Jim McMahon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  First, I want to say how pleased I am at the turnout for this debate. It recognises the importance of co-operation in our communities, our economy and our politics. One thing that I observe in Britain today is that many people feel, in politics, the economy and society, that they are powerless, and there is something in this debate about how we collectively rebuild. The fact that this debate has had cross-party support—from Northern Ireland to Norwich, and from both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative shadow teams—just shows that, in the end, success can have many fathers. When we can build something that is positive and brings people together, it can act as a magnet for people genuinely to come to, so I thank Members for having this debate. My final point is for the Minister on his first outing at the Dispatch Box. He undertook it with flair and enthusiasm, and I am sure he has great things ahead. Question put and agreed to . Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the co-operative sector.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the co-operative sector. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, in this important debate. I pay tribute to those leading this great movement in our co-operative societies, our mutuals and the Co-operative party, of which I am proud to be the chair. My thanks go to the national executive committee and to our general secretary, Joe Fortune, and his team for their tireless work in growing and strengthening co-operation across the United Kingdom. This year, as we mark the UN International Year of Co-operatives, it is fitting to reflect on the difference that co-operation makes, and the extraordinary opportunities available to us. The roots of our movement run deep, back to 1844 and the Rochdale pioneers: 27 working people who, through solidarity, challenged exploitation and built something that was lasting. [ Official Report, 22 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 4WC.] (Correction) Their values of open membership, democratic control, member participation, autonomy and education all remain a living framework for economic democracy today. If their call to give working people power and a voice was important then, I think we can all agree that that call is ever more urgent today.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  If it is to work, the whole of Government has to own this agenda. It is important that the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade take a leading role, and of course, the community anchor in the MHCLG is important too, but the truth is that communities function in a dynamic way, and every bit of Government across health and social care, education and our school system, and everything else that Government have oversight of, comes into play. I absolutely agree that if we want to double the size of the co-operative economy, and for that to be felt in every part of the country, the whole of Government has to own that agenda. Across Britain, too many people feel that the economy no longer works for them—that decisions that shape their lives are made far away by investors they will never meet and for reasons they do not agree with. We see the results in hollowed-out high streets, in local businesses that are bought and closed by distant investors, and in a growing sense of powerlessness. If we want to rebuild trust in politics, we must rebuild trust in the economy alongside it. That means giving people real ownership and control over the businesses that shape their lives, because ownership matters; that is exactly why those with wealth fight to keep it. We want more people to benefit and to have a stake in the future. The good news is that the UK’s co-operative economy is thriving. Today there are 7,400 co-operatives, with 16.6 million members, and 240,000 employees working hard in their communities. Together they span retail, housing and agriculture, and beyond that, of course, social enterprise, creating decent jobs and trying to provide food and shelter for millions of people in this country. Going further, our 42 building societies, owned by their 27 million members, contribute £7.2 billion to the UK economy. They account for nearly a third of UK mortgages and maintain over a third of all bank branches. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, our credit unions serve their 2.3 million members and hold nearly £5 billion in assets. Do people know that there are more members of building societies and credit unions than there are people who voted in the last general election? This is not a fringe part of the economy; it is absolutely foundational. After years without a mutual bank presence on the high street, the recent acquisitions of Virgin Money by Nationwide and of the Co-operative bank by Coventry building society mark a welcome return of mutual principles to mainstream banking on the high street. Employee ownership is rising, too, from 600 employee-owned firms in 2020 to 2,500 today. That shows what happens when Government action aligns with co-operative values: co-operatives are more likely to grow and more likely to survive. However, despite our proud history, the UK now lags behind other countries. If we are to fulfil our potential, the Government must create an environment that enables co-operatives to thrive.