Jim McMahon MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Registration of Stillbirths (England and Wales) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit stillbirths to be registered remotely in England and Wales; and for connected purposes. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Bill to the House today. It is a modest proposal. It is not about changing the legal definition of stillbirth. It is not about creating a new bureaucracy or imposing additional burdens on public services. It is about making a small change to an existing process that would make a meaningful difference to families experiencing one of the most devastating moments imaginable. Every parent looks forward to welcoming a new baby into the world. No parent prepares themself for the prospect of registering their child’s stillbirth. However, every year, around 2,400 families in England and Wales experience that loss. On average, around seven babies are stillborn every day. Behind every one of those statistics is a family whose future has changed forever. The inspiration for the Bill comes from my constituents, Cassie and Ryan Claydon from Chadderton in Oldham, who are here in the Gallery. They experienced the devastating loss of their daughter Matilda at 36 weeks. Like every bereaved parent, they carried hopes, dreams and plans for their daughter that were suddenly taken away. They spoke to me about the grief they experienced in the hours, days and weeks that followed, and the grief that remains with them today. But alongside that grief came something that need never have happened. Like all parents of stillborn babies in England and Wales, they were legally required to attend their local register office in person to register Matilda’s stillbirth. That requirement may seem administrative. It may appear routine. But for grieving parents, it can become another source of trauma. As Cassie described in her petition: “The in-person requirement meant sitting among new parents, blissfully registering their babies’ births. There, in a waiting room filled with celebration, we were engulfed in a contrasting wave of sorrow. This compounded our trauma during what was already the worst moment of our lives.” My constituency office is based at Chadderton town hall, and many people will experience the most significant moments in their lives in that building, because it acts as the registrar’s office and the main council venue for weddings and citizenship ceremonies. It holds an important place in the story of thousands of lives in our borough. I hear the joy from reception rooms and from visitors waiting for weddings or to register the birth of a new arrival. I also recognise that for some, it is where they will have to register the death of a loved one, but that is quite different to the loss of a child, where someone must sit and wait with other newborns and their parents. I know no law can remove the grief of losing a child, but surely the law should not make that grief harder to bear. The change that the Bill proposes is straightforward. It would allow parents the option of registering a stillbirth remotely, either by telephone, secure video appointment or another approved electronic process. More importantly, this would be an option, not an obligation. Many parents may still wish to attend in person, and they could continue to do so. Others, however, may wish to remain at home, surrounded by family and loved ones, rather than travelling to a register office at one of the darkest moments of their lives. That choice should be theirs. What the Bill proposes is not an untested innovation. In Scotland, parents have already been offered the option of registering stillbirths remotely. Registrars can conduct appointments by telephone or online, while maintaining the necessary legal safeguards and verification processes. The system works, preserving the integrity of the register process, while giving bereaved families greater compassion and flexibility. If it can work in Scotland, there is every reason to believe it can work in England and Wales. Indeed, the principle is one that the Government have increasingly embraced in other areas of public administration, with many services now moved online by design. In fact, during the covid-19 pandemic, Parliament recognised that requiring bereaved families to attend in person was neither necessary nor appropriate. Temporary provisions allowed deaths and stillbirths to be registered remotely, with information provided by telephone and other methods. Those temporary changes demonstrated that the system could operate effectively without insisting that grieving families attend in person. If remote registration was considered sufficiently robust during one of the greatest public health emergencies our country has faced in generations, then surely it can work today. The pandemic showed us that when the Government need to be flexible, they can be. The Bill simply asks that we show the same flexibility because of compassion, rather than a virus. The Bill asks that bereaved parents are afforded the same consideration at all times. In preparing the Bill, I have also been struck by the work of organisations such as Sands and Tommy’s. For decades, they have provided practical advice, counselling and support for families affected by pregnancy and baby loss. They also work tirelessly to improve bereavement care and maternity services across the UK. Their work reminds us that support following baby loss is as much about care and compassion as it is clinical care. It is also about every interaction that families have afterwards with hospitals, with local authorities and with Government itself. We have to put people first. We rightly talk in this House about trauma-informed public services, and it is important that the registration process reflects that. More broadly, I hope that the Bill prompts us to reflect on how the state interacts with its citizens. Too often, users are expected to navigate processes designed for another era that do not put people first. I also hope that the Bill shows that there is something special about our democratic process. Cassie and Ryan first raised this issue with me at one of my constituency advice surgeries in Royton town hall. They came as grieving parents who believed that something in our law could be kinder than it is today. Thanks to our parliamentary democracy, constituents can see the issues they raised debated on the Floor of the House and enter the official record. I think there is something profoundly important about that. It demonstrates that Parliament is at its best when it listens carefully, responding thoughtfully and seeking practical improvements to people’s lives. The Bill has cross-party support. I know that not many ten-minute rule Bills make it into law, but I hope that this is something that the Government can listen to and take forward. For the sake of families like Cassie and Ryan, and in memory of Matilda, I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to . Ordered, That Jim McMahon, Rushanara Ali, Anneliese Dodds, Maya Ellis, Carolyn Harris, Simon Hoare, Wera Hobhouse, Alicia Kearns, Uma Kumaran, Andy MacNae, Sarah Smith and Gareth Snell present the Bill. Jim McMahon accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 121).

