Jim McMahon MP: speeches

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?