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  The fact is that those of us who believe in co-operatives as a movement and as a principle get it, but we can be quite selfish about it, and we quite enjoy co-operatives and mutuals being the best-kept secret in the UK economy. Well, I am sick and tired of their being a secret and I want them to be mainstream. When somebody is setting up a business in this country, I want them to look at co-operatives and say, “That is the obvious choice for us and for our community.” I do not want co-operatives to be a sideline any more. That is why co-operative development agencies and the whole of Government approach are important. It is also why education, access to finance, the surrounding legislation and, of course, creating a level playing field so that co-operatives can thrive are all important, too. We need to mainstream the idea of co-operatives and spread it out. If we do that, the economy will benefit even more, because co-operatives are more resilient and survive longer than many other businesses, and they return more to the UK economy, which can be reinvested in the community. The barriers to co-operatives are well known; my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) touched on some of them in his intervention. There is difficulty in accessing finance; obviously, there are issues around equity investment and the barriers that exist there. There is an outdated and fragmented legal framework, and there is limited awareness of co-operatives among banks, businesses and advisers, and even in Government itself. So, I would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds to the debate, could update us on Government plans: first, to progress the Mutual and Co-operative Sector Business Council; secondly, to work to improve access to finance for co-operatives; thirdly, the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014; and finally, the plan to establish the co-operative development agency within Government. Beyond that, on building societies and credit unions, we need action on the Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill, on fair limits for individual savings accounts or ISAs, and on reforming the common bond, so that more people can join building societies and credit unions. On community ownership, we need clarity about the future of the Community Ownership Fund, so that local people can secure the assets that matter to them the most. On housing, co-operative models must play their part in delivering the Government’s promised ambition for 1.5 million new homes by providing homes that people do not just live in, but have a stake in. On agriculture, we should recognise that food security is national security, and support co-operation among farmers in the same way as the US Government do. This is about delivering a level playing field and doing what is needed to deliver on Labour’s pledge to double the size of the sector. Growth is critical, but growth must be shared by everyone who contributes, in every community across the country. The co-operative model was born when ordinary people said that enough was enough, chose to build something better for themselves and their community, and recognised the benefit of the shared dividend that would follow. That same spirit of collective action is exactly what our country needs again. Last week, alongside Joe Fortune from the Co-operative party and Paul Gerrard from the Co-operative Group, I joined the Co-operative Group’s national members’ council in Manchester, chaired by Denise Scott-McDonald. The sense of purpose, partnership and hope was absolutely inspiring. People across the country want to do more to collaborate and to create new enterprises, not because it is fashionable but because it is instinctive to them. Let us make this the decade when co-operation again becomes a defining force in rebuilding Britain from the bottom up: politics done with people, as it always should be.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I think a lot of people in Britain feel as though it does not matter what they do, how hard they work or how big their contribution is; they are just not able to make ends meet or get on in life. The communities where they live have been incrementally eroded and hollowed out, and they do not feel like they are getting on and doing well. The founding principle, if we take ourselves back to Rochdale and towns like Oldham, where this is part of our heritage, history and identity, was a sense that if we build something together, we share the dividend that comes from it—that we redistribute the value that we create in order to build an even stronger community. I think we observe a country and economy where the wealth that we create is taken off to foreign lands and international investors more than it is reinvested back in the local community. Co-operation is of course about power, but it is also about place and identity, and the co-operative movement is central to that.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  Oldham has stepped forward to take on a local inquiry, and it has been waiting to understand what the move to the national inquiry means for its work. The same is true of victims and survivors, whose bravery and strength in the most difficult circumstances have been truly remarkable. What arrangements have been put in place to ensure that there is a clear front door, offering support that is fully independent of councils and police forces? While local deep dives are clearly essential, can we have an assurance that if the evidence takes an investigation beyond council and police force boundaries, it will be followed to the fullest extent?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate. Knife crime and the gang activity that comes with it ruin lives and leave whole communities living in fear. This debate has been wide-ranging, but for Greater Manchester, and Oldham in particular, there is an urgency to tackling youth knife crime, gang activity and the real threat of child criminal exploitation in our communities—a threat that continues to hit working-class communities the hardest. I place on record my thanks to Greater Manchester police and their partners in the violence reduction unit—chaired by Kate Green, the deputy mayor for policing—for recognising and acting on the issue, and for meeting me to discuss the issue further. Since 2020, Greater Manchester police have run the forever amnesty, which has taken thousands of weapons off our streets. However, the police themselves would say that knives remain easily available in households and in everyday lawful life, so unless the culture and environment change, we will not break the cycle of offending and the harm that goes alongside it.