant part of their childhood that it becomes their home, and these are not homes that any of us present would choose to live in. Over 10% of those households in Oldham are in temporary accommodation for between two and five years, and 32% are in temporary accommodation for between one and two years. For a child growing up in primary school, those are the formative years of their childhood and they make a significant difference to their development and education.

When procuring temporary accommodation, local authorities are often looking further afield. There are many out-of-borough placements, but even within a borough, with local transport not always as it should be, it can be very difficult for parents to get their children to school. It can be difficult for working parents to rely on family members to support childcare before or after school. In practice, it means that many young people are missing out on a good education and their wider support networks during that period.

A lot has been said about the impact of local authority budgets. All of us appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to reconcile not just the financial cost to local government but the human cost to families, particularly children. But let us be honest: this is a gold rush for private landlords, who are absolutely rinsing the taxpayer dry for substandard accommodation. The average cost of nightly accommodation in Oldham is between £25 and £35 a night, and those are single rooms. The accommodation that I visited with the Shared Health Foundation in Oldham had three mattresses with a cooker, a sink and an extractor unit that was supposed to take out the cooking smells from that room, but went nowhere.

I met a woman who had fled domestic violence, and she was contemplating going back to her abuser because she was fearful of what staying in that temporary accommodation meant for her children. I visited the room next door and spoke to her 14-year-old son, who wanted to be an engineer when he left school. He could not get any sleep because he was put on a mattress in the corner of that attic room, and there were holes in the skirting board where, every single night, the mice were chomping through the woodwork and keeping him awake. He showed me the holes in the wall that he was using old socks to fill because he did not want the mice to come through into the room. Mice and rats were running through the whole building. A six-room HMO used for temporary accommodation in a town such as Oldham brings the landlord £65,000 a year in income.

We are also seeing family homes being taken off the housing market, because these private landlords will snap up terraced houses and convert every single room into a letting room for temporary accommodation, charging £25 to £35 a night. As an example, one person—an Oldham councillor who drives around the town in a Rolls-Royce, for God’s sake—had a facility from which eight children and 16 adults had to be removed because of health and safety violations. These were attic rooms again, filled with mattresses and shared facilities, and he was on a £7,000-a-month contract for just that one property.

We have to deal with the human costs, but the system has to be put in order. The Minister is one of the good people in government who absolutely believe that, but she has a job to do with her Home Office colleagues. That is not the Minister, I should say, but there is certainly a culture within the Home Office. Unfortunately, I would say they have a disregard for the impact of their policies on local communities, whether that be the move away from extended support for people moving out of temporary accommodation or even the artificial market that they are driving with the procurement of dispersal accommodation for asylum seekers. If we do not have a whole-of-Government approach to dealing with the housing crisis, we will just not solve it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Supporting High Streets

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Oldham has always been a town of hard work and heart. It has been built, rebuilt and reinvented time and again, and is reinventing itself again now, but let us be honest: the challenges facing Oldham, Chadderton, Royton and towns like them up and down the country are significant.

It has been interesting to hear the debate. We can all as parliamentarians reflect on just how much we care about the places we live in and represent, and that should be lauded. We have also heard honesty about the fact that much more should have been done in the past than was, and much more needs to be done than perhaps is being done. The pace has to be improved. I should say that I have every faith that the Government and the Minister will do just that. We understand the power and importance of place. Our high streets and town centres are, for many people, the barometer of how well the country is doing.

When I look at Chadderton, I see a fantastic place. I see a stable community that has terrific community pride, but it is a town without a single bank branch. It has seen very little new development, and quite a lot of the land that is ripe for development is held in private ownership by distant landowners who have no stake in the local community. In Royton—another a thriving town, just a couple of miles away—not a single bank is left in the town centre or the precinct, yet there are shoots of growth. The council invested in Royton town hall. New independent bars and restaurants are bringing life back into the centre, and a Thursday market is still thriving. That shows that when we support local businesses, the community responds with footfall and support. By the way, I think we too often take for granted and underestimate the importance of our local markets, whether they are indoor or outdoor.

Then there is Oldham itself—our borough’s heart—once home to a magistrates court, a county court, and many public sector agencies that have either reduced their presence or closed altogether. Stores such as Debenhams, BHS, HMV, Woolworths, H&M, Thorntons, WH Smith and Clintons were the anchors of the town centre and the shopping centre in the past, but unfortunately will not be in the future. Across the country, there are 20,000 fewer shops open than in 2010. Each closure is more than just a lost business. It is a small part of the town taken away. It is people’s jobs and livelihoods. It is the story of a place, and people’s memories; we have heard that in the debate.

