Exceptional Financial Support: Transformation Funding

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

After a decade and a half of austerity, over-centralisation and rising demand for targeted services, we have inherited a system in which too many councils have been left struggling to manage financial pressures.

Over the past two years, the Government have taken steps to fix the foundations for a more sustainable funding system for local government in England. In February, the Government delivered the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, with a fairer and simpler approach to allocating funding for day-to-day services. This was alongside major reforms to high-cost services, including children’s services, homelessness and rough sleeping, and action to resolve special educational needs and disabilities deficits by writing off 90% of councils’ dedicated schools grant high needs deficits accrued to the end of 2025-26.

This has been part of a wider commitment to support councils differently and work in partnership to deal with the causes that are contributing to system strain, rather than short-term measures that focus only on the symptoms.

Following requests from 37 areas, in February the Government agreed to provide exceptional financial support of £1.5 billion to enable all of them to set a balanced budget—while being clear that we would continue to work with them to provide the support and challenge necessary to break the damaging cycle of councils having to borrow or sell assets to manage financial pressures.

Today I am updating the House on a further step that we are taking, by providing £91 million of targeted funding that will support some of those councils in the most challenging financial positions to invest in prevention and modern, effective services that will underpin long-term sustainability.

As the Government set out when confirming exceptional financial support, the most important first step has been to fix the underlying drivers of financial failure by delivering a fairer local government settlement that puts funding where it is needed most. Most councils in receipt of exceptional financial support see significant increases in core spending power over this Parliament, which demonstrates that we are getting money to where it is needed most.

However, we know that the challenges facing councils are complex, and there is no single solution. The Government are working to support and challenge councils in a range of ways, tailored to their circumstances.

In a small number of councils where there is clear evidence that councils’ challenges are rooted in or exacerbated by weak financial management or governance arrangements, the Government are taking the appropriate action under the best value framework. Depending on the severity of issues, this can mean commissioning an inspection, appointing commissioners or envoys, or issuing a best value notice to set clear expectations for local improvement where a council is at clear risk of not meeting their best value duty. In July this year, my Department confirmed that new or renewed best value notices would be issued to four of the councils that received EFS in February, and, reflecting more significant concerns, we commissioned a best value inspection in Bedford borough council, which we expect to report in due course.

Aside from those already subject to statutory intervention, for each of the councils that received exceptional financial support, MHCLG has also commissioned the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to work with each of the councils to identify the steps needed to support its financial recovery. This support is funded by MHCLG, and the first set of 15 reviews have now been published on gov.uk—providing councils with a clear diagnosis and road map for improvement. To support that improvement, in a number of places the Department and the Local Government Association are also working with councils to provide targeted support, for example to improve capacity.

We have also today written to 14 of the councils to confirm some additional funding to accelerate their plans for service reform and transformation. These councils are: Bradford, Brighton and Hove, Haringey, Havering, Isle of Wight, Isles of Scilly, Lambeth, Redbridge, Redcar and Cleveland, Sefton, Stoke-on-Trent, Trafford, Waltham Forest and West Berkshire.

My officials have worked with those councils as they have developed robust plans for showing how targeted additional investment could transform high-cost services and put the council on a more sustainable long-term footing. The councils will be supported to implement their plans with a share of £91 million in further support across 2026-27 and 2027-28.

This investment marks a turning point in how the Government intend to support councils to manage their financial position, with greater emphasis on long-term prevention rather than short-term fixes.

Through this approach, the Government aim to demonstrate that with co-ordinated, purposeful investment and effective support and expertise across Government, councils can move towards more sustainable models of service delivery over the long term. Stoke-on-Trent, for example, will use this funding to accelerate the roll-out of the Families First Partnership programme locally. These reforms will help children get the best start in life, break down barriers to opportunity, and reduce the long-term pressure on local authority budgets.

Changing the way we work with councils in financial difficulty is a key part of our mission to rewire the state and raise living standards. We will draw lessons from these projects and encourage councils to share their learning widely.

This written ministerial statement applies to England only.

[HCWS347]

Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s proposed overnight visitor levy on the tourism and hospitality sectors in England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

Last Thursday, the Government published their response to the consultation on the overnight visitor levy. The “rewiring the state” Cabinet announcement committed to

“delivering good growth in every part of the United Kingdom”.

The visitor levy supports that ambition by empowering local leaders to deliver transformational investment, building the reputation of areas across England as world-leading destinations. Local leaders will be able to choose to introduce the levy as a way to raise money to support growth in their region, including in the visitor economy.

Visitor levies are common in Europe and the rest of the world. All over the G7, countries already have some form of tourism or overnight accommodation levy in place. 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. This approach means that places without a mayor will also be able to invest in their region, making them better places for residents and businesses, as well as for the people who visit and enjoy those areas. The levy will be set as a percentage of accommodation costs. That means that low-cost stays remain low cost, while those who can afford it will be able to contribute more to the places that they visit.

Strategic authorities will be required to consult before introducing a visitor levy. This will inform their decision on whether to introduce the levy, how much it would cost and how revenues would then be spent. We expect that local leaders will be able to set out plans for how revenues will be invested by early 2028, and to introduce a levy before the end of this Parliament.

The Government have engaged with the tourism and hospitality sectors throughout the consultation, and we will continue to do so as the legislation is developed. The changes that the Labour Government are introducing will mean that more money will be invested in our high streets and public transport systems, and England’s tourism hotspots will directly benefit from visitor footfall to improve the area for people living there too.

[Rebecca Paul]

Let us call this what it is—Labour’s holiday tax. Although we knew it was coming, we never expected it to be uncapped. This Government have already hammered hospitality with higher employment costs and business rates. Almost 89,000 hospitality jobs have gone, and now what is Labour’s answer? Hit them again. If we tax something, we get less of it, so if we tax tourism, we will get less tourism—it is not complicated. Fewer tourists mean fewer jobs. UKHospitality estimates that up to 33,000 jobs will go, along with over £2 billion wiped from the economy. These job losses will hit young people hardest, when they are already struggling to secure those all-important first roles.

We should not make the mistake of thinking that this is just a tax on foreign visitors. Tax Policy Associates estimates that trips by British tourists will generate 63% of the revenue from this levy. This is a tax on hard-working British families. A weekend away, a family holiday or a few nights by the seaside will all cost more. Every pound taken in this tax is a pound that families do not spend in the local pub, restaurant, café, shop or attraction. It is not just Brits on a staycation who will be impacted—it will be anyone staying overnight for any reason, such as visiting a sick relative, going away on business or travelling for medical treatment. Why on earth should those people be taxed simply for going about their daily lives? It is not fair.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised to give breathing space to households struggling with the cost of living, yet this tax does the exact opposite. British hospitality does not need another tax. Hard-working families do not need another tax. Young people looking for work do not need another tax. The Government must scrap the holiday tax.

[Jim McMahon]

Where do I start? We are not starting from year zero. The idea that the time under the previous Conservative Government was somehow “the good days” for our pubs, our hospitality industry and our tourism economy. Just think about the thousands of pubs that closed on their watch, and the bars, the restaurants and the live music venues that were left standing by themselves because they were ignored by the Government of the day. Well, now they have a Government on their side, which is why we have already introduced measures to give pubs and live music venues a 20% business rates cut, and we have targeted investment at our town centres and our high streets.

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. The question is: do we just accept that decline is inevitable and that the rot that the Conservatives allowed to set in across large parts of this country is a permanent fixture of our national character? Or do we decide that a different route can be taken, in which we invest in our economy and growth?

Importantly, we must see this measure through the prism of the new spirit of devolution, because there is no mandation—areas are not being made to introduce a levy. It is down to local leaders to make the right call for their area, to consult on those decisions and, importantly, to present back to their community where the investment will go. That will not just benefit people who are visiting. Investment in tourism hotspots in particular—in our great cities and countryside—and our rural economies will benefit the people who live there, because they will have better neighbourhood services provided. In the end, everyone will win.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

South Shields tourism is largely made up of families from neighbouring regions who have saved hard all year round to spend a few days at the seaside, and even if the increase from this measure is marginal, they will not come. My constituents, family-run B&Bs, caravan parks, hotels and wider hospitality industry have been unequivocal with me that they do not want this measure. It is the wrong tax at the worst time. The extra burden on their business will tip my local industry over. Devolution works only when it reflects what communities want, so will my hon. Friend confirm that MPs, who are voices and local leaders in their communities, will be at the forefront of these proposals?

[Jim McMahon]

I appreciate the question, and I recognise that my hon. Friend has been a champion over a long period of time for jobs in her community. I do not take her representations at all lightly, but there is not a part of the country where investment is not desperately needed to improve the visitor experience and the experience of people who live there. If we get this right—it will be down to our local mayors and local leaders to implement the investment—the truth is that everyone will benefit from the improved visitor experience.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats have long championed our high streets, tourism and hospitality sectors. While we strongly support devolving economic powers, businesses are already struggling under mounting costs, a VAT rate higher than that of our international peers and the Government’s national insurance contributions hike. Without support, an overnight levy risks looking less like genuine devolution and more like another short-term tax grab. If Ministers hand local mayors and foundation strategic authorities the power to introduce levies, they must bring forward vital sector relief—an emergency 5p VAT cut, relief from NICs and so forth—and must not reduce local government funding as a result. Can the Minister confirm when this House will see full details of the levy? Specifically, will Ministers implement a cap and sector support to protect local tourism and hospitality?