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the hon. Member is still developing his argument, but does he accept that one place young people should feel safe is in their own home? With the online world and messaging platforms, any intimidation, abuse and threats that might take place in school or on the street follow them 24 hours a day. Many parents, sometimes in the next room, have no idea what threats and intimidation their children are facing.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  That is very important, and it has to go alongside other interventions. Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, Oldham has an OnSide youth centre, called Mahdlo, which provides significant intervention and support for young people. It is fair to say that the world has changed since I was a child at school. The online world means that it is difficult for young people to escape threats of violence and intimidation, and their glorification on online platforms, which allow videos showing young people threatening young people to be uploaded, seemingly without any challenge whatever. The culture and environment are important. In Greater Manchester, Operation Venture, which was launched in 2022, has led to hundreds of arrests, improved intelligence and a clearer understanding of where and how weapons are used. However, I want to focus on the young people most at risk, both as offenders and as victims, and to call for stronger safeguarding and prevention response. Gangs have always existed in some areas—lines between estates and postcodes are not new—but what has changed is the speed with which petty disputes can escalate, and the online meeting the on-street, with little escape for those who are at risk. A perceived lack of respect can turn into revenge, and verbal exchanges can quickly become fatal violence involving knives. Many young people live in fear—afraid simply to walk home from school, making them a target. The same culture that drives that fear also traps young people within it. Simply telling young people to stay away from trouble is not realistic when violence and intimidation follow them home through their phones, consoles and social media—24 hours a day, seven days a week. In that environment, some young children start carrying knives themselves, for what they believe is self-defence—an avoidable and dangerous response to fear. More sinister still is the impact of child criminal exploitation, or county lines, as it is sometimes called: the systematic grooming of mainly, though not exclusively, working-class boys—girls can be impacted too—by older men and their peers into organised crime such as robbery, drug dealing and violence. In some cases, there is a proven link to sexual exploitation alongside it. In the House, we recognise the patterns of child sexual exploitation and abuse and the characteristics of victims and offenders, as we now know them to be. We also know when we see clear and present safeguarding failures. We must apply the same urgency to understanding and acting on child criminal exploitation. None of that takes away the importance of individual responsibility or the role of parents, but too often the system looks at these working-class young people and writes them off. It sees them as bad kids or lost causes, instead of as vulnerable children being exploited and abused. That attitude reflects a class bias that is still far too common—the idea that some estates or even some families are just rough and that being drawn into crime is inevitable. Too often, that allows neglect to go unchallenged. If that mindset persists, we will continue to fail young people, and entire communities will remain trapped in fear. For too many families in Greater Manchester, that fear has become a reality. We have seen repeated knife attacks, many involving children. In New Moston, just streets away from my constituency, a 15-year-old boy was chased down the street and stabbed to death. I cannot say any more, as the Chair reminded us at the start of the debate, because it is an ongoing case, but what is beyond doubt is that another family have lost their son. In Limeside, in Oldham West, the community has spirit and solidarity, but its foundations have been weakened. The local police post, the GP surgery, the housing office and other public services have been eroded in the last decade and a half. Those who remain, such as the Avro football club and Anthony Crolla’s gym, are doing heroic work to give young people purpose and safety, but they are fighting to survive every single day when the community needs them more than ever. These same areas experience some of the highest numbers of section 60 stop and searches in Greater Manchester. The Limeside estate alone has had seven stop and search orders in the last two years. There has been some progress. To June 2025, the homicide rate in Greater Manchester was 8.8 per million people, a decrease of 21% compared with the previous year and down 45% on the last three years. While youth violence overall is decreasing, more must be done to prevent children from being exposed to violent crime at such a young age. The police identify that most young people supported by the violence reduction unit are aged between 13 and 15—these are children. Reported knife and offensive weapon offences have risen from 220 in 2014 to 413 10 years later—a significant increase. Some of that reflects increased police activity, including stop and search, which should be welcomed, but let’s not kid ourselves: every one of those cases represents a real threat. Knife crime is not inevitable. My call today is for a step change in how we safeguard young people from criminal exploitation. That means recognising vulnerability, not just criminality. It means restoring trust in communities where fear has replaced hope. It means tougher action to hold social media giants and messaging platforms to account. It means rebuilding the foundations of our youth services, safe spaces and neighbourhood networks to give young people a sense of belonging and a reason to believe in a better future, to finally break the cycle.