Across the country, we see 6,000 banks closing. In my town, RBS and Barclays are closing, but we still have banks. It is really important that the Government’s strategies for investment, planning reforms, and schemes such as Community Britain, which give communities powers in the place where they live, do not allow the kind of free-for-all that we saw under the previous Government. Under the previous Government, banks were at the Government’s door when they needed a bail-out and times were bad, but walked away from our communities when it was time to repay money.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

The hon. Member makes a good point about bank closures. Does he agree that the innovation of banking hubs, which we have seen since 2022, is welcome? As of April this year, there were 150 around the country, and they can be a lifeline for many communities. Does he agree that the criteria applied by Cash Access UK for granting a banking hub can be quite narrow? I ask this for the Minister’s benefit. Would the hon. Member join me in urging the Government to reconsider and review some of the narrow criteria? In Portchester, we are campaigning for a banking hub—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Jim McMahon to continue.

[Jim McMahon]

I will. I have heard the right hon. and learned Lady raise that point a few times, and I think it is legitimate. If the criteria do not work for the town she mentions, or for my town, or Royton or Chadderton, then the criteria are the problem, not the towns and communities that need banks. We can agree on that.

In Oldham, there is progress. Sometimes we rush to a deficit model of talking down our places a bit too quickly. The old town hall, built in 1841, was left derelict for decades but has been reborn as a cinema. The grand Egyptian Room has been restored to life. It was once a banking hall where people paid their council tax, but I guarantee that it is a lot more popular today than it was when it was used for that purpose. The old library, built in 1883, was long empty; it is now home to the new council chambers and the inspiring Oldham theatre workshop. Every single week, 600 young people go through those doors to celebrate the arts and culture. The Spindles shopping centre has been transformed with the new indoor Tommyfield market, an events space and the local studies archive. That shows how the community can benefit when we invest in our towns. Of course, as has been mentioned, we should use derelict brownfield sites to build housing for local people. In Oldham, that will mean up to 2,000 new homes in the town centre—decent, safe and affordable places to live—and footfall in the town.

Much though we talk about the household names that have been lost, let us not forget that many of our towns are built on the work of independent traders—local people who give something of themselves, and sometimes their life savings, to invest in our towns. They should be celebrated.

Things are not easy. Online retail now accounts for 25% of retail sales. Business rates changes will shift the balance in favour of the on-street, local, independent traders, and convenience stores. There is also the changing dynamic between out-of-town retail and city centres. We have the benefit of being on Manchester’s doorstep, but it means that it is easy for Oldham’s people to travel to Manchester. In large towns, we have seen the hyper-local becoming more popular. District centres like Royton, where people want to create somewhere to go, are thriving, and our cities are thriving, but the towns, somewhere in the middle, are struggling. We need a strategy for our towns, as well as wider investment.

The same goes for the planning system. Honestly, I am sick to death of seeing low-quality, substandard accommodation being built in my town. Under the previous Government’s free-for-all, office accommodation could be converted in a blink, and there was also conversion to houses in multiple occupation. The concentration of social pressures in town centres and district centres is having a real impact on community safety and the local housing market.

There is a different way. Through Community Britain, we can rebuild our towns, civic pride and confidence. Through co-operation, we can give power to people in the places where they live and that they care about. We can end the top-down model of command and control, in which we tell people what they need for their area. We should give money to communities, so that they can decide matters for themselves and collectively co-produce solutions for their places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

We see it in speech after speech from Labour Members. Perhaps it is because of the careers they have had. They think the key to unlocking the high street, or indeed the wider economy, is public investment. It is not; it is about government getting out of the way. Of course we need a facilitating local and national government, but here are the fundamentals: it is not their money—the money of government—which businesses are allowed to have; and it is not their space, which businesses are allowed to occupy. It is our space—the people’s space—and government is there to facilitate and support, humbly. But humility is something that the Labour party never seems to display when it comes to dealing with business. All it ever does is seek to tax it.

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, he must support a rise in the national living wage. That is the purest form of a contract between the employer and the employee and, of course, that money goes straight back into the local economies in the towns that he speaks about.

[Graham Stuart]

Of course, we did lift the minimum wage by more than, I think, any other Government. But if we go too far and do what this Government did with young people—making them cost the same as older people, even though they have no experience—funnily enough, they do not get a job.

Of course, Government Members trumpet about the Employment Rights Bill: “Oh, we are providing all these rights for workers!” That is not much use if people are pushed out of the labour market. I thought the Labour party was supposed to care about the marginalised. Well, the marginalised are the people who are missing out—not your fat, union-backed workers getting vast pay at vast cost. Billions were spent paying off the union paymasters of the Labour Government, while young people are once again disadvantaged, and people who are far away from the labour market because of mental health or other issues are pushed further away from it.

Let me give the House an example from my constituency. It does not get much more rural or isolated than down in Kilnsea, just above Spurn point, and if you go to the Crown & Anchor there and speak to those publicans, you will hear that it is this Government, not 14 years of the Conservatives, who have increased their taxes, meaning that they are not taking on a young person—a young person who would have had their first chance. I know those guys are absolutely committed to finding people who are far away from the labour market, providing a nurturing environment and helping them get into work, but that dream is being killed by the Labour party.