[Jim McMahon]

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. This is a new levy that local areas can choose to bring in, but it is down to local leaders in both our mayoral strategic authorities and our foundation strategic authorities, working with their local councils, to determine if they want to do that, how they want to approach it, if they want to carry out a proper consultation and to set out where the spending and investment will follow. That is not central Government telling places what to do. It is time that we stop pretending that England is somehow one place and that one size can fit all. Devolution, if it matters, must mean that local leaders can make the right choice for their area.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a Cornish MP, I welcome this measure. It is important that local leaders, particularly those in non-mayoral areas, will get the opportunity to make this decision in consultation with businesses in their areas. Will the Minister confirm that emergency and temporary accommodation, as well as low-cost holiday options such as tents and caravans, could be excluded from the levy?

[Jim McMahon]

We will certainly set out more detail on the list of exemptions as the legislation is developed. Holiday hotspots such as Cornwall, the Lake district and many other parts of the country benefit hugely from tourism and support a huge range of jobs, but it is true to say that the impact of tourism comes with a cost, and it is right that that cost is met by a fair and proportionate levy on the people who benefit. With that, local areas will see the benefit and the investment that will follow.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I must admit that I am really puzzled by the Minister’s statement. The visitor levy is not going to be ringfenced for tourism, so how does he know that it will go to its intended destination? The levy will not be capped. We normally tax things to stop people doing them, not to encourage them to do more of them. What evidence can he offer to demonstrate that this measure will bring growth, as he says? What work have the Government actually done to prepare for this measure? How will they know whether hospitality businesses—let us face it, they are already collapsing in their droves following decisions that the Government have already taken—will survive yet another tax being imposed on them?

[Jim McMahon]

As I have set out, it is for local areas to decide whether this is right for their place. Importantly, on whether this is a new tax, every tax is of course a tax, but the question is: where is the accountability and where does that money go? Our mayors and foundation authorities will be required to set out in consultation how much they want to raise and for that to be proportionate to their local area, and to do an impact assessment of the proposed levy and, importantly, set out where the money will be invested.

In relation to places without a levy, just think about who pays for the impact of tourism, who puts on the events and performances that bring people into the local area, and what is the wider experience? I went away to North Yorkshire in the summer, and my experience was not just the accommodation we stayed in, but visiting the local village and the local town, and driving around the local area. We need to think about the visitor experience, which is wider than just the accommodation where people stay, because it is the place where they go.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I represent a seaside constituency in Bournemouth West, and the vast majority of my hoteliers are supportive of an overnight levy, in part because Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has axed its stand-alone tourism department, and because we get 10 million visitors every summer and no increase in resources to deal with that. In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned that most other G7 and European nations have some sort of overnight levy, and people who have travelled in Europe are really used to that. Can he tell us what lessons the Government have taken from such experiences overseas?

[Jim McMahon]

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. We need to start rebuilding them, and this may be one way of doing so.

On the lessons learned, places may approach this with a flat rate, so no matter where people go, everyone will pay £5, or whatever. However, we believe that at its core this has to be fair and proportionate, so we ask ourselves, “Why should somebody visiting a guest house in Blackpool pay a flat fee in the way somebody visiting the Ritz here in London would?” That is not fair or proportionate, but a percentage rate is.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us try Andrew Snowden, who represents a nearby constituency.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. First we had a jobs tax that reduced the number of jobs in the economy, then we had a schools tax that reduced the number of children in independent schools, and then we had a farm tax that reduced the number of family farms. Given that correlation, have the Minister and the Government learned anything from this socialist tax-addicted way in which they are governing the country, and will the tourism tax do anything other than reduce tourism?

[Jim McMahon]

Taxes were high at almost every turn under the previous Government, but people could not see the benefits of where that tax was going. People desperately want the country to turn a corner, with the investment we collectively make through the taxes we pay—at national level, regional level or local level through our councils—ultimately meaning that the places we care about are improved as a result, and this is one way to do that.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that local communities get to decide whether to introduce this levy—that is a key part of devolution—but I am concerned about the pressures already on the hospitality and tourism sector, which is a very important part of my Brighton Kemptown constituency. We have already seen the closure of two iconic LGBTQ bars—the Charles Street Tap and the R-Bar on the seafront—and, frankly, I am worried that more face closure. Will the Minister reassure me about the action the Government are taking to support the sector? Would he also consider taking a trip to the seaside with the Secretary of State to meet local businesses and people in the local hospitality sector and to hear what more this Government can do?

[Jim McMahon]

This is definitely the benefit of a wider ministerial brief: I do not just get to go to bus councils; I also get invited to seaside towns, which is good news.

On the pressure issues, I do not think anybody underestimates just how difficult it is for those in hospitality and leisure at the moment—these are not good times—but surely the way to grow is to invest in that experience so that more people want to come to our towns, our cities and our seaside communities. We believe that growing that base and creating demand through collectively improving such experiences will create a more sustainable visitor experience.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Tourists visiting Torbay already pay double the rate of VAT compared with those visiting Italy, France or Spain. The reality is that a cost of living crisis is just the wrong time to implement a tourism tax. Can the Minister please share what investigations he has made of the impact of the tourism tax, but also assure us that Airbnb operators will also pay their fair share?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member raises two important points. On the first, the local impact assessment, this will be a devolved power, so it will be down to the mayoral or foundation authorities, as part of the consultation, to undertake an impact assessment at a local level, which will of course weigh up both the concerns and the benefits of this new levy. On the second point about levelling the playing field, which he makes very fairly, we could not have allowed a situation in which our guest houses and hotels are undercut by Airbnbs that are not included in the scheme. So this will apply right across the board, including to temporary or short-term lets, such as Airbnb and others.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the visitor levy and the investment it will bring to London’s visitor economy. Has the Minister been listening to London Councils, which wants 50% of the money raised in each borough to return to that borough, so that businesses know it is going back to the things that they want, such as cleaning Putney High Street?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just help Members who have been here a long time? Looking at the Minister is not how we do it; questions to the Minister must go through the Chair, because that is how we try to keep a balance. Some Members have only been here a few years, I know, but please try to make this work.

[Jim McMahon]

We have designed the policy to allow as much local flexibility as possible. That recognises that the approach in different places will require flexibility to take into account local circumstances. In practice, that means it will be for local areas, including London, to decide how they invest the money that comes through the system. However, our expectation is that there will be partnership and collaboration between local government and our regional mayors, where they exist, and with councils that are members of foundation authorities in other places.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

If the hoteliers of Bournemouth are gagging to pay this tax, I can assure the Minister that those in hospitality in the New Forest are not. The Minister said that everybody will be a winner, but how can he possibly know when he cannot tell us how much the tax will be or where it will be levied?

[Jim McMahon]

Because here I am setting out the principle and the framework. Instinctively, the framework is that if we grow and invest in greater footfall, in a better visitor experience and in putting on events and activities that draw people in, accommodation operators benefit from increased footfall and overnight stays. If we stay as we are, some areas will really struggle to see the investment to enable growth to take place, so some places in the country may say they want to go further with the levy, and I think it is right that the Government, as part of our devolution ambitions, allow local places to make that call for their areas.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recognise the pressure that people in the hospitality sector in York are under, but they are very clear that the levies raised in York must stay in York—not move into wider North Yorkshire. Will the Minister ensure that the levy is hypothecated to the place where it is raised, so it can be invested in the tourism industry and ensure that wider services are there to support hospitality and tourism, as opposed to in other locations?

[Jim McMahon]

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 only reflection I would make—this is a personal view, because another area may approach it very differently—is that when we think about the tourism economy in Greater Manchester, where I am from, everyone thinks about how successful the city centre of Manchester is or about the rolling hills of Saddleworth and our villages and how beautiful the Pennine belt is. A visitor will pass Oldham in going to those two areas, and I think we should ask what we are doing to invest in the whole, so the whole experience right across our region sees the benefits. Again, however, these are local decisions.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Great news, Mr Speaker: the Reform Mayors of Hull and East Yorkshire and of Greater Lincolnshire have confirmed that there will be no dreadful tourist tax in their respective areas. Therefore, holidaymakers should come to these great areas to save money. Given that many areas will refuse to impose this ludicrous tax, can the Minister guarantee that he and the Government will not be tempted to impose a tourist tax nationally?

[Jim McMahon]

In a way, the hon. Gentleman embraces devolution. It is for local leaders to make the call for their areas and to present their record to the public, and it works both ways. If mayors and foundation authorities want to introduce the levy, they will need to make the case for it, and the success of that will need to be presented to the public when they come to vote. That is direct accountability. Equally, if authorities decide not to introduce the levy but tourism stagnates and they are unable to improve the visitor experience, they will be accountable. It works both ways.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Oxford is a great place to visit, and I hope that many Members will enjoy coming to my great city. Many tourists agree with me, and £1 in every £6 spent in the city centre is spent by a visitor. However, many local residents and businesses, while they welcome tourism, do recognise that it causes additional costs. They have told me that they want to see a levy, which would improve the local environment for tourists and local people. Will the Minister move ahead and persuade Oxfordshire county council to back a mayoral strategic authority, so that we can get on with it?