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to today’s important debate. The sheer number of Members who wanted to speak demonstrates how important these issues are, and the passion and enthusiasm shown by Members of this House makes absolutely clear their care for their communities, as well as their desire to see local economies thrive and for the benefits of growth to be felt by every community across the country. This Bill represents a generational shift in power that will see community empowerment enshrined in law and local leaders and mayors with skin in the game, trusted to get on and do the job they have been elected to do in a new relationship of equals with central Government—one built on a shared commitment to people and place, mutual respect and co-operation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does exactly what its title says. It effects a top-to-bottom redistribution of power in this country, putting decision making in the hands of our regions, towns, cities and communities and delivering real change for working people in the places they call home, bringing growth and opportunity and empowering local leaders and our mayors to make the right decisions alongside their local communities. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at the start of the debate, this is a landmark Bill that will help us build a modern state based on a fairer, stronger partnership between central and local government. For too long, power and opportunity has been centralised in Westminster and Whitehall, holding back growth across the country and denying millions of people the opportunity to realise the potential they have within them. Our new approach to devolution and empowerment begins the work of fixing that—powering up our regions through devolution by default and the right to request, as well as new powers, resources and freedoms, and introducing measures to fix local government and its fragile audit regime through sustainable structures and governance. It also gives real power to communities through the community right to buy local assets, rooted in our high streets, neighbourhoods and sporting grounds, and it gives them a greater say in local issues, with frontline ward councillors given the respect, power and tools they need to make a difference in their communities through neighbourhood working arrangements in every council across the country. When we said this was a top-to-bottom transfer of power, we meant it. Before I turn to the main issues raised in the debate, I will first address the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and also maybe touch on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Anybody would think that the Conservatives had not been in government for 14 years, absolutely smashing local government to the core. Anybody would believe that councils were not falling over like dominoes, going bust on their watch, and that the fragmented, deal-by-deal, backroom-negotiated devolution we have had so far did not take place on their watch over 14 years. Let us forget the past, though, and look to the future. The reasoned amendment raises concerns about local government reorganisation, which—as we have heard from Members across the House—is a big and important issue. It also talks about housing delivery and claims that the Bill means higher bills for local residents. I can assure the House that those concerns are misplaced, and frankly, the Opposition know that. First, the Bill will not affect the process for the 21 areas already undergoing reorganisation. Those 21 areas have responded to their invitation to reorganise already.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  They absolutely had a choice. It was an invitation that 21 counties have responded to, demonstrating without a doubt that the appetite and interest for reorganisation was there within communities, and they responded in that way. This process will deliver strong, sustainable unitaries, capable of leading their communities, shaping neighbourhoods and convening local public services to deliver better outcomes for local residents. This process is separate from the Bill. In fact, the devolution priority programme areas of local government reorganisation will be submitting their final proposals to Government on 26 September. All other areas will submit their final proposals on 28 November. Before this Bill even gets out of Committee, local government reorganisation will have final proposals for the 21 counties in the two-tier area. The idea that the Bill is bringing an end to the two-tier system is for the birds. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the work will have been done and the consultations will be taking place and well under way. The Opposition know that, of course, because they used exactly the same process of reorganisation so many times when they were in government to reduce the number of councillors, reduce the number of councils and end the two-tier system in counties across the country. To the Opposition’s credit, ending the two-tier system is a proven model, because once local government reorganisation has taken place in an area—by the way, I have not heard anybody calling realistically for a return to the old system—savings can be made. There is a world of difference between those and the savings that Government will take, as central Government is making no savings from local councils. That change gives the freedom to move money up and down that two-tier system to where the real pressures are being faced: adult social care and SEND in particular. If we do not take action after 14 years of inaction, the system will fall over, and we will not allow it to fall over on our watch, however bad the inheritance might have been. The Opposition know all that, because they laid the groundwork and were the architects of the current system. This Bill also gives ambitious planning powers for mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure, working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, with powers to intervene in major strategic planning applications and to grant mayoral development orders.