Jim McMahon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the work he has been doing on Ukraine. A number of us were in Ukraine last week as part of a cross-party delegation, and the thing that really stood out for me—aside from the horrendous circumstances that people there face on a daily basis, and the injuries and death toll on the frontline—was that the UK and our allies are doing enough to hold off Russian aggression, but nowhere near enough to support Ukraine to win the peace. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s reflections on what the UK needs to do more of to ensure that Ukraine can win.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Overall, the Government have a pretty poor reputation for spending public money wisely. My hon. Friend mentions Ajax, but I raise him: High Speed 2. Governments of all stripes need to do better. Given that our mayors and local authorities are developing the skill base at a local level, does he agree that it is best to link defence spending to our regional growth strategy, so that we do not have the constant stop-start that we see from central Government?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very important point about how we develop communities and individuals. Does she agree that co-operatives have an important role to play in economic development, as they not only create jobs but give people a stake in the future of those jobs?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is a fundamental part of the British contract, but many self-employed people, and many of those on low wages, are paying to work because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has failed to update its mileage rates for 15 years, while the cost of petrol, road tax and the rest has increased significantly. Can the Chancellor do what the Conservatives failed to do, and ask HMRC to update its mileage rates, so that working people are not paying to go to work?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I want to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s interventions during the course of the debate, which have added to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) earlier suggested a manuscript amendment relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee. If that was to come forward, would he support it?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, quite a lot in the disclosures naturally raises questions about probity. The issue about power and control, and of having information that can compromise, is that once you are compromised you are compromised, and every decision can be compromised. That really does highlight the importance of independent oversight of the evidence. I hope that when the Minister returns to the Dispatch Box, he reflects on that in his response.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s explanation of the process, because many people outside it wonder what information is shared and what process is gone through. It is hard to believe that the information held by the Department of Justice in the US was not shared with our security services or disclosed in the process, given the security clearance that is required for a post of this nature. On that basis, and to eliminate any accusations of cover-up or conspiracy, is it not the right path to have the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this and thin the evidence that comes forward?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The support package for pubs is welcome news. The Whitegate Inn in Chadderton saw its value increase from £194,000 to £330,000, and the Halfway House in Royton went from £20,000 to £57,000. The Minister knows that the pressures being felt by pubs are felt by the whole of hospitality. For instance, the Egyptian Room food hall in Oldham will jump from £142,000 to £175,000. It is all part of the same ecosystem. The Government could and should have included that wider package in the announcement today, but I urge the Treasury, even at the second attempt, to get it right and have a wider support package for the whole of hospitality.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  WASPI women are still waiting for justice and closure. The out of court agreement reached in December between campaigners and the Government saw the Department for Work and Pensions agree to a time-limited period to conduct a review. However, the parliamentary ombudsman investigation took six years alone before reaching its findings and recommendations on compensation. Given how many constituencies and constituents are affected, may we have a debate in Government time on the impact of this issue and urge the Government to come forward with a firm proposal?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Reports that the Government might be looking to bring forward a support package for our pubs are very welcome—we know just how important pubs are for our communities and for bringing people together—but the pressures being felt by pubs are also being felt across hospitality in our restaurants, bars, cinemas and nightclubs. Will the Leader of the House use his good office to impress on His Majesty’s Treasury that if a package comes forward, it should be a whole-of-hospitality package?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this revision to the Government’s policy—the removal of the mandatory element of this scheme. There is some benefit in looking at more advanced digital public services, but that is not the same as ID. When we came to government, the Prime Minister gave a speech outside Downing Street, in which he promised two things; the first was to “tread more lightly” on people’s lives, and the second was to be a Government of service. On a range of issues, including checking bank accounts to see what people are selling on eBay or Etsy, the Government appear to be intruding on people’s everyday lives in a way that is overbearing, so I ask that this be the moment when we go back to those founding principles that the Prime Minister set out on coming into government, and make sure that those principles cut across all Government policy.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  This statement is welcome. The north of England has been held back for far too long, with our people and economy not being allowed to realise their full potential. The commitment to properly review the Manchester Piccadilly underground proposal alongside the Mayor of Greater Manchester is also welcome. Without that scheme, it leaves one route in and one route out, with trains forced to turn back on to the network. It is slower, second rate and not something the north can support. First, can we have more detail on the Manchester airport local contribution and how we will ensure it is fair and at a level that can be raised locally? Secondly, can we have a clearer idea on the timescales for the Birmingham to Manchester line?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  Gatwick was given as an example, but it is worth bearing in mind that it paid out £600 million in shareholder dividends.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate, the importance of which is reflected by the number of Members who have turned out—some of them from further afield than Greater Manchester. There is clearly a pattern of airport operators looking to maximise every aspect of income from the land that they own. In Greater Manchester, we are very proud of Manchester airport. It was built and grown by the local authorities, and they remain an important shareholder of the airport, as well as the wider group, which includes East Midlands and Stansted airports. The benefit of that, particularly during those 14 long years of austerity, was that the airports were providing a dividend payment to the local councils to fund local public services. With that in mind, Manchester airport has a bigger responsibility than just paying dividends. It has an important economic role to play in our city region and the whole of the north of England. As has been said, it is a gateway to Britain for those coming in. Their experience on arrival and when being collected by loved ones will really shape that experience. We are very proud of it and it is vital to our economy. It is a significant employer that drives economic growth, and it is a thriving hub supported, by and large, by the public. The charging policy was introduced in 2018 and was controversial at the time. I may have a slightly different view of charging policies, perhaps because from a local