[Jim McMahon]

Our devolution programme is ambitious, and we want to see devolution do two things: widen across the country—I welcome my right hon. Friend’s championing of a mayor for her region—and deepen, to make sure that when mayors are in place, they have the tools and levers to get the job done. We are absolutely up for having local conversations to progress devolution.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

As you are well aware, Mr Speaker, 5 million people visit the beautiful East Yorkshire coastline every year, so any tourism tax would have a devastating effect on the local economy. The Minister says that he has developed a framework and that there is more work to do. Where there are larger mayoral areas—for example, my area of Hull and East Yorkshire—can he guarantee that any money raised in towns such as Bridlington or Hornsea will be spent there, rather than in a larger conurbation such as the city of Hull, and will he ensure that is the national framework for any mayor who wishes to introduce a tourist tax?

[Jim McMahon]

It sounds like there is no intention to introduce an overnight visitor levy in that area for the foreseeable future. [Interruption.] Well, who knows? There may well be a change of heart in the future.

In the spirit of devolution, I do not think it is right for a Government to impose terms and conditions in a way that prevents local authorities from doing what they instinctively believe is right for their area. But equally, they will have to present their plans through the consultation, they will have to do the impact assessment, and they will need to get local agreement. Surely the best democratic accountability framework is holding elections, and the thing about mayors is that they are directly elected and accountable to the voting public.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. As a Cornish MP, I am incredibly proud that this Government were elected on a platform of devolution. That means trusting the decisions of local authorities to raise an overnight levy or not. I appreciate that the Opposition parties do not trust their local authorities, but no one is forcing local authorities to raise the levy. Does the Minister agree that fiscal devolution is an essential aspect of moving powers and funding out of this place and directly into the hands of local people?

[Jim McMahon]

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. Because of the representations that he and others have made, we have included foundation strategic authorities, so a mayor is not needed to introduce the levy. I think the wider growing-out of fiscal devolution is really exciting. We cannot have devolution if local authorities do not have the resources to get things done in their areas. Business rates retention, income tax retention and the overnight visitor levy are the first steps in that package of fiscal devolution that we have been waiting quite a long time for.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Stratford-upon-Avon is one of the country’s most important visitor destinations. It attracts millions of visitors each year, supporting local businesses, theatres, heritage attractions and jobs across my constituency. The all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, of which I am a member, heard evidence that a 5% visitor levy could reduce tourism spending and employment. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future levy is subject to meaningful consultation with the sector and local residents, and to the transparent ringfencing of revenues for investment in our local area?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. The APPG has spent time diligently going through the arguments for and against the levy, and examining what the benefits might be. Many local authorities see the levy as a big prize, because they will be able to invest back into the local economy. I would be pleased to receive any evidence that has been gathered through the APPG.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I welcome this step towards devolution, but York and North Yorkshire is a huge mayoral authority. In order for my constituents to feel the difference, we must ensure that money generated in Scarborough and Whitby is spent locally, not in the city of York. Will the Minister consider what he can do to ensure that locally generated revenue benefits the communities that produce it?

[Jim McMahon]

Mr Speaker, you know full well that it takes a brave Lancashire soul to interfere in Yorkshire politics, but surely it is in the spirit of devolution that it will be for local areas to decide. As I said, I spent the summer near Richmond, in north Yorkshire, and had a fantastic experience. Thinking about access to public transport and the wider visitor experience, there is no part of the country that would not benefit from more investment.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I think the Government’s plans for a tourist tax will be terrible for the visitor economy, terrible for jobs and terrible for spend on the high street. The Minister thinks it will be great. We can clear this up if the Minister will include in his visitor economy growth strategy a full analysis of his plans and publish it before he brings in his detrimental tourist tax.

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting ahead of the review that he has just asked for and predetermining that the levy is somehow not a positive measure. Because this is a framework and is about devolved powers, clearly the impact assessment has to be done in areas where the levy has been introduced. Until we know where it has been introduced, we cannot do a national assessment of the impact.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The Edinburgh festival fringe in my constituency is a world-class tourist attraction—I know that the House understands this, because I bumped into about half of my fellow Members in August. Edinburgh is the third biggest ticketed event in the world after the FIFA world cup and the Olympics. This summer, Edinburgh became the first place in the UK to implement a city-wide visitor levy of 5%, which will raise £50 million to invest in the local economy, benefiting tourists and locals. Despite its implementation, we saw ticket sales increase by 8% this year. It is still a work in progress, but will the Minister meet me and officials from Edinburgh to understand our learning from the visitor levy? We are happy to invite any sceptics as well.

[Jim McMahon]

I would be pleased to do that. In a sense, what my hon. Friend says stands in stark contrast to what we have heard from the Opposition. In Manchester, where there is a voluntary scheme through the business improvement district, there is agreement that if we have money to invest in the visitor experience and in putting on events that draw in even greater footfall, everyone benefits in the end. I would be very happy to receive the evidence base that he talks about.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Those working in hospitality across Yeovil have told me that a tourism tax will impact jobs, growth and our high streets. We want to encourage tourism in our area, not decrease it. What steps is the Minister taking to strengthen support for rural hospitality, and will he meet me and representatives of the sector to talk about how we can boost tourism in rural Somerset? We need a commitment that local residents and businesses will be consulted before any decision is made.

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman says that this measure will impact on jobs, growth and high streets. We believe it will do so in a positive way, because if we create more demand by increasing footfall through better investment and an improved visitor experience, that will create more jobs and more growth. If we have money to invest in our places, particularly our town centres and high streets, that will be better not just for visitors but for the people who live there. This policy cannot be seen in isolation; think about the millions of pounds that has been spent on Pride in Place and our future high streets fund, and there is more investment to come. We are reinvesting back into many parts of the country that have been neglected.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was going to start by making a joke about always being picked last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you have ruined it by picking me early on—thank you for that. I will try it anyway.

I am used to getting picked last in this place, but I was picked first when the new Prime Minister visited Harlow and my local pub. There, he had the opportunity to talk to Mr McMullen, the head of McMullen’s breweries, who said that this Government are doing more to support the pub trade than the previous one did. To change the subject, though, may I ask the Minister about how this tourist levy has been put in place in other G7 countries—where it has been very successful—and what he has learned from other countries?

[Jim McMahon]

As Members will know from their summer holidays in America, Europe or almost anywhere else in the world, some form of local sales tax or visitor overnight accommodation levy is generally accepted as part and parcel of going away. The difference here, I suppose, is that we did not believe that a flat rate would be fair or proportionate, for the reasons I have set out. A visitor levy has to be in line with the overnight rate that people are paying, to ensure low-cost family accommodation remains as such.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If the New Forest and the Waterside were forced into a unitary authority dominated by Southampton and Eastleigh, what chance would there be of local authorities looking after the interests of rural areas?

[Jim McMahon]

In the right hon. Gentleman’s case, this will be led by the mayoral strategic authority. It will be for that authority to do the consultations, carry out the impact assessment and, importantly, decide on the investment plan.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Southall Broadway attracts wedding shoppers from across the globe, so local businesses welcome the overnight visitor levy as a great opportunity to get investment in the town centre. However, unlike other mayoral areas, London is not a combined authority. What can the Minister do to ensure that is reflected in the design of the levy in London, so that the mayor and London boroughs can jointly shape how it operates, and places such as Southall do not lose out because they are in London?

[Jim McMahon]

We accept that the London devolution settlement is different from the settlement elsewhere in England, because of the relationship between the mayor with executive powers and the Greater London Authority as a directly elected body. However, there is an expectation that all partners—including local authorities, the GLA and the mayor—will work together in partnership on this and other measures.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Nine years ago, when I was the tourism Minister, I resisted the English holiday tax. What concerns me now for Salisbury—where people like Brian Currie are investing millions of pounds in the Cathedral hotel—is the impact that tax will have on domestic tourists. People in this country who cannot afford to go abroad will now be burdened with additional costs to have a few days away in England. Has the Minister understood the distribution of the burden of this tax and the impact it will have on people in this country?

[Jim McMahon]

The right hon. Member is making the case for the importance of the percentage rate approach. It is fair to say that large parts of our tourism economy provide a low-cost but good-quality family experience, and with a percentage rate those businesses will pay proportionately less than hotels in the capital, which is right and proper. It will also be a requirement that all areas carry out an impact assessment to understand the impact on their local economies and present where the investment will go afterwards.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Any devolution of powers, investment or fiscal policy down to Cornwall is welcome. That is why I am pleased our Government are progressing to give us the power to raise a visitor levy, whether or not Cornwall council chooses to utilise it. As the Minister might expect, however, from a Member who represents an area with a significant visitor economy, my expectation is that that money should be invested not only well but to support the common goods on which businesses in that sector and the communities they operate in rely. Can the Minister assure me that the manner in which the levy will be raised will be flexible, so that local leaders can use it in a way that is appropriate to the area and the money does not recycle back into Cornwall council’s pot?

[Jim McMahon]

I think that is the key. Some of the tensions in the Chamber are the result of parliamentarians wanting to know the full detail as it will apply across the country, but that is not devolution. Devolution means allowing local flexibility and allowing local leaders to make choices in the way that my hon. Friend has set out.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Several times, the Minister has referenced other European countries having a tourist tax, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) highlighted, those countries have much lower tax rates for hospitality overall. Will the Minister commit to reducing VAT on hospitality? Secondly, on the tourist tax, will he clarify whether the levy will be listed separately to the price of the room, so that those who use those facilities have clarity and transparency?