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that with the time we have, I need to canter through. The Bill also allows mayoral development corporations to be established and for a mayoral community infrastructure levy to be charged, so that we can unlock much-needed housing and infrastructure to get Britain building once again. Thirdly, the Opposition claim that this Bill introduces a new precept and will raise bills for working people. I remind them that the mayoral precept has been in law since 2017. In fact, it was a Conservative Government who brought it into law, giving all mayors the power to introduce a precept, so we will not take lectures from them on those powers. I will say this, because I believe in devolution: pound for pound, local people—through their local councils, their local mayors and their combined authorities—see the benefit of that investment in a real way in their neighbourhoods, their communities and their towns. For large parts of Government spending, for different reasons, they do not get that in a tangible way. The accountability that then comes alongside it is important. Finally, the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives claims that this Bill fails to empower local people. As the House has heard, that is far from the case. This is a generational change, moving power away from Whitehall, with the tools needed at a local level to get things going through community right to buy, neighbourhood governance and all the things that were being asked for. We urge all colleagues to vote against the reasoned amendment in a few moments. This Bill sees the system of devolution move away from an ad hoc, inconsistent and deal-by-deal model, replacing it with a model that is clear about what places can access, when they can access it, and under what conditions. Our new system confers functions on classes of strategic authority to allow us to deliver our commitment for devolution by default and to streamline those functions, so that all parts of England can be clear about what powers they can access. Members have raised the supplementary vote a number of times. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for the UK Parliament or for local council elections in England. The Government believe that while the first-past-the-post system has its place, the SV system is the right thing to do for those executive positions where an individual holds that executive power, and the mandate from local people is important. That has been raised a number of times, and I hope that puts that to bed. On local authorities, this Government have been clear that we will fix the foundations of local government and create a system that is fit, legal and decent. Changes to governance arrangements are one way that we are simplifying local government. Alongside our intention to strengthen the role of frontline ward councillors, this will provide the tools that will make it possible to act on the local issues that people believe are important. By abolishing the committee system, we will simplify local authority governance arrangements and ensure that all councils operate an executive form of governance. I have heard the representations from Sheffield Members and others, and meetings will take place to discuss that further, but abolishing the committee system will provide clarity and accountability for local people, and importantly will strengthen that direct line of democratic accountability. We have accepted the continuation of the 13 legacy directly elected council mayors, while introducing measures to prevent the creation of any new ones. The subject of neighbourhood governance has also been raised. The Bill sets out a clear ambition for all local authorities to hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working into their governance. I do, of course, hear the calls on behalf of town and parish councils, and I share Members’ commitment to that local level, but if all we have are town and parish councils operating at a local level and no neighbourhood governance in the principal councils, we will miss the opportunity to hardwire localism in everything that councils do. We believe that we must have that hardwiring so that local people feel genuinely empowered. That is the only difference, however: this is completely compatible with town and parish councils working in partnership. When that is effective, they work in unison for the benefit of the local community, which is what we want to see from now on. A significant amount of attention has rightly been paid to the subject of assets of community value. As we have all seen, community spaces such as pubs, cultural venues and places of worship are the life of our communities. They bring people together, foster a sense of community pride and support local economies. However, 14 years of the previous Government saw a total dismantling of that social infrastructure. People will be far too familiar with the sight of high streets being boarded up one by one, and with community centres being sold off, libraries being lost and parks being forgotten. Places that once defined a locality have been stripped away by 14 lost years. Too many of those critical assets are being lost, which is leading to soulless high streets and less vibrant local communities. That is not because of a lack of will in local communities. It is because they do not have the tools and the powers to protect those assets and take them on. With the Bill we are starting the work to build back strong communities, which is due in no small part to the significant campaigning of the co-operative movement and the MPs here in the House who have made the case clearly that, in the end, ownership matters. We will give communities the tools and the real power to take on the assets that they love, because that is the right thing to do. On all these issues the previous Government could have done far more, but what did we hear over the course of today’s debate? We heard Opposition Members say, “You are going too far—it is a power grab”, and in the same breath, “You are not going far enough, and you could have done more.” The truth is that this is a