government finance point of view all streams of income are welcome, but I think the principle of payment has been settled for most people. However, I strongly believe that any payment system must be fair for those who pay it. In far too many people’s experience, the system at Manchester airport is not one of fairness. Many years ago, there was a campaign in Oldham against the weekly payment stores where people go in to buy a washing machine or TV and then pay a set weekly amount. At the time, the campaign was against BrightHouse. BrightHouse’s business model relied on people not being able to afford the weekly payment. If they could not make the payment of, say, £20 a week for a washing machine, they could not make a £19 contribution if that was all they had; BrightHouse wanted either full payment or no payment. It would reject the £19 and then charge a penalty on top. For every normal person, that is not a fair way of doing business, but for BrightHouse, the business model relied on it. That is how it made its money. We need to be careful, when looking at any system, to make sure that it is not built on inherent unfairness as a way to generate money. This is not about whether £5 is a fair charge to pay; it is about what happens if someone does not pay, and whether the penalty is proportionate.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  Throughout the whole conversation, the thing that keeps coming to mind is: why would the airports not want to provide a payment option to pay there and then at drop-off, if not for the fact that they would raise less revenue because they would not be able to charge a penalty if people miss the 24-hour window?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I think so. It is not just about being fair; it is about being reasonable. We have all dropped loved ones off at the airport. We know how stressful it can be, and we know that the family member giving the lift normally tries to fit it around other things as well. Sometimes they will be dropping people off in the early hours of the morning. They rush to the airport, drop their loved ones off, say their goodbyes, make sure they get on the flight nice and safely, a bit upset perhaps that they are leaving, go home, maybe go to bed, and wake up in the morning—and before they know it, the day has taken over. It can be very easy to miss the deadline to pay. If it were extended from 24 hours to, say, 48 hours, most people would eventually say, “Hang on: I should have made that payment.” It cannot be that every organisation relies on an app. In my town, the hospital and the leisure centre now have apps to pay, and so do some supermarkets. There are so many apps, and keeping track of them can be very difficult, so some people will have to search out how to make the payment. That is where the idea of reasonableness really comes in.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  That is the point. For the sake of a £5 fee, the penalty could be a full day’s wage for a low-paid worker. Is it a fair penalty to take away a day’s pay from somebody for going over by a minute? Most people would say that that is not a fair response.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  Many people ask their loved one to send them a message when they land or when they pass through the terminal ahead of collecting their baggage, but in Manchester airport there have occasionally been delays in getting the luggage off the plane and sent through to the terminal, or the conveyor belt has not worked in sending the luggage through, so faults with the airport or airline delays can lead to a penalty.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, because I am mindful of the time. On reasonableness, of course an app can be used if it is a convenient way to pay, but why not have a simple contactless payment system at the lay-by where the luggage is taken out, so that people can tap in there and then? Then they would not have to wait 24 or 48 hours to pay online. With a lot of these things, if the lived experience of those using the system had been thought about when it was brought in, it would have been designed very differently. In November, we met the managing director of Manchester airport, Chris Woodroofe. We raised those points and put forward a number of requests. The first was for payment on site, so that people can pay not just on an app, but when they are at the airport. Secondly, we asked for an end to the system that allows charges to be racked up. For example, there may be separate lay-bys for arrivals and departures, so it is very easy for someone not familiar with the airport to pass through the arrivals terminal drop-off point, realise that is the wrong place to be, drive around the block and eventually get to the correct location. If they do that, the system charges them twice because they have passed through one before they get to the other. That could be easily resolved using technology. These organisations do not have the legal powers that local authorities have, but rely on contract law in enforcement. Many airports have confusing road networks that rely on roundabouts, with one-way systems through the terminals to drop off. In contract law, for a contract to be fair, those entering into it must have the right to decline it. How can they have the right to decline if they are charged at the moment they enter the place where the signs advising them about the contract are, with no way to reverse or pull out? Those dropping off should have the ability to say, “Now that I am aware of the charges, I don’t agree and will find a different way of dropping off.” Some airports have a bus that enables drop-offs further afield. Some people may not have been aware of that before they arrived, but may choose to use that. Although I am personally sympathetic to the idea that charges can be realistic, Manchester should not follow Gatwick airport and go from £5 to £10, or even close to it. Most people would find an airport’s charging £10 to drop off completely unreasonable and unfair.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  Logic says that business rates are derived from the commercial value of the asset. The opposite is true of Gatwick—if it commercialises a lay-by, the business rate liability probably goes up—so I am not sure that that quite solves their problem. This debate has been important, and I express my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for securing it. We are very proud of Manchester airport and the airport group that it operates, but we are determined to see a revision to the ability to pay, how to pay and the grace period—from 24 hours to 48 hours—and I hope that we see progress.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  Part of the issue is that there is a starting principle that does not accept that taking a car to an airport is legitimate on the grounds that people should cycle or take the train, the tram or the bus. If that alternative is available, fine, but for most people the ability to see off loved ones safely and say goodbye is a very important part of the experience.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  More needs to be done to clamp down on dangerous driving. Oldham has seen far too many lives lost as a result of drivers treating the roads as racetracks. There is much to be welcomed in this strategy, and I congratulate the Minister on the work. However, I am not convinced that the proposal to introduce a practical test waiting period holds. Drivers are already waiting an unacceptable 24 weeks, and surely tests should be taken at the point when drivers are ready to meet the required standard. In many areas, driving is not a “nice to have”; it is essential to get to work or college and to go about daily life. May I ask that this work is not rushed into and that more is done to end the 24-week wait experienced by drivers in Greater Manchester?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year to you and to the House, Mr Speaker. High street banks have left many towns high and dry, leaving whole communities and businesses without even basic banking facilities. The roll-out of banking hubs is welcome, but our ambition should be for every town to have a bank, including Chadderton and Royton, where postmasters at the post office are ready and willing to take on that challenge. May we have a debate in Government time on banking hubs, to explore that further?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  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?