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think all of us in the Chamber accept that the immigration and asylum system is broken. All of us want an asylum system that is both firm and fair, in which the impact is managed both for those seeking asylum and coming here to build a better life for themselves and their families, and for the host communities, with integration managed in that process. Where there is clearly disagreement is on how on earth we fix a system that is so broken that there is not a single lever to pull to make all this mess right. We have an absolute crisis in our immigration system, as well as in our asylum system, and every debate is polarised. Unfortunately, when we come to this place, which is meant to be a place of evidence-based policymaking and exchanges that try to find a degree of common ground, at times it feels as though we are just parroting the social media posts that I see every morning when I dare to open X or Facebook. We need to be better than that. I think we can say that immigration has made a positive contribution to our country, but that there are strains of immigration in some parts of the country that have been managed so poorly the public consent for immigration is fraying. If we do not accept that principle, we will not win back public support. But we also have to accept that the tone of the debate means that every person coming to flee persecution and war is being cast somehow as a chancer—that they are here to try it on and are acting against our national interest. I do not think that that is in tune with British values. We have a long and proud history, certainly in a town such as Oldham, of supporting people fleeing persecution. We are, however, also a town that believes in fair play and contribution. On the other side, there are people in the system who are not living up to those values. They are trying to play the system through the appeals process and different claims, and are not contributing because when they arrive they break the laws of the land. If we on the Labour Benches are not willing to be honest about those tensions, how on earth can we build the middle ground? There is a lot of work to do to build trust and I have a great deal of confidence in the work the Home Secretary is doing. The evidence speaks for itself, and not just on asylum and immigration. This week, the figures on knife crime have come down again. It takes a lot of hard work—often quiet hard work—to get through these issues, but it is happening and we are just two years in, so I am optimistic that we can get a grip. But where I think the country, and certainly people in Oldham, want to see progress is on a tougher line on small boat crossings, because they do not believe that is playing fairly or playing by the rules if people are breaking them on day one. But people are aghast that there are no safe routes to support families fleeing persecution. Most fair-minded people look at the images of children fleeing war—we see it in Gaza, but also across the world—and think, “There but for the grace of God go I. If that was my child, what would I want in terms of sanctuary to give them a future and not leave them exposed to starvation or death?” This is where we are not quite getting the balance right, so I welcome the efforts being made to introduce safe routes. I want a fairer distribution of asylum seekers around the country. Under the previous Labour Government, we were so fearful of right-wing headlines about asylum seekers being housed in accommodation in London “living in a £1 million townhouse”—they would pick out a Camden townhouse as an example—that the Government responded by saying, “Where is accommodation cheapest?” So, of course, they came to towns such as Oldham, Rochdale and Stoke, where housing at that time was probably plentiful and very cheap. That is not the case today. In Oldham, there are 588 children living in temporary accommodation and over 100 of those households have been in temporary accommodation for over a year. Those housing pressures are felt by the whole community across Oldham. A fairer distribution of asylum seekers might win a bit more public support. On top of that, we are still waiting for the asylum hotel to close at some point. The Minister has been lobbied heavily on that. It is important to know, as a way of rebuilding public consent, that all parts of the country are playing their part and are taking their fair share. I appreciate the speed and the efforts being taken in the case of Shabir Ahmed. I do not think that anybody would look at the Rochdale grooming gang and Shabir Ahmed as its ringleader over a long period of time and think that he is anything other than evil and abhorrent. The way he sexually abused and exploited young girls in both Oldham and Rochdale shook the town. It was on a scale that we had not seen before. What really struck home was the complete lack of any empathy for the victims, his refusal to take any responsibility, and his laughing at the justice process that was holding him to account. When news came of his release back into the community—of course, we do not know where he is; it certainly is not in Oldham and Rochdale, because of the exclusion zones—it retraumatised the victims who have spent a long time trying to rebuild their lives. The fact is this: he has already been stripped of his British citizenship. He has no right to be here, bar the loophole in the Immigration Act 1971 that will now be closed thanks to the actions of our Home Secretary. That is not to say that we should rush to say the answer is always deportation, but in the case of a child rapist who has acted in such an abhorrent way, that must be the ultimate justice secured for the victims who were affected. I give credit for the work that is taking place, but pace is really important. The parole board rejected his early release on three separate occasions because of the risk he posed to victims and wider society. I do not believe that he is any safer today than he was 18 months ago when the parole board last looked at the terms of his licence conditions. As speed is of the essence, I ask Ministers, please, whether there are grounds in such cases to return people back to custody, pending deportation?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation · Hansard source