[Jim McMahon]

We are still working through the detail of the collection and reporting processes. Part of that consideration will be the presentation on bills, although let us not forget the 20% business rates support we are introducing for pubs and live music venues, which is the first step in supporting hospitality in the round.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Beaudesert outdoor activity centre in Cannock Wood, which welcomes 50,000 young people a year—including scouts, guides and school groups—and gives them memories to last a lifetime. It is a charity; it keeps charges low, and it worries about anything that could make its offer cost-prohibitive to cash-strapped groups. Given this Government’s commitment to expanding life chances and experiences for young people, will the Minister consider exempting groups of under-18s, to ensure that those valuable experiences do not become less affordable for them?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend raises a fair point, and one that I will take away.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am sure that many of my constituents considering a UK break will look to Cambridgeshire, where the always fiscally sound Conservative mayor Paul Bristow has made it clear that now is not the time for such a tax. However, hospitality businesses across the rest of the country will be frightened by this measure—we already have two pubs closing a day, and businesses are struggling to get by under this Government’s tax burden. How low does tourism in this country have to dip, or how many businesses have to go bust, before the Treasury tells this Minister that this tourist levy must go?

[Jim McMahon]

In the spirit of devolution, if a mayor believes that not introducing a visitor levy is the right decision for their area, the Government will support that. To be clear, though, the last Conservative Government was not a good period for our pubs and hospitality businesses—pubs in our communities, town centres and city centres closed at a rate of knots. We are trying to say that that decline is not inevitable, and that Government working in partnership with our regions and councils can begin to turn that around.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Every year, millions of people travel through Hillingdon, to visit the country or the city of London or go to Heathrow, and stay at hotels near the airport. That creates real costs for local communities—policing, street cleaning and transport impacts—and addressing those threats to the tourist economy requires funding. As such, I support this measure, but can the Minister assure me that those issues that are often locally driven and funded will also get support in a mayoral-led system?

[Jim McMahon]

It will be for local areas to determine how they frame both the levy and the investment. In the case of London, the mayor will be working with the GLA. There is an expectation that councils will be collaborated with and that there will be some agreement on how that might work in practice, but as I say, it is for local areas to work through that detail.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

We now have a Minister for euphemism. Let us be clear: this is not a visitor levy, but a tax on tourism. It is a tax on the staycation, a tax on hospitality, a tax on the family holiday, a tax on hospitality jobs, a tax on mobility, and—the worst sin of all—a tax on Shropshire. Shropshire tourism rejects this tax whenever it might come, directly or indirectly. Is this not another example of this Government being addicted to raising taxes?

[Jim McMahon]

The only things we are determined to do are to ensure that devolution means something—that local leaders must be given the tools they need to do the job at a local level—and not to accept that the decline of our towns, cities and rural communities is inevitable after our experience under the previous Government. We think there is a different way.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Many people visit Derbyshire because it has beautiful scenery and a fascinating history, but those visitors do place a strain on our infrastructure, which is why I think it is reasonable that we explore whether we continue to ask local people to foot the bill for that. However, I recently visited Drum Hill scout camp in my constituency, which welcomes many thousands of young people from quite far afield to learn fantastic life skills, and I have also engaged with organisations that provide respite holidays for disabled people. I know that local leaders can decide how to implement the legislation locally, but can we put an exception for those kinds of groups on the face of the Bill?

[Jim McMahon]

As I said in response to a similar question, my hon. Friend makes a fair point about that type of accommodation, and I reflect on the work of Claire Ward as the Mayor of the East Midlands. There is a lot of focus now on creating good jobs, and for that to be in a spirit of devolution, with mayors wanting more control of what happens in their areas. This measure, alongside business rate retention and income tax retention, is beginning to address that balance.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

In Cambridgeshire, the Conservative Mayor Paul Bristow, decided not to implement this tourism tax. That is incredibly important, because we have recently adopted the local visitor economy partnership as we seek to make gains from the creation of Universal Studios just down the road. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is looking to bring in an LVEP in Bedfordshire, too. Why does the Minister think that a tax like this would benefit somewhere like Cambridge, when we clearly do not think that it will? What else is he doing to support communities such as mine in Huntingdon, where we are looking to build a visitor economy to take advantage of the opportunities that Universal Studios can bring?

[Jim McMahon]

This Government have given support to Universal Studios, because of the economic benefit that will bring. It will also be a nice thing for visitors from across the country to be able to go there and enjoy that. It will have a wider impact on the local economy that will benefit hospitality, leisure and accommodation providers. In response to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about place-based investment, this Government have an ambition to ensure that every town centre and every high street realises its full potential. That needs investment, too, and he will see that not just in his place, but right across the country.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

As the proud Member of Parliament for Heywood and Middleton North in Greater Manchester, I, too, want to see the prosperity of the centre flow out into towns like mine, which are just as deserving of economic development and cultural regeneration. Does the Minister agree that extending further revenue-raising powers to our mayors will accelerate the regeneration that we need to see in our constituencies, just as much as in the city centre?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her place, and she also recognises that within our city regions, as much as everywhere else, every community has a role to play. She will know the work done by the fantastic Middleton Arena. With more investment and more footfall, all our places—whether Middleton, Oldham or Greater Manchester more widely—can do even more.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I have sat through several evidence sessions on this visitor levy, and I have yet to hear any operator in the sector say that they support it, so I do not understand to whom the Minister has been talking. A caravan park operator said that if numbers go down in the off-season, they will only be able to be open in the high season, which has a knock-on effect on jobs, the local pub and the local café. It has a ripple effect across the local economy. The Minister talks about growth, and we need growth in the sector, because young people primarily are employed in hospitality. Such jobs are vital for young people. Can he tell me in what world he sees the tourism and hospitality industry growing under this visitor levy?

[Jim McMahon]

For the reasons I have stated many times before, if we invest in and grow our tourism and hospitality economy, that will generate more footfall, people will enjoy their stay more, and that will create more jobs, including for young people.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Whether it is parents requiring a hotel stay while their four-month-old daughter has neurosurgery, or a new mother requiring a hotel stay to recover from a pulmonary embolism, in both those cases a tax would be incurred for a stay they wish they did not have to do. Those are not hypothetical examples; I was both. Will the Minister please mandate from the Dispatch Box that anyone seeking medical treatment for themselves or their children—sometimes that can be months at a time at Great Ormond Street—will not have such a tax imposed on them and their families?

[Jim McMahon]

I can certainly commit to look into it and to respond to the hon. Member in writing.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Businesses in Devon have told me of their concern about this proposed visitor levy, including Littlecourt Cottages in Sidmouth. They point out that the tourist footfall might decrease, not just for the cottages, but for the restaurants, the attractions and the shops in the local area. This tax has been dreamed up on the basis of what it will do for cities that see a higher proportion of wealthy overseas visitors, has it not?

[Jim McMahon]

Of course it has not. First, devolution will be rolled out across the whole country, and significant rural areas are already covered by mayoral strategic authorities. That roll-out will include foundation strategic authorities, which covers places such as Cornwall. As part of the next stage of devolution, we are seeing a grow-out across the south of England and the east of England that will see more coverage. Fundamentally, it is for local leaders and local mayors to get together and work out what is right for their area.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

At the weekend, I had the pleasure of joining Cleveland scouts and seeing at first hand the fantastic work that scouting does to give young people confidence, practical skills, friendships and opportunities they might not otherwise have. Can the Minister reassure those young people and their families that this Government are not seriously proposing to tax a scout for pitching a tent? Can he confirm that scout camps and other charitable youth residentials will be exempt from his holiday tax?

[Jim McMahon]

That question is in line with a number of other questions that have been asked about youth experience accommodation. I have committed to go away and look at that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Many of my constituents in Strangford and people across Northern Ireland travel to the United Kingdom for a home-based holiday. The weather is almost as good as it is in the Mediterranean. They pay for their flights or they take their vehicles on the ferry, already paying a high fee to support tourism in the United Kingdom. Why should my constituents—British constituents—be penalised twice for supporting and buying into a British holiday? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those in Northern Ireland are not discouraged from contributing to having a home-based holiday in England?

[Jim McMahon]

Everybody will pay the levy, and they will benefit from the improved experience, not only in the immediate area, but in the types of events and activities that might draw in people. Where local leaders decide that the levy is right for their places, we believe that people will enjoy the wider benefits.

Fiscal Devolution in England

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

England is an international outlier in the extent to which decisions are taken centrally, and at the same time has experienced some of the highest levels of regional inequality in the developed world. We believe the two are linked. Too many decisions have been made in Whitehall, far away from the reality of life across the country, and disconnected from the impact of those decisions. These have often not reflected the needs of places and communities across the country.

To change this, the Government have embarked on an ambitious agenda of devolving powers to local leaders with a new assumption of devolution by default. The Government devolution agenda will shift power closer to local communities, with decisions taken by democratically elected mayors and local leaders who understand their areas best.

The landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 introduced reforms to give local leaders clearer powers, greater responsibility and stronger accountability so that decisions affecting places can be taken closer to the communities they affect. These reforms support the Government's wider rewiring the state programme, which seeks to shift power, funding and accountability away from Whitehall and into the hands of local leaders. The Act’s aim is to reverse the centralisation of decision-making which has held our country back for too long and to boost economic growth, strengthen public services, and restore public trust in politics.

For mayors and other local leaders to take greater responsibility for driving growth and improving life in their areas, they must also have greater control over local investment. Giving mayors and other local leaders greater power over tax revenue is a vital step in helping them drive investment and good growth in their areas.

That is why today, MHCLG and HMT have published the Government response to the overnight visitor levy in England consultation. The consultation closed earlier this year, and since then we have continued to engage with mayors, local leaders and stakeholders from the visitor economy to strike the balance between a simple deliverable levy for industry and one which empowers mayors and local leaders to raise revenue for investment in their area.

England is home to some of the world's most iconic visitor destinations, from its vibrant cities, breathtaking countryside and national parks, to historic seaside towns along its spectacular coastline. The visitor economy supports millions of jobs, enriches communities, and enhances the quality of life for millions of people. Yet there are few local levers available to help destinations invest in and sustain this vital industry.

A visitor levy will enable mayors and other local leaders in England to choose to use a proportionate contribution from visitors to the region to reinvest in the local area. It is a major step in giving local leaders greater control over the decisions and funding that affect their areas, putting new powers over locally raised revenue into their hands for the first time in decades. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify the projects and infrastructure that drive growth and make a place attractive for visitors and residents. Local leaders know their local history, local culture, the unique attributes of their places that draw visitors in, and what challenges local areas face. Along with our plans to devolve a portion of income tax and enable mayors to retain some of the business rates generated in their areas, the visitor levy represents our commitment to creating a more accountable state, responsible to local people. This is about giving places the tools they need to drive good growth, in every part of the country.

Giving local leaders in England the power to introduce a visitor levy in their area will bring them in line with Scotland and Wales, as well as local authorities across France and international cities like New York and Amsterdam. We want to provide mayors and other local leaders with a fiscal tool that they can choose to use. We understand that a visitor levy on overnight stays will not necessarily be right for every place, and so the choice of whether to introduce it will be for mayors and other local leaders to take. That ultimately is at the heart of this devolution programme.

To develop the details of the visitor levy we have engaged extensively with the public, accommodation providers, charities and local leaders. In our consultation we tested views on the levy supporting local economic growth, including through strengthening the visitor economy. Our decisions reflect this wide-ranging engagement.

The visitor levy will be set as a percentage of the accommodation cost, ensuring that charges are proportionate to the price of the stay. A percentage rate model helps ensure that the levy is affordable and will mean a stay at a budget friendly hotel or guest house would attract a lower visitor levy than a luxury five-star hotel in London.

All mayoral strategic authorities and foundation strategic authorities will have overnight visitor levy powers. This recognises their role in driving local growth and ensures this fiscal power is available across England, to be used for unlocking stalled investment, improving infrastructure and delivering good growth across the country. The levy will enable mayors and other local leaders to invest revenues in support of the visitor economy, experience and important local priorities.

It will be for mayors and other local leaders to decide if the visitor levy is the right decision for their areas, following a consultation. The Government will provide non-statutory guidance to support those leaders who are considering introducing a visitor levy. Mayors will be able to set out their spending plans by March 2028.

[HCWS330]

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to support high streets in Putney.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

To help restore high streets across the country, we have announced measures to tackle organised crime, cut business rates for pubs and stop the spread of vape shops and gambling outlets. Later this year, we will publish a high streets strategy setting out a longer-term plan for bringing life back into our town centres.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome all those on the Front Bench to their places, and I welcome back the Secretary of State. I thank the Minister for meeting me to talk about Putney high street. We love our high street in Putney; we want to see it thrive even more, and especially to open up empty shops. Will the Minister give hope to every high street by reviewing and reducing business rates, and by making the high street rental auction zone policy work more effectively by cutting unnecessary red tape and providing councils with the financial support they need to bring vacant properties up to a lettable standard?

[Jim McMahon]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing Putney and her high street, and for attending the roundtable. Councils need both the tools and the support to bring vacant properties back into use, which is why we introduced high street rental actions. To make powers as straightforward as possible, we have published guidance and templates and established a dedicated support mechanism for local authorities. We are reviewing new burdens funding to ensure councils are appropriately resourced, and have announced £10 million to tackle long-term vacancies and bring empty units back into productive use. On business rates, this Government are committed to reforming the system to create a fairer approach that fully supports investments and high streets such as my hon. Friend’s.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What support her Department is providing to councils to help them use their housing revenue account to build council houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Last week, police and Trading Standards carried out co-ordinated visits, led by our local police officer, to retail premises on Fleet Road over suspected criminality, which is of increasing concern to me and my constituents. How is the Minister working cross-departmentally with the Home Office to keep our high streets safe and lawful?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

The hon. Member highlights an issue affecting many town centres and high streets, which is that, for far too long, organised criminal gangs have been acting in plain sight and getting away with it, but now they have a Government who are ready to take them on.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

T5. The inspection by the BBA—the British Board of Agrément—at Goodrich Mews in Dudley confirmed that the retaining wall installed by the Keller Phi Group will not have met the criteria that must be met if it is to have the stated service life, and it needs emergency repair. The Keller Phi Group has absolved itself of any responsibility, leaving residents with a dangerously collapsing wall. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can hold such companies to account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Empty shops that are rundown because of absentee landlords are a blight on our town centres, but Labour-run Erewash borough council is fixing the problem through clean-up orders, such as the one served to the Burton building in Long Eaton—as soon as it was renovated, new businesses moved right in—but clean-up orders can be very time-consuming, so what more can the Government do to tackle absentee landlords and bring shops back into use?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work championing his high street. The Government have allocated £24.8 million to the Long Eaton town deal, which is funding high street redevelopment projects such as public realm improvements. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Last week, at the successful Reform conference, I launched a series of bold planning proposals that will make it easier to regenerate our town centres and easier to build on brownfield sites, by making it cheaper and faster to get planning consents. Will the Secretary of State consider those proposals? They have been well-received by the industry. I urge her to consult and to meet me.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I welcome the £14 million of funding released this month to create opportunities for young people in my constituency. The money will train them in jobs for construction in net zero sectors. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach that the Government have taken to empowering and funding local stakeholders to grow local economies should be adopted by the SNP Scottish Government?

[Jim McMahon]

Since summer ’25, the Department has been working in partnership with the offices and partners in each nation to deliver the local growth fund in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are committed to ensuring that funding is spent on projects that really matter to local people. It is really important that every arm of Government, regardless of where it is in the UK, drives down on that investment so that local people feel empowered in the places where they live.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council’s debt—[Interruption.] Listen. The debt now sits at £620.1 million, up from £585 million last year, and £36,000 a day is paid in interest. The previous Government issued a best value notice to ensure that the debt was reduced, but this Government scrapped it. Why are the Government so unwilling to take the Liberal Democrat council to task for ripping off my constituents?

[Jim McMahon]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we do not shy away from intervention when it is required. We also think that the Government ought to work in partnership with local government and that councils, where they need support, find a partner in central Government. He can be absolutely sure that, when it comes to value for taxpayers’ money and holding the sector to account, the right checks and balances are finally in place.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s plans to deepen devolution, but can the Minister reassure me that they will mean no alteration to the commitment to a Cambridge development corporation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister meet me and the leader of City of York council? The fair funding formula is not working for our city because it does not use the lower-tier data with regard to the indices of deprivation, meaning that we are the worst-funded local authority. Can we have that meeting?

[Jim McMahon]

I am very happy to do so.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Despite swift action from Dacorum council to tackle a 6-acre unauthorised development in the Chilterns landscape, it had to choose between occupation and restoration, as tackling both would potentially have dragged the case out for years. What are the Government doing to help councils with powers to ensure that these cases can be tackled sooner?

Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to hear the debate and the passion that Members have for their areas. I quite liked the county competition for the most beautiful part of England, but I am sure that we can agree that England is magnificent coast to coast, and we should all celebrate that.

I will respond to the debate in due course, but I want to start by laying out some of the differences. We are using common language for things that are very different; I think that we are conflating devolution and the powers that will be devolved with the fair funding review and the funding that goes to local authorities. In some cases, there is no clarity on what a regional authority will do to the local authority and community governance, whether that is neighbourhood governance or town and parish councils. In this debate, it has become one and the same. I do not criticise that, and I recognise why that happens. We are all here to represent places and not units of government, so we care about whether our communities are getting the resources needed.

[Perran Moon]

On that specific point, part of the reason why there is a conflation of devolution and the local government funding settlement is that, because our local councils in some areas are so deprived of funding, they have to get funding from something like a visitor levy, which would not typically be allocated for that, in order to supplement the services they need to provide. That is potentially why there is a mix-up of views about devolution and the local government settlement. Does the Minister recognise that point?

[Jim McMahon]

In a sense, I recognise that there will be differences of opinion, depending on which local authority and what part of the country Members represent, about whether the fair funding review fully picks up all the particular circumstances. There might be more agreement on the sufficiency of local government finance. Whatever the allocation across the board, the fair funding review is intended to distribute it in the fairest possible way and in a transparent way, so that Members and councillors can see where the money is going to.

