Jim McMahon
MP for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“At the end of the day, it is not possible to go to a corner of England and not see somewhere that was impacted by all those years of austerity and the lack of investment that went alongside it.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the champion she is for Bournemouth. I would reflect on how the experience there, with the cuts to local government over many years, has impacted the services on the ground that would have been provided—both the neighbourhood’s quality of place and the economic focus on tourism.”
“The Government have decided that both foundation strategic authorities and mayoral strategic authorities will be empowered to raise a levy to support growth in their areas.”
“There is no expectation that councils will see a cut in the way that the hon. Lady explains—I am not quite sure what the rationale is for that.”
“I think those are really important points. My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Cornwall and its economy, and he also recognises that the local partnerships that are developing are marshalling around devolution in quite an interesting way.”
“It will entirely depend on how local leaders decide to design the scheme, which will require conversations at a local level and, I would say, give and take.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Jim McMahon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Given the union’s rejection of the offer, as of last week, the council is now entering a period of consultation to resolve the dispute while protecting its equal pay position. I urge the union to work with the council on a sustainable way forward that is fair to workers in the council and to the residents of Birmingham. Finally, hon. Members may be aware that earlier today Max Caller announced that he is retiring as lead commissioner in Birmingham, and I wish him well for the future. Tony McArdle OBE has today been appointed by the Secretary of State as the new lead commissioner, and he will take up his position tomorrow. Tony brings a huge wealth of expertise, and I am confident that he will continue to deliver on the recovery plan to secure improvements for Birmingham’s residents.”
“The background to the dispute is the historical equal pay issues the council has faced, which have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, and that has to be front of mind. The council has been in negotiation for many months, making a fair and reasonable offer to Unite and being clear about the need to protect its equal pay position. The union rejected the council’s offer. The council has worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including a transfer into other roles in the council on the same grade and, in some cases, to upskill those workers in scope. An enhanced voluntary redundancy package is also available for those who wish to leave the service, and there has already been significant uptake.”
“Members will be aware of the continuing disruption caused by industrial action in Birmingham. I want to be clear that Birmingham city council is an independent employer and that this dispute is between the council and Unite the trade union. The Government are rightly not a party to it, but of course we have an interest in it, recognising the impact on local residents. This Government’s priority remains Birmingham residents, and we will continue to support the council to keep Birmingham’s streets clear while the dispute remains ongoing. Thousands of tons of waste have been removed, and routine collections have been restored. The council continues to monitor the situation closely to ensure that waste does not build up again.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“In the end, none of us wants this to roll on indefinitely; we want to see a resolution for the affected workers and for the taxpayers of Birmingham, who quite rightly expect their local public services to be delivered to a good standard.”
“I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments—we agree on much. She speaks to why a resolution on this issue is so important. At the heart of this, there are working people with rent and mortgages to pay, who want a resolution. To be clear, the council has been in negotiations over many months and has made a fair and reasonable offer to Unite, which, unfortunately, the union rejected. The council has also worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including their transfer to other roles in the council at the same grade, and, in some cases, has agreed to upskill in-scope workers. A generous redundancy package is available for those who wish to leave the service; we have seen an uptake in that.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“His fundamental point about the importance of equal pay and the liabilities, which are big numbers because of the size of the council and the historic issues there, cannot be undermined. The worst outcome of this dispute would be that a decision is made for the short term that does not address the medium and long term, completely unravels the equal pay negotiations and, by doing that, undermines the women workers in scope.”
“That is a fair point. I forgot that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) had a brief stint as a Liberal Democrat councillor. Actually, the people of Birmingham want us to put the party politics to one side. I think what matters to local people is, first, that they are treated fairly when it comes to local council tax levels and, secondly, that they get a good level of public service for the tax that they pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) rightly says, there has to be accountability. It is a matter of fact that some of these big decisions should have been taken much earlier, and that goes back to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat-run council.”
