To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.

Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Speech in Commons Chamber - Mon 29 Jun 2026
Asylum Accommodation

"As the Minister will know from past correspondence, I am asking for greater transparency about the criteria used to prioritise asylum hotel closures. I am still not clear about why the Victoria hotel in Chadderton, which was contacted by the Home Office five years ago without any consultation with local …..."
Jim McMahon - View Speech

View all Jim McMahon (LAB - Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) contributions to the debate on: Asylum Accommodation
Written Question
Multiple Occupation
Monday 29th June 2026

Asked by: Jim McMahon (Labour (Co-op) - Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton)

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of granting additional powers for planning authorities to control new House of Multiple Occupation conversions.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The government keeps the powers to regulate HMOs under review.

Between 16 December 2025 and 10 March 2026, we consulted on a new National Planning Policy Framework. The consultation on the revised framework, which can be found on gov.uk here, included proposals for a more flexible Article 4 policy so local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights where it is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area, for instance where there is an overconcentration of small Houses in Multiple Occupation.

We are currently analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course.

Written Question
Offences against Children: Prisoners' Release
Monday 29th June 2026

Asked by: Jim McMahon (Labour (Co-op) - Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that offenders convicted for offences related to child sexual exploitation and grooming are not considered for early release under the earned progression scheme.

Answered by Jake Richards - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The grooming gang scandal was one of the worst of our time, and this Government is determined to get to the truth behind years of systemic failure in the response to the appalling crimes which gang members committed. Prosecutions and convictions are now at their highest ever levels, and we have made grooming an aggravating factor so that the horrific impact of this offending on victims and survivors is recognised in sentencing.

Around 18,000 prisoners are entirely excluded from the release point changes being introduced by the Sentencing Act.

The changes to release points do not apply to Sentences for Offenders of Particular Concern (including rape or assault by penetration of a child under 13), Extended Determinate Sentences and Life sentences.

Speech in Commons Chamber - Wed 24 Jun 2026
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

"Food security is national security, and the effort that the Government have put into this report is very clear. As chair of the Co-operative party, I am pleased that page 27 has a commitment to co-operatives and mutuals as part of the answer to this country’s food security.

Does the …..."
Jim McMahon - View Speech

View all Jim McMahon (LAB - Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) contributions to the debate on: Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Division Vote (Commons)
24 Jun 2026 - Climate Change - View Vote Context
Jim McMahon (LAB) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 264 Labour Aye votes vs 1 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 332 Noes - 94
Division Vote (Commons)
24 Jun 2026 - Climate Change - View Vote Context
Jim McMahon (LAB) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 267 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 330 Noes - 93
Division Vote (Commons)
24 Jun 2026 - Climate Change - View Vote Context
Jim McMahon (LAB) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 261 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 329 Noes - 94
Division Vote (Commons)
24 Jun 2026 - Deferred Division - View Vote Context
Jim McMahon (LAB) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 315 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 323 Noes - 160
Division Vote (Commons)
24 Jun 2026 - Customs - View Vote Context
Jim McMahon (LAB) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 315 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 323 Noes - 160
Division Vote (Commons)
23 Jun 2026 - Puberty Blockers - View Vote Context
Jim McMahon (LAB) voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 270 Labour No votes vs 3 Labour Aye votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 112 Noes - 283