I spoke to Viki Foster, careers leader at Withernsea high school, who shared how valuable the right business support in schools can be, and how much more schools could do if they had the resources to match. Our plan will launch business challenges in schools, introduce entrepreneur-led mentoring schemes and provide seed funding from government, so that we can unlock the potential of the next generation. There is a role for government, but it is in facilitating. We have got to make sure that government does not crush and oppress business, but supports it instead.

Starting a business is one thing, but keeping it going is another. Around 60% of businesses fail within the first three years. They need our support, because when Toll Gavel in Beverley or Market Place in Hedon thrive, that creates jobs, boosts spending and drives stronger growth for Britain.

Labour just does not seem to get it. From listening to the speeches today, there seems to be no limit to the amount of tax the Government think can be imposed on business—as long as it is channelled into public investment in their particular constituencies, they think that will grow the economy. They can come here to trumpet and name a vast number of public investments, but if the overall position is that young people are further away from the labour market than they were before, if entrepreneurs and people who would have had high-growth businesses are moving abroad, and if high net worth individuals are dissuaded from working hard in this country, or, worse still, move abroad, then all of us are poorer—our high streets in particular.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

We are considering the Lords amendments in lieu to the Renters’ Rights Bill, and I begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to improve this legislation, and by thanking their lordships for the constructive way in which they have approached this endeavour.

On the amendments themselves, the issue of shared ownership leaseholders was rightly championed in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Young of Cookham, and I pay tribute to him for his persistence. He made a fair and compelling case for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, may be unable to sell their share and should not be penalised for re-letting in those circumstances. The Government’s acceptance of that principle, although through a modified amendment, is a sensible and pragmatic improvement, which we will therefore support.

On the decent homes standard and the service family accommodation estate, the Government have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the conditions of service family accommodation and provide independent oversight. Our armed forces and their families deserve and need decent, well-maintained homes, and we believe that greater transparency will strengthen service families’ confidence in the system. We support this improvement, and we hope that the Government will look at our policy to create an armed forces housing association that would oversee these changes and address the declining recruitment and retention rates that, sadly, we have seen under this Government.

While we support these improvements, I fear the Bill in its current form will in some areas be counterproductive, and drive landlords from the market as well as putting up rents for tenants. Labour’s own impact assessment for this Bill supports that concern, stating that

“landlords can pass through some, but not all, of their cost increases to their tenants in the form of higher rent”

due to new costs. Under the Bill, all tenancies will continue until either the tenant gives notice or the landlord obtains a court order for possession on specific grounds. The Government have committed to ending section 21 evictions, but they must also ensure matching court reform so that the system works for both tenants and responsible landlords. We need clarity about when and how these changes will be implemented, because uncertainty helps no one. Local councils must have the means to enforce the new rules effectively, and the Government should set out a clear and workable plan to that end.

The Lords amendments represent a sensible set of adjustments that I would say make this Bill slightly more workable, but sufficient challenges remain in how it will operate in practice. We recognise the value of the scrutiny that has taken place in both Houses, and the constructive way that many of the concerns have been addressed, but the uncertainty in this sector is seeing landlords leave the market at an alarming rate.

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

The shadow Secretary of State knows that I have a great deal of time for him as a person, but he must reflect on how all of his speech is about the rights of the landlord with absolutely nothing about the rights of tenants. In my own constituency, 600 children are in temporary accommodation, having largely been driven out of their private rented accommodation because of no-fault evictions. Does he have anything to say about the rights of tenants?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I can only assume that the hon. Member has been asleep through the last couple of paragraphs I have read out, in which I specifically spoke about the rights of tenants in the military estate, for example, so I reject his characterisation of our position. The simple fact is that tenants’ rights are all well and good, but if accommodation for those tenants does not exist, they are no better off.

We have seen an estimated 18% of new homes for sale that were previously in the private rental market estate, and in London that figure is 29%. A reduction in the private rented sector market harms, not helps, people seeking to rent in the private sector. Labour Members will say, “Well, we are going to deliver 1.5 million new houses,” but no one—I doubt even their own Front Benchers—actually believes they have any chance of delivering that figure. The Office for Budget Responsibility certainly does not believe that they have any credible chance of doing it, so the housing and rental situation is likely to get worse.

I confirm that the official Opposition will support the Lords amendments, for the reasons that I have set out. We urge the Government to implement them professionally and swiftly, and to focus on delivering a fair and effective system for tenants, for the landlords that provide accommodation for those tenants, and for the wider housing market. However, there are still a number of flaws in the Bill—it does not do enough to protect renters or ensure a stable rental market, as it will reduce supply and, perversely, push up rents—which is why, having committed to not opposing the amendments, we will hold the Government to account on the Bill’s consequences.