generational shift in power which will see a break-up of the stranglehold that Westminster and Whitehall have retained for far too long against communities across the country. This will be done with local communities, not to them, and indeed that is what has happened so far. Whether we are talking about our approach to fair funding and repairing the foundations, our approach to local government reorganisation or even our approach to devolution, this has all been done in genuine partnership with local leaders who are working together. What I find so astonishing—and there is a night-and-day difference here—is the almost soulless response from Opposition Front Benchers who decry all these measures, omitting to say that their own local councillors are leading the charge at a local level. The leadership that has been shown, even by Conservative council leaders, puts those Opposition Front Benchers to shame. I do not know how many visits they make around the country, but I cannot imagine that their local representatives value the interpretation that has been presented from the Conservative Front Bench, whether it is about elections, devolution or reorganisation. We are not asking Conservatives Members to be as good as the Government, but we are asking them to be at least as good as their own councillors, and to stand with them instead of standing against them. I urge all Members to support this landmark Bill. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 June 2025. Local audit is vital for ensuring the proper use of taxpayers’ money and maintaining trust and confidence in local public services, but for too long it has been placed under significant pressure. That has left an unacceptable backlog, which we are determined to resolve so we can be assured that the sector is fit, legal and decent. It is on that basis that the Government are committed to reforming the local audit system, including by addressing long-standing concerns around proportionality and capacity. Smaller authorities include bodies such as parish and town councils, internal drainage boards, port authorities and parish meetings. They deliver important local services, from maintaining local community halls and allotments to managing small ports and drainage systems, but they do not have the same financial reporting requirements or full audit processes as larger authorities. Many of our reforms focus on the principal audit regime for larger authorities, which is, quite frankly, broken. However, we also need to ensure that the smaller authority audit system is sustainable and functioning well. A small element of the reforms, which includes the draft regulations, aims to ensure that the overall system is proportionate and responsive to concerns and feedback. We are not removing assurance and accountability for smaller authorities; that will continue to be provided through the annual governance and accountability return, which we have committed to reviewing. We aim to ensure that it remains fit for purpose by improving transparency and ensuring that administrative burdens on smaller authorities are proportionate while enhancing the effectiveness of local reporting, assurance and audit processes. Uplifting the threshold for smaller authorities is primarily a pre-emptive measure that aims to avoid smaller authorities ending up in the principal audit regime, which would be disproportionate to their size and functions. Raising the threshold to £15 million is not about reducing accountability, but about ensuring that our regulatory framework is fair, proportionate and fit for purpose. Doing so will allow smaller authorities to focus their efforts on delivering much-needed local services, rather than navigating disproportionate reporting, assurance and audit processes. The current threshold for smaller authorities has remained unchanged since its introduction in 2014. More than a decade has passed, and yet the threshold has not been adjusted to reflect the evolving financial landscape. What was once a reasonable level is now outdated, placing an unnecessary burden on smaller authorities whose financial activity has grown over time because of spikes in grant funding or other revenue, without any increase in risk or responsibilities. Smaller authorities, such as parish councils or drainage boards, are unlikely to have the equivalent range of service delivery, asset base or liabilities of even the smallest district council, and yet they are at risk of becoming subject to full financial audits at far greater resource levels and cost, as well as drawing on the limited capacity in the audit market for principal authorities. The current threshold no longer reflects the principle of proportionality. In 2024-25, 12 bodies that were previously classed as smaller authorities had income or expenditure above the current £6.5 million threshold. These bodies are generally regarded as lower risk, and their exceeding the threshold simply reflected growth in activity or budget rather than an increase in risk profile. It is not proportionate for such smaller authorities to be subject to the same level of financial reporting, assurance and audit requirements as large organisations such as unitary and metropolitan councils, which have responsibility for a wider range of public services. Such smaller authorities have significantly lower risk profiles and more limited resources, and this has resulted in disproportionate financial reporting requirements and audit costs. There have also been knock-on consequences for audit appointments. The appointing body, Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd, has been unable to secure auditors for two bodies, Salisbury city council and Lindsey Marsh drainage board, meaning that they are without any external assurance. My Department has included measures in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to resolve this issue retrospectively in relation to the financial years when the two bodies were unable to get any external audit assurance. The audit of bodies that have recently exceeded the smaller authority threshold is considered unattractive to auditors, and has contributed to the struggle to appoint an auditor for Salisbury and Lindsey Marsh. There is a significant difference in the complexity of financial reporting requirements between the preparation of accounts in the smaller authority limited assurance regime and the full accounts prepared by bodies in the principal audit regime. As a result, smaller authorities often find it difficult and more challenging to produce such accounts and there is currently no support framework for assisting smaller bodies in the transition to the principal audit regime. We have acknowledged in the local audit reform strategy the need for a different approach to audit regimes to reflect an organisation’s duties and complexity, not just its financial size. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Local Audit Office will work with the Department to take that work forward. This statutory instrument raises the audit threshold for smaller authorities to £15 million. This change will apply from the 2025-26 financial year and aims to bring proportionality and efficiency to the system. It will reduce unnecessary financial reporting and audit requirements, help to free up capacity in the principal local audit market, and allow auditors to focus on areas where assurance is critical. The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, and their provisions will come into force on the day after the day the regulations are made. We published the local audit strategy in December 2024, which included consultation on these proposals. Over 230 responses were received, and on the specific question of uplifting the smaller authorities threshold, 85% of respondents were in favour of this change. The Government responded in April this year confirming our intention to implement the new increased threshold. The change will support smaller authorities by ensuring they are subject to the appropriate governance and accountability arrangements. It will also protect value for money, and it is part of our measures to ensure a more sustainable local audit system. I am sure our discussion today will demonstrate that we are all committed to ensuring audit arrangements remain proportionate, so that local leaders can focus their time and resources on serving their communities effectively. I look forward to answering any questions raised in the course of the debate.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his usual pragmatism and support in these matters. We all recognise the importance of Parliament having oversight of public money and making sure that it is spent fairly and appropriately, and that there are checks and balances—but it must be proportionate to the authorities that are bearing the cost. That is what we achieve with these measures. These regulations deliver a clear benefit to smaller authorities by aligning audit requirements with the scale and risk of their operations, and they help to ensure that the local audit system is proportionate and effective. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which I will try to answer in turn. Let me say, though, that we will take no lectures at all from the party that was in government for 14 years and saw the downgrading of local authorities across the country, including in Birmingham. Although these are our commissioners, as the hon. Gentleman says—that is correct: they are Government appointed—let us not forget which Government appointed them. They were appointed on the watch of the previous Government. Today we are just announcing a change in the lead commissioner. We need to be careful not to politicise those people, who believe in public service and are helping out the local authority and supporting the Government in trying to turn that council around. Let us leave the politicisation of the commissioners to one side and deal with the facts. Last time I was in the Chamber, the Conservatives were talking down the role of bin workers, as if somehow that work was degrading. At that time, I think they were suggesting that the armed forces might be brought in to collect waste and that that would somehow degrade their role. That was never going to be the case, but it was a glimpse into how the Conservatives view the workers who are affected. One thing that is absolutely certain is that the Labour party believes in the power of frontline workers and in the importance of these frontline roles. We absolutely value the role of refuse collectors, and we see the implications of waste not being collected. But we have got to be clear, too, that whatever settlement is on the table has to be lawful and affordable, and it cannot cross the red line of undermining the equal pay negotiations that are taking place. I hope that we can agree at least on that basis.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  Our starting point, of course, is that we want all parties to negotiate in good faith, and we want the local authority to do its best to table a deal that goes as far as it can go, but the red line has to be that it cannot compromise and completely unravel the equal pay negotiations that have taken place, to which all the trade unions—not just Unite—have been a party. Therein lies the issue. The hon. Member could rightly say—I think this is what he indicates—“Surely you just pay what it takes to resolve the issue with the striking bin workers,” but for the equal pay package to hold, a comparable payment would need to be made to all the female workers in scope, so the numbers he talks about are fantasyland. They are not single-digit millions; they are tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, which goes above both legality and affordability for the local authority. We have urged the council to negotiate in good faith with the trade union and to go as far as it can go, provided that it is lawful, affordable and does not undermine the equal pay liability so far.