Since coming to power, the Labour Government have delivered long-overdue reforms to council funding through the first multi-year local government settlement in a decade. In doing so, we have delivered transformational changes to how councils are funded, which the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We have delivered on our commitment to give councils greater certainty and flexibility over their funding, ensuring that resources are fairly aligned to local need and simplifying the funding landscape by ending wasteful competitive bidding, which we all recognise pits one area against another.

The Government also have a very important role to play as an equaliser for local government income. During the course of the debate, I heard references to the amount of grant that individual councils get, and one grant total being compared with another. I want to be clear that the fair funding review is not intended to give every council the same central Government grant. That grant is intended to act as an equaliser for the system, so that in the end all councils have the resources to deliver the public service need in their local areas, while recognising that there are wide differences in England in the local tax bases of council tax and business rates.

As a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed relative need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up by about a third before the reforms. We recognise the different drivers in demand for services, the cost of providing them in different places and the different abilities of areas to raise council tax. We are therefore making funding available in such a way as to enable all local authorities to provide the same level of services to their residents.

For rural communities, the 2026-27 settlement was a key step in delivering a fairer system to address the issues that matter to local communities across England. It included recognising local circumstances, including differences in the cost of delivering services between rural and urban areas, and using the best available and most up-to-date data, including the latest indices of multiple deprivation to ensure that deprivation in rural areas is captured accurately. I will explain a bit more on that.

I heard references to the fair funding review not taking account of the differential cost of delivering services in rural areas. To be clear, we account for rural costs through the area cost adjustment, which is applied to all formulas. That adjustment captures the variation in wages, property rates, journey times, and a range of other factors that pick up the local variation that takes place. On top of that, we have a remoteness adjustment in social care. I hear representations that say, “Hang on. If it costs more to deliver adult social care in these areas, then surely children’s services and other services such as waste collection and other things ought to be included, too.” The area cost adjustment picks up that general difference of delivering a service in those areas. There is a balance here. We want a simplified system that can be scrutinised and understood. The more we adapt and change and really drill down on that, the more complicated it becomes, the more it has to be updated and the more that changes. There is always a balance to be had between simplicity, being understood and giving certainty over the multi-year settlement, while recognising the differences at a local level.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister says there is an area cost adjustment, and yet the leader of Devon county council says that Devon lost £14 million because of the rural services delivery grant, which was removed. How can those two things be true? If a grant that takes account of the fact that it is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area is removed and the council is £14 million short, the extra cost of rural services delivery has not been recognised.

[Jim McMahon]

We have always taken the view that the rural services delivery grant had, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base to support it. A political decision was made when the coalition Government came in and the grant that was given to largely urban authorities was taken away with almost no notice at all. It was replaced by the rural services delivery grant, but without the evidence base to support where it went to. Whatever criticism is applied to the fair funding review, what cannot be criticised is the evidence base that sits beneath it, because it is the best available data.

We are laying the foundations for reform more broadly. The multi-year local government finance settlement allows for £4.6 billion of additional funding to be available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. The Government are driving the biggest transformation in children’s social care in a generation, with the families first partnership programme backed by nearly £3 billion of investment over four years, including a historic £2.4 billion over the multi-year settlement. That will support local authorities, police and health partners to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision to early intervention and prevention services.

The Government recognise that the current SEND system is not working for families, children or local authorities, and we have set out plans to reform it, backed by £4 billion of investment over three years, to deliver expertise without the need for statutory processes and embed new practice into the system. We have also heard calls for a solution to SEND deficits. All local authorities with a deficit will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related deficit. The grant is projected to be worth more than £5 billion nationally, and is subject to each local authority submitting and securing approval for a local SEND reform plan.

We recognise the spending pressures from home-to-school transport in recent years, particularly in rural areas. At the fair funding review, we introduced a bespoke home-to-school transport formula that estimates local transport need for pre-16 home-to-school transport, based on pupil numbers and home-to-school distances. Furthermore, following consultation on the design of the formula, the Government increased the distance cap to 50 miles, rather than the originally proposed 20 miles. That change will see only 0.4% of pupil journey distances capped and will avoid unfairly penalising local authorities where children travel further to get to school.

We know that the cost of living and homelessness services are causing challenges too, and that homelessness can present in a unique way in rural areas. That is why we are providing more than £4 billion of funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including £442 million launched last month, with new flexibility for areas to shape services to meet local need.

The Government are committed to making the changes necessary to transform public services and put local government back on its feet. Realigning funding with need and reforming the services that put pressure on local government will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities in rural areas and right across the country, as we have promised.

Devolution is a live issue for Cornish colleagues and those from other places. I give credit to Members for their representations on behalf of Cornwall and other areas. The truth is that devolution can happen only with local consent. We need areas to come forward, get local partnerships in place, and rally the support of local authorities. At a time of change in local government, when areas are also dealing with local government reorganisation, there is a lot for them to step up to. That is why we have provided support for local government reorganisation areas, as I covered in another Westminster Hall debate this week.

We want devolution to be rolled out to every area, but we recognise that the local partnerships in different areas are at different stages. There is an active discussion, which we should welcome, about what the role of community and neighbourhoods ought to be in the new settlement—devolution should go hand in hand with localism and empowerment—what the role of the local authority is, and what added value above and beyond that can be achieved if areas choose a mayoral model. To be clear, if an area is not ready yet for a mayoral model, the position is not that they cannot have devolution and that more cannot be given. I hope Members and people in local government continue to do what they have always done: rally their local areas.

Restoring Pride in High Streets

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

The condition of high streets, and the health of district, town and city centres, is a litmus test for national renewal. High streets bring people together to eat and drink, shop, access services, explore culture and heritage, or spend time with friends and family. They root a community and when thriving offer pride and quality of life for local people. The high street has a vital role anchoring communities in shared experience and physical togetherness, as well as supporting jobs and local economic growth.

For too long, though, communities have watched their high streets decline around them, with boarded-up shops, vape shops, and rogue businesses replacing the local services people rely on, and gambling businesses disproportionately found in the most deprived areas. This makes high streets unattractive to visit and undesirable to invest in, fuelling a spiral of decline.

This decline is not inevitable, nor is fixing these problems outside our control. Better living standards, mixed-use adaptation, raising the bar on quality, and businesses having breathing space are fundamental to reviving high streets. But giving local people a say over the composition and care of their high street, and clamping down on exploitation, can make a vital contribution now and in the future.

This Government are determined to restore pride in our high streets, support legitimate businesses, and give local people a stronger say over what happens in their town centres. That is why we have announced a package of measures to put power back in the hands of local communities, so that they can shape the future of their own high streets.

First, the Government intend to consult on changes to the planning system to account specifically for the rise in vape shops and adult gaming centres, and provide more control at a local level over the number of these opening on our high streets. At present, vape shops sit within the same broad planning use class as shops, cafés and financial services (class E). Changes of use within this use class do not require a planning application. Adult gaming centres are also not clearly defined in the use classes order. This can leave local communities feeling powerless when new premises open in inappropriate locations, including near schools, or where there is already a concentration of similar premises.

Subject to consultation, the Government intend to make vape shops and adult gaming centres standalone planning categories, or what is known as sui generis uses, in planning terms. This would mean a planning application would be required when the use of the land or building changed to that of either a vape shop or an adult gaming centre, where the change amounts to a material change of use. This would give local planning authorities and communities a proper opportunity to consider whether they are appropriate in that location. The consultation will also test how a vape shop should be defined to ensure a wide definition that does not incentivise businesses to try to avoid the rules by presenting themselves as convenience stores, and captures various uses of shops, where the main aim is to sell vaping products.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will also consult on removing the aim to permit rule in the Gambling Act 2005. This rule currently requires licensing authorities to approach gambling premises applications on the basis that they should generally be permitted where the relevant requirements are met. The Government recognise that regulated, responsible gambling businesses make an economic contribution and offer spaces for people to socialise and have fun. However, many councils, MPs and residents have raised concerns about the clustering of gambling premises, particularly adult gaming centres, on high streets, especially in areas already facing economic and social challenges, and too often local authorities seeking to prevent new openings have found their decisions overturned after a costly legal challenge.

Removing the aim to permit rule will build upon the introduction of gambling impact assessments earlier this year, empowering councils to take local concerns into account when considering applications for new gambling premises. This is not about a blanket ban. It is about giving communities and their locally elected representatives a fairer say over whether additional gambling premises are right for their area.

The Government will also take action to strengthen enforcement against rogue businesses linked to organised crime or serious nuisance. Following a targeted consultation earlier this year, we intend to double the maximum length of closure orders from six months to 12 months. This will give police and local authorities more time to investigate premises, pursue prosecutions, and prevent criminal operators from reopening before investigations are complete. Tackling high-street dodgy shops remains a priority for the Government, and this effort is underpinned by £30 million over three years. The new cross-departmental high street organised crime unit in the Home Office is working at pace with national and local partners to ensure a more robust, co-ordinated response to the problem.

Finally, we will work with councils to improve the appearance and design of high streets. Poor-quality shopfronts, oversized signage and unsympathetic alterations can undermine the character and attractiveness of town centres. Over the next six months, the Planning Advisory Service will identify good practice and provide practical support to councils on improving shopfronts, signs and the overall look and feel of local high streets.