“The council, like us, was not happy that the offer was rejected by the union, but that is not to say that we cannot use this time for the conversation to continue, so that we can reach a resolution that puts the people of Birmingham first.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for taking my advice and not making this party political—a bit more refining and we will get there in the end. Surely the right hon. Member would expect that the local authority would enter a trade union negotiation in good faith and would go as far as it can lawfully go in making a settlement offer that respects the workers who are losing pay as a result of equal pay, because that is surely the right thing to do. I hope he would not expect the council to disregard that entirely. The council rightly cares about its workforce, not least because many of them will be Birmingham city residents themselves, and it wants to make sure that it supports that process.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“Member for East Wiltshire that, on the importance of the Church of England and the Christian faith more generally, Parliament and the Executive are by no means washing their hands. The Church is streamlining its national governance, with plans approved by the Synod earlier this week. The proposals will soon come before Parliament. This marks another step in a process begun in 2020 to create better governance structures that better support the Church’s mission and its work. Regarding the Church’s future, its day-to-day operations are of course not a matter for the Government. However, the Government look forward to the Church continuing to evolve to meet the challenges of our time, and to play an active role in public debate on the most important issues we face as a nation.”
“I am pleased that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) does so much work in that regard, serving as a vital link between Parliament and the Church, and ensuring that the Church Commissioners remain accountable to the House. The Executive, in particular the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, play a key role in appointing senior clergy. While bishops are formally appointed by the sovereign, that is done on the Prime Minister’s advice, following recommendations from the Crown Nominations Commission. The sovereign, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, remains central to those arrangements. In highlighting some of the ways the Church, Parliament and the Executive are intertwined, I hope to provide assurance to the hon.”
“The Government believe they offer a unique and valued spiritual perspective. There are still many ways in which the Church and Parliament remain closely connected. The Government reflect that a great example is the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Act 2025, which was skilfully steered through the House last year by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare). The Act, requested by the Church of England, extends for five more years the arrangements allowing female bishops to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. In fact, it recently enabled the Right Rev. Sophie Jelley, the new Bishop of Coventry, to take her seat in the other place. The Church also has a presence in this House through the Second Church Estates Commissioner.”
“For the benefit of the House, I will briefly outline the constitutional arrangements between the established Church, Parliament and the Executive. These arrangements have deep roots and have evolved over many centuries. Much of our constitution is based on a combination of common law, statutes, conventions and principles. As the established Church, the Church of England has historically been subject to parliamentary legislation. However, since the enabling Act of 1919—the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919—much of its governance has been delegated to its own body, the General Synod. While the Synod manages its internal affairs, its Measures still require Parliament’s approval and Royal Assent. As hon. Members will know, the Lords Spiritual, bishops of the Church, sit in the House of Lords by right.”
“The truth is simple: without them, much of our local life simply would not function. Their contribution is not just appreciated, but indispensable. The Christian faith has played a central role in public life and it continues to do so. The hon. Member is but one of a number of examples of good public servants motivated by their Christian faith in the cause of the common good. Our society is enriched by those contributions. It is equally enriched by people from a wide range of backgrounds, heritage and, indeed, faiths and beliefs. Right across this House, I see members of the Protestant, Catholic—like myself—Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faith communities, and those of other faiths and indeed none, who are all motivated towards the betterment of the people we serve.”
“I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for securing this important debate on the future of the Church of England. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. The hon. Member has often spoken very powerfully about the importance of faith, its role in public life and the benefit it brings. Today, he has spoken eloquently on the positive role that Christianity plays in our wider society, which I believe is a sentiment shared across the House. Anyone involved in local life knows just how essential are Christian places of worship and the people who support them. They run schools and toddler groups, support food banks and reach out to those facing homelessness. They offer comfort and companionship to those who are isolated, grieving or just struggling to cope.”
“I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for doing just that and I hope he appreciates the response on behalf of the Government. Question put and agreed to.”