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  I hear the hon. Member’s charac-terisation of the issue, but it bears no relationship at all to the reality of the situation. The council is an independent employer. It is not for the Government to go council by council negotiating trade union disputes or terms and condition changes. It is for the councils themselves as the employers to negotiate with their workforces, and that is exactly the same in Birmingham as for other councils, as he knows. The commissioners are of course appointed by Government and have to act with professional expertise in giving advice to the local authority on whether its plans are affordable and lawful, but the negotiations are taking place between the council itself, and Unite the trade union and the council’s workforce. On this idea that we are scapegoating the workers in this dispute, no party has done more for workers’ rights than Labour. No Government have done more on workers’ rights in a generation than this Government, headed by the Deputy Prime Minister. When I hear Members of this House talking in a way that degrades that, that is a complete and absolute failure to accept not just the legacy we inherited as a Government—that includes, by the way, Birmingham city council and its local taxpayers—but our determination to put that right. Finally, of course Birmingham could and should have made some big financial decisions much earlier. That is a matter of fact, and that is why commissioners are in there today. But the local government finance settlement had an increase in core spending power of 9.8%—that is, £131 million of additional money into Birmingham. That included the largest settlement through the recovery grant of any council in the country.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  The way the right hon. Member starts is where I would hope most local authorities do when looking at equal pay, but the reality is that there will always be winners and losers in equal pay where women have been underpaid for a long time. Councils have options here: they can either compensate and pay upwards for all the female workers in post to the comparable male worker, which for most councils in most circumstances will not be affordable, because there are huge sums attached to that; or, to make a package affordable, they have to equalise it out in consultation with the trade unions. That is exactly what has happened in Birmingham. The issue in Birmingham is very particular to the waste service, where a previous agreement was reached that honestly does not hold when assessed against equal pay in terms of the tasks that are carried out by those workers. In the end, it does not pass the equal pay test, but that is not to say that we are not urging the council and Unite the trade union to continue negotiations to resolve this. We absolutely want the right outcome for the workers and the residents of Birmingham.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  Whoever is negotiating in this environment will have the same guardrails as the local authority does. The local authority has to be mindful of the equal pay package that it has agreed with all the trade unions, and it cannot do anything in this very narrow dispute—however impactful it is on the workers and local residents—that means completely unravelling the equal pay package. I share the hon. Member’s concern about the impact, but it is important that the local authority and Unite the trade union continue those talks and try to find a resolution. With that being the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and other Members of the House a peaceful recess?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes fair observations about the funding crisis in local government, but it would be remiss of me not to take him back to the coalition years, which started austerity in local government. The Liberal Democrats were not just casual observers of the demise of local government but active participants in it. In those very first years, when the cuts really bit for local authorities, they aided and abetted. Our job, after 14 years of the impacts of those decisions, is to find a way through, and we are getting on with that. We are rebuilding the foundations of local government. We have announced a consultation on the fair funding review, which will see a redistribution of funding across the country towards the areas of high deprivation that need it most. We are taking into account all the different service pressures. We are grasping the nettle on the structural changes needed in devolution and reorganisation to ensure that the sector is fit, legal and decent at the end of the process, and we are repairing the broken audit market alongside that. We are getting on with repairing the foundations of local government, but we need to be clear that this is a localised dispute, and of course we do not want to see it impact on local people. I say to the House—because I have heard this a number of times and should have called out the first example—that there are not tens of thousands of tonnes of waste accumulating on the streets of Birmingham. That was the case, and it was dealt with efficiently. In most cases, collections are taking place for most households at most times, and there is not the accumulation of the type we saw earlier. Clearly, the situation is fragile and we do not want it to return to how it was, which is why we remain in regular contact with the council.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Bin Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  We have to accept that there are some issues here that are unique to Birmingham. For instance, many councils across England dealt with equal pay over a decade ago, and Birmingham did not, which is why the liabilities have escalated in the way they have. On the hon. Member’s fundamental point about fair funding and ensuring that local public services can be rebuilt, we can agree. We believe that most people’s local neighbourhood services have been impacted so heavily by not only austerity but the growth in demand in adult’s, children’s and temporary accommodation that we have to completely rethink both how we fund local government and how we reinvest back into prevention and early intervention to prevent that crisis management model.