These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to restore high streets and shift power out of Westminster and back into the hands of local communities. We will set out further detail on our long-term comprehensive approach through the high streets strategy later this year.

[HCWS302]

Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

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.

[Sam Carling]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating all Cambridgeshire and Peterborough councils on the collaborative way in which they have worked together on this process? Despite coming up with different options that they may or may not back, they have remained in a position where they have been taking to each other throughout. Those dialogues have been ongoing and I think that is something to be commended.

[Jim McMahon]

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.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Should the Government choose an option that sees the Huntingdonshire area split in two between two unitary authorities, what additional support will be given to fully disaggregate the district council’s responsibilities, given the complexity involved? Could the Minister also offer any clarity on local services? For example, the boundary would go in between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, which are separated only by a small bridge—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Jim McMahon]

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.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the reflections of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). It is in the nature of this place that, when called to rise to the moment, the House does so. I think that that has been reflected across the Chamber today.

We often say that we should be more like Jo; it has become part of our common exchanges. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that I would like to be a bit more like Kim. She stewarded a very testing private Member’s Bill on a matter that was so profound and made us all think about those final moments when our time comes to an end, and she created a safe political space for all views on such a sensitive issue to be reflected. She does not just say the words; she embodies them. I really appreciate that and thank my hon. Friend for it.

Jo’s words really matter to us because they challenge us to be better. All of us come into politics because we have a desire to change the bit of the world we care about and feel connected to—our community, our town, our borough, our city—which we know can be so much better and often feel is held back from realising its potential. We come here to try to make a difference. This is a fairly odd place, let us be honest, with its quirk and its custom, and I think at times we do not always credit ourselves for the amount of work that goes on cross-party, when we pull together. That common interest—Members of all parties really care about and, I would say, love the place they represent—drives most of us in politics. Perhaps if we displayed that a bit more, we would build more trust in politics and its ability to make a difference. Jo’s words, that

“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

are not just an anchor; they must be a challenge to all of us.

Sometimes we can meet that challenge through small acts of kindness such as saying hello to somebody walking down the corridor; they do not always have to be big gestures. If somebody is sitting at a table in the Tea Room by themselves, we should pull up a chair and join them. If a Member is feeling under pressure in their constituency—we all feel that, and try to get through it and keep our own house in order—reaching out to them and saying, “Do you know what, I saw what was going on in your town or city and I was thinking about you” goes a long way in recognising that we are not isolated. When we come down here to London, many of us are away from our support networks: our families who love us are not there when we go back to our accommodation at night. The people we rely on are generally the people in this place and sometimes that bit of decency means a great deal.

When I eventually move on to a different place, I will reflect on my time in Parliament. Of course I will think—hopefully—about the big things that I was able to achieve with the special privilege of being an MP, but I will also reflect on those small moments of kindness that made me realise why I got into politics to begin with. I think we can all do those things a bit more.

I came into Parliament on a by-election. By-elections are, as a number of Members will know, very weird things. You are caught in the storm of the noise of hundreds of thousands of people descending on your town—my thoughts are with the people of Makerfield at this time. I was going to say that it is a circus, but that does not quite do it justice. It is inspiring that so many people rally to get you over the line, but of course you soon realise that you were a mere legal necessity—a name required on the ballot paper. You arrive here among your new friends, and you wonder where your locker is, how to get your IT to work and so on. Jo was one of a number of people who reached out to me as a by-election candidate. She invited me to the party on the houseboat to make me feel a part of the 2015 intake. That is who she was. She did not know me any more than anybody else did in this place. I had not met her before, but she made an effort to reach out. I cannot say just how much that meant to me, when I came here. I see friends in the Chamber who did the same and I hope they feel that at times I have repaid that. Being a good person in this place goes a long way.

The reason why “more in common” strikes a note today is that it should endure. It feels self-evident: of course, we have more in common. Whatever troubles we have in our country, in the place we call home, our futures are bound together. What else have we got in common if not that shared endeavour and the future for ourselves and our families? In politics, that feels more contested today than it has ever been before. That is not because we have less in common, but because a lot of the political debate is consumed by what differences there are and what divides us. Too often, our politics encourages us to see what separates us before we see what binds us together. At times, those who take a different view are treated as not simply having a different perspective, experience, or background—simply coming at an issue from a different way—but as wrong and somehow lesser.

Jo understood that politics involved disagreement. She would never have pretended that there were not difficult issues to confront, but she also understood that words matter, and that those in positions of influence have a responsibility not merely to represent divisions in society but to lead people through them. Many Members in this place, as well as our mayors and our councillors, will have experiences that illustrate just how toxic parts of our political environment have become.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I am sorry not to have known Jo, because she seems like someone who I would have got on incredibly well with. I am delighted that I have got to know her sister, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and that we have worked cross-party on a number of issues. I know that Jo would have campaigned on similar issues, such as violence against women and girls. Recently, we had some awful protests in Epsom; they were about women’s safety, but they were hijacked by the far-right. Rather than being peaceful, the protests were violent and protesters attacked a property that housed vulnerable adults. They were trying to find immigrants. Does the hon. Member agree that today more than ever we must come together? As he mentioned, we need to discuss and debate the differences that we have, and if we protest we must do so peacefully, because we absolutely do have more in common than that which divides us.

[Jim McMahon]

I will come on to social media and the way that division is amplified and monetised, and how bad behaviour is often rewarded more than being a good citizen in that debate.

I am proud of our country and believe that the vast majority in this country are decent, hard-working people who want the best for themselves and their neighbours, whatever their background, race or religion. However, we have to look in the mirror collectively, as a country, and ask what has taken us to the point where an attack that all of us see as horrific, which has played out in Belfast over the last couple of days, could in any way justify the scenes of a family—women and children—running away from their house, which has been left in flames and smoke. That is where division has got us. How can we find ourselves in a situation where a woman fleeing war in Ukraine who has been homed in Belfast, finds her house being attacked, while violent protesters are egged on from Russia?

We have to reflect on the fact that cohesion does not happen by accident. People do not come together unless there is leadership that brings them together. Maybe we all need to be a bit more determined in calling out what is in plain sight. We must also accept that it has been a characteristic of politics in Britain since the EU referendum. At that moment, something changed. Being online has of course made it worse; the way that those divisions are exploited, and how extremism now has a platform that it did not have in the mainstream before, is all part of that.

I am not convinced that mainstream politics is adequately responding to the scale of the challenge that is in front of us. I do not feel that we have the regulations. At some point—my god!—Ofcom might realise that it is a regulator, and then who knows what it could achieve. We must ask whether the architecture is in place to deal with the scale of the challenge.

As we see homes set on fire, businesses damaged and people attacked, I would say that this is a national emergency. In a civil emergency, we would respond as a nation and a Government in a more determined way than we have seen. I fear that the power being held by a handful of very wealthy, powerful, connected individuals, who control our social media in the way that the old media was controlled by the wealthy and powerful for vested interests, is almost placing the Government into a position of fear—fear of the response if they take action. These things are not easy, but taking no action —or cautious action—is not rising to the challenge ahead.

I have three reflections on where we find ourselves. First, every elected representative has a responsibility not just to challenge views they disagree with but to build bridges across political differences and seek common ground wherever it can be found. We are elected to represent whole communities, not factions of communities. We should lead by example in the tone we set, the respect we show, and the openness with which we are willing to engage. That is not always easy—political disagreements are deeply felt—but little can be achieved without it.

Secondly, I continue to believe—although this is tested on a regular basis—that social media can be a force for good. It offers opportunities to connect people, to learn to organise, and to bring people together around shared interests and common causes. In fact, we all use it in this House—there is no one here who is not on one social media platform or another for those reasons. I do not begin by looking at social media from a point of cynicism about the technology itself. We have got to be honest about social media’s flaws, however, because too often the incentives that are built into platforms reward outrage over understanding, division over dialogue, and conflict over compromise. In many respects, previous generations could have barely understood the scale and pace of that, but the Government have to recognise and step up to the scale of the challenge.

Thirdly, we have to address the underlying tensions that drive fear, anxiety and anger. Where people feel insecure in their jobs, worried about their family’s future, unable to access housing, or disconnected from the opportunities available elsewhere, those concerns cannot simply be dismissed or ignored. We must respond with great urgency to the conditions that people feel, particularly when they say that they are unheard and feel left behind.

Alongside all that, we have to recognise that social cohesion is not a passive state. It does not happen by accident. It requires effort, compromise, and a willingness to listen, understand and sometimes disagree without condemning, rather than everything being a culture war or about identity, where the winners of the argument are those who can shout loudest, not those who can convince. That was the lesson that Jo Cox tried to teach us, and it remains as important today as when she first said it.

For some, those concerns might sound abstract. Quite often, we talk around the houses about social media regulation and its impact, but in a town such as Oldham, where we are now 25 years on from the Oldham riots, we know the cost when communities are torn apart and division is normalised. We know the cost when people live completely separate lives, not interacting in communities, the education system, the housing system or even in the economy; where the opportunities to meet people from a different background are the exception, not the rule; where people self-select to live a separate life, because it is easier and maybe more secure than making the effort to reach out and build bridges across different communities.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

To highlight the hon. Gentleman’s point, after the murder of Mr Nowak, Tommy Robinson said:

“The whole system is set against white people. And it must be smashed!”