  More

  Shabir Ahmed and his co-offenders committed grave crimes that shook and angered the country. His victims and survivors are foremost in our minds today and they deserve justice. There are two aspects to deportation: first, getting our own legal house in order, and secondly, securing an agreement with Pakistan. On the first, once Shabir Ahmed was deprived of his British citizenship, it would have become apparent that the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 would create a barrier to deportation. Given where we are now, can the Minister ensure that all options will be on the table, including on Monday when the Immigration and Asylum Bill comes before the House? Secondly, can he update the House on what conversations are taking place with Pakistan?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister will know from past correspondence, I am asking for greater transparency about the criteria used to prioritise asylum hotel closures. I am still not clear about why the Victoria hotel in Chadderton, which was contacted by the Home Office five years ago without any consultation with local people or with me as the Member of Parliament, remains in use. In fact, in the intervening period, the then Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) —who now sits on the Reform Benches—increased its capacity from 80 to 120 places. Oldham has always played its part, often doing far more than other places—in addition to the 114 asylum seekers currently in the hotel, there are 640 in dispersed accommodation in the town—but the Minister must accept that trust taken for granted becomes trust eroded. In the end, it is one housing market. We cannot have a situation where we see a push from hotels to settled accommodation but we allow Serco to take up family housing in Greater Manchester, when there are 500 children in temporary accommodation in my town alone. We have got to see this in the round, and local authorities have to be at the front and centre when the Home Office is doing the planning.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Prisoner Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  We all accept that the prison capacity crisis requires difficult decisions to be made, but when Parliament passed the Sentencing Act, Ministers assured the House that the most serious and heinous offenders and those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences. Does the Minister not accept that most people would regard the actions of members of grooming gangs who have sexually abused, raped and exploited children—and child sex offenders more generally—as falling within the ordinary meaning of the most serious and heinous offences? If so, why are those not excluded from the release scheme? Can I say, as a local Member of Parliament, that I am disgusted that according to local news reports—the Government have not informed local MPs—Shabir Ahmed, the leader of the Rochdale grooming gang, who was an Oldham resident, is due to be released this week? He was convicted of crimes in relation to Rochdale victims, but we all know that for every victim who went through the court process other victims did not, so the idea that Oldham is somehow not affected by the evil of this person is ridiculous. May I urge the Minister please to look at that case in particular as well as the rules that are allowing this to be normalised? It cannot be allowed to be normalised.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  Food security is national security, and the effort that the Government have put into this report is very clear. As chair of the Co-operative party, I am pleased that page 27 has a commitment to co-operatives and mutuals as part of the answer to this country’s food security. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most significant things in this report will be allowing farmers to farm? Farmers say that so much of their time is spent trying to navigate a complex system of Government agencies, so the single system that is talked about could be a game changer.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Government on the efforts being made on fly-tipping. We can quite often skirt over just how important these issues are, but in areas where fly-tipping is common, it absolutely ruins the local community. I put on record our appreciation for the work that is being done.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have often said about the device that was found in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that unless someone is a member of staff, they cannot get to that side of the building without going through the Home Office. That obviously raises serious questions about the complex on Marsham Street more broadly. Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a pattern of foreign malign forces impacting our institutions, whether that is our Parliament or even the sovereignty of the United Kingdom itself? Unless there is resolve by Government and all parties in this place, we will not face that threat with the scale of response needed.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On local government, there are clearly hundreds of local authorities, many of which are busy upgrading their systems. However, one thing that is not spoken about enough is the human capacity to actually do the work. Many local authorities, like Government themselves, find a real difficulty in recruiting the talent that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that central Government could provide a greater role and act almost as a centre of excellence for cyber-security for local government?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the ban on social media for under-16s. I wish we were not here, but the ban represents the failure of the social media platforms to get their house in order. It was inevitable that we would get here in the end. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to make social media safe for everyone, including through measures on foreign influence and accountability for the owners, so that when children turn 17 or become adults at 18, they are safe, along with the rest of us?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The defence investment plan is to be welcomed, and I appreciate that it covers more than just equipment—it talks about our people and the built estate. I have made representations before, so the Minister will know that since local armed forces recruitment centres in towns such as Oldham have closed, I am concerned that the recruitment of local young people has fallen through the floor. In fact, in Oldham, the MOD does not bother to record the numbers because they are now in single digits. However, the types of jobs that are being created—skilled, well-paid, proud jobs—should not be distant for young people growing up in Oldham. My second point is on the fact that the DIP covers procurement, but not disposal. For every vehicle, pump, generator and bit of kit that the armed forces do not need, our friends in Ukraine should surely get first refusal.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend for moving at such pace on this. I am sure that many commuters around the country will be pleased to see the progress. On devolution and the integration with local transport schemes, I know the route, the process and the decision maker if we want to get a new Metrolink tram station in Greater Manchester. If I want to reopen the Middleton Junction train station in my constituency, what route do I go down?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not the truth that Governments just do not respect working-class jobs, like apprenticeships? Since the apprenticeship levy was brought in, the number of starts has dropped by 35% and the number of level 2 starts has dropped by 68%. Of those that did take place, only 16% were advertised in the two months when young people were finishing their exams, creating the gap that young people fall through. The Milburn review is welcome and absolutely needed, and I am appreciative of the Government for starting this process, but can I ask two question? First, why can we not close the gap today by saying that every public sector employer, whether it is the Government, a council, the police service or the NHS, must advertise at the point that young people are leaving school? Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that devolution has to be part of the solution, because we cannot command and control from the centre when so much of this is about localised economies?

• 21 May 2026 · Costs for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  These are welcome announcements, and I welcome the Chief Secretary to her place. The Government have a very important convening power, and one thing that residents in Oldham raise all the time is how much they pay for car insurance compared with those in other areas. For low-paid workers, particularly those who need their car for business, that additional premium represents a lot of money going out every year above and beyond what those in neighbouring areas pay. Will the Chief Secretary convene the insurance industry and see what can be done to finally address the postcode lottery?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor for her important statement, not least because the previous Government failed to act on HMRC mileage rates for the 14 years that they were in power, watching as motoring costs went up year after year but doing absolutely nothing for the self-employed and frontline workers, like home care workers. It shows the power of a union like Unison, and it shows that we have a Chancellor who is willing to take the action needed to support working people. Ahead of the Fuller review, will the backdating of these measures support both the self-employed and employed workers alike?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, and what better day is there to reflect that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will soon receive Royal Assent? With it come enhanced powers to safeguard community assets, including automatic protection for sporting grounds. This important Co-operative party campaign reflects the real community of Britain, with decent people pulling together, protecting what is important to them. Does the Leader of the House agree that now we are soon to have these widened protections, we also need widened ownership and to bring forward a new community ownership fund?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  If we want to end the scourge of knife crime, we have to tackle supply, demand, enforcement, education and culture. Oldham has seen some of Greater Manchester’s highest numbers of section 60 stop-and-search areas, and there is often a clear pattern of gang activity, resulting in children carrying knives and other weapons. Petty postcode wars can escalate from online bullying to on-street attacks with serious injury and loss of life. I welcome the announcement of the Young Futures hubs, but given the overwhelming evidence of youth knife crime in Oldham and the cross-border activity in neighbouring Manchester, which has been selected for one of the new hubs, can Oldham be urgently considered as the programme rolls out?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents, Cassie and Ryan Claydon, suffered the loss of their unborn child, Matilda, at 36 weeks. Like every parent in England and Wales who goes through this trauma, they were required to attend the registrar’s office in person to register the stillbirth. Sitting in a waiting room with new parents and babies made the grief even harder than it needed to be. I am supporting their calls for the parents of stillborn babies to be able to register remotely, as they can already in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House advise on the best way to secure that change, and will he join me in crediting the campaign led by Cassie and Ryan?