In recent days, Musk has reposted messages claiming that the British Prime Minister hates white people and “millions must go”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is the language of incitement to hatred and violence, and that wherever it is possible for our law to reach, the Government and law enforcement agencies must tackle that behaviour with the strongest force of the law?

[Jim McMahon]

It is clear that extremists will capitalise on the anxiety, fear and frustration that people feel in the country, and on the everyday problems they face. People are facing difficult circumstances now when trying to get a house that is affordable and secure, keep a job that can provide a good standard of living for themselves and their family, and feel safe in the community they call home where they are raising their kids—those are real issues that people face—and it is the oldest trick in the book to blame thy neighbour rather than the real cause of the problem.

I remember doing a kind of test at secondary school— I am not sure whether this is still done—in which the classroom was divided by the eye colour of the children in the class, with the blue-eyed kids on one side and the brown-eyed kids on the other. I was on the side with the blue eyes. We were given a handful of sweets to share among ourselves—a much bigger group of kids—while the brown-eyed kids were given a big bowl of sweets. There was more than enough for everybody in that group—they were stuffing their face and enjoying themselves. Within seconds, we had stopped looking at where the bigger bowl of sweets had gone and started squabbling among ourselves over the few sweets left on the table. Of course, the message was that when people are left to fight for scarce resource, they fight the person nearest to them, who is trying to fight for the same resource; the lesson was to look where the resource had been taken before it got anywhere near our table.

I say that because in a town like Oldham, people from every background are working hard, but there are not enough sweets to go around the community to give people a good standard of living and to make them feel safe in the communities where they live. I hear it from the white community and I hear it from the Muslim community. I hear it from people from every background, because we are all part of the same place, with the same hopes, fears and concerns about the future. It poses a real question for the Government about the economy and the fact that the wealth that we are creating is not being fairly distributed among society. The workers who are creating that wealth are fighting for scarce resource in a society that is, frankly, still setting working people against other working people.

The fact that race, religion or however many generations someone happens to have been British are dividing lines in an argument makes me really fearful. When it comes to matters of asylum and refugees, my town has a strong history of supporting people fleeing persecution. I have always thought that when looking into the eyes of a child in such a situation, we must think to ourselves: there but for the grace of God go I. If that was my child, what would I want as a response to protect the child I love? I expect our country to provide what it would for my child for children who are fleeing war.

Let us be honest, though: our asylum and immigration system is not working for people who are fleeing war and persecution any more than it is for anybody else. We have to get a grip of the system. It can be a bit too easy in politics to talk firm without outlining what is fair. We need to make sure that there is balance and equity in that debate. If we do not, those divisions will be exploited.

Oldham has had to literally rebuild itself and its community from the ashes of riots in which the town set itself on fire. Looking at our history, I think we can be a bit too complacent in our assumption that the malign forces might suddenly go away and we can regulate the online world better and sort out the algorithms.

By the way, we should not allow Members of Parliament to be paid by platforms for their insightful posts. Parliamentarians should, of course, post on social media, but they should post in the public interest. They should not be doing so for the financial kickback they get. I do not know whether this is the case, but they certainly should not be using paid parliamentary staff to post content online in order, ultimately, to get paid a fee through the back door on these platforms. We should all be driven by public service and by wanting to represent our constituents.

What we learned in Oldham was that every politician in every party has to take responsibility. It is the one thing that I feel we have lost in some of this debate.

I also want to reflect on David Amess. We are here reflecting on a decade passing since Jo passed away, but many of us were also affected by David being killed in his advice surgery.

My final words are not for the people in this Chamber—we speak about ourselves quite a lot. Instead, I want to thank the families of Members of Parliament for allowing their loved ones to serve in politics. I am sure that when Members set off on a Monday morning to head to this place, or when they go out on a Thursday or Friday or on the weekend in their constituencies, there will be times when their family members wonder whether the person they love will return. Our politics have to be better than that, but we should not underestimate what families who support MPs offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the Minister, who knew Jo very well—much better than I did. We experience that loss deeply, but I am heartened by the work that my hon. Friend and others across this House, including in other parties, continue to do in Jo’s memory.

We must never forget that Jo was murdered by a far-right terrorist who believed in white supremacy and was obsessed with fascist and far-right groups. She was a target because she stood for everything that the far-right hates: community, understanding, compassion, love. The sad truth is that there is more anger, hostility and hate a decade on in our country. There is more disinformation, more lies, more racism, more misogyny and more hate. There are more people making money from sowing discord—monetised hatred made possible by social media algorithms and pernicious AI fakery. Deepfake content and disinformation are infecting our online space and spilling over into hate, hostility and violence on our streets. Online hate, with its real-life consequences, has cost us dearly.

[Jim McMahon]

In her parliamentary career, my hon. Friend has dealt with a lot of hostility and a lot of hostile actions from malign forces, and she has always risen above it. However, she should not have had to—the system should have been there to step in and intervene sooner. We talk about social media on one side, but we also need to reflect on the police. Police forces in different parts of the country approach this very differently, but I think there are two main issues. First, does my hon. Friend agree that they just think that this is all politics and they just accept it as par for the course, when it ought not to be? Secondly, they have not quite understood that online is on-street too, and that these are same people, creating the same content and making the same threats.

[Rushanara Ali]

What my hon. Friend says highlights the fact that when some of us entered politics—I did so in 2010—we were outliers in the hostility and harassment that parliamentarians and candidates experienced. Sadly, that is becoming increasingly mainstream. My hon. Friend has also experienced threats and intimidation. It is staggering that our system is still not fit enough to deal with those threats systematically.

One of my greatest fears is that, despite the tragedy of what has happened, lessons have not been learnt fast enough. If they had, perhaps we would not have seen further fatalities and the loss of another dear colleague, Sir David Amess. I, and I know others, do not want to see the day when yet another elected representative—a Member serving our public—finds themselves under attack. Too many have been under attack.

We must redouble our efforts to protect our democracy, and that means protecting those who stand for public office. Too many are being put off. Too many—particularly women and particularly those of colour—are being targeted and being driven from the public square and out of frontline politics because the price paid for being in politics has become increasingly difficult and costly. It is costly when it takes the form of losing our colleagues. Frankly, in the 21st century, in this democracy, I never thought that would happen.

I never thought that, and I do not think any others who came into politics at that time could have imagined a situation where our politics could have descended into the spectre of losing a dear colleague from our party and then, again, another colleague from the Conservative party. And we must not forget the far-right extremist, radicalised on the internet, who attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) in 2010. Thankfully, he survived and is providing a great service to our nation as a Minister, but that should have raised the alarm bells then, because a number of us were on that person’s target list.

As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) mentioned, in the past we have seen assassinations in our country. Now, however, the online space is creating an even greater threat. That is why we must ensure that Members of Parliament do not have to live with the fear of threats against their families, those who are close to them and their staff. Too many mistakes have been made, and we must ensure that we really do learn from them if we are to protect our democracy.

Representation of the People Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.”

When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation.

To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2017, I was fortunate enough to be selected in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, and Oldham Youth Council asked that it be about votes at 16. They have seen votes at 16 go from being a campaign to being in a manifesto and, today, to being in a Bill on the Floor of the House. If they saw this coming in a manifesto, why did the right hon. Gentleman not?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers.

Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech.

I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right?

I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought.

It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill.

Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.

Local Government Finance

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight how we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we have tried to take account of that need. That is why we are including a journey times adjustment in our assessment of cost for all services. We are also increasing the cap in the home-to-school transport formula from 20 miles to 50 miles, in recognition of the fact that the original distance cap would penalise local authorities that have no choice but to place children further from home. We are also including a remoteness adjustment in the adult social care formula to address the point that he mentions. Overall, the point cannot be made enough that we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we all need to take account of that.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The fair funding review is significant. It is the first multi-year settlement for a decade, and the first real attempt at fairly distributing resources based on need, cost and the ability to raise revenue locally. It represents a serious piece of work by decent public servants, and I pay tribute to the finance team in my hon. Friend’s Department. The consultation asked councils to make their case for adjustments. London councils asked for housing to be included in the measure of deprivation, and we can see that in some of the changes that have been made, but that sees a significant shift towards London. The recovery grant has made a significant difference and I am pleased to see it continue, but it shows that fundamentally the formula is not yet picking up the real cost pressures being felt by local government as a result of the previous Government.

Much has been said about council tax, but the inequality goes much further, as the Minister knows: our car parking income is £2 million, but Westminster city council alone generates £90 million. That is more than the entire recovery grant for Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield and Leeds combined, so there are much wider structural issues that need to be addressed. My hon. Friend will also know that, despite best endeavours, councils will still find this settlement very challenging and that bigger reforms are needed, so can she make the case—I know she will—to her colleagues in the Treasury that, if the Government want the benefit to be felt on every street in every community, in the end local government will need more money put into the pot more generally?

[Alison McGovern]

First, I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this. I might be putting the ball in the net today, but he was the midfielder who created the goal. It is his work to reconnect deprivation and council funding that we are delivering today, and I pay massive tribute to him. He asked whether we might go further to persuade our Treasury colleagues to invest in local government. I think that the best way to do that—I will welcome his support in this—is to show the results that councils get when they are properly invested in. We see that nowhere more than in his home city region of Greater Manchester and his council of Oldham, which show time and again that they provide value for money and they are growing our economy.