John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to throw something else at the debate around the insurance issue. Many say, “You should be covered by insurance.” My phone was stolen last November. It was classic: I got bumped into in a big crowd and did not realise. I then recognised the theft and did “find my phone”. It was in north London, so I contacted the police, but they do not investigate after an hour because they say it is gone. I said, “I have the personal numbers of the whole of the Cabinet there, so that might cause a bit of a problem.” I then claimed on the household insurance and was covered, but then the insurance company would not renew my cover. That just adds to the problems all the way through. Everyone seems to be making a profit out of it, apart from us.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I have an awful lot of affection for the hon. Member. Is there any difference between this speech and the one that was made in Westminster Hall? As it does not look as though there is, he might as well just send us the tape of the last one.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  It is certainly not an argument that the Resolution Foundation would have put forward when the Minister was director of it.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for this campaign. Reference has been made to the manifesto in 2019. She and I wrote that section. We worked with WASPI and all the campaigns and with Lord Bryn Davies. We, in the modern language, “co-produced” a scheme at that point. We looked at how much these women had lost—how much they had been robbed—which was about £200 million, and they asked for 25% back, just a quarter. It was expensive—of course it was—but there was a window of opportunity because we said that we would borrow that and pay it out over a five-year period. At that point in time, interest rates were so low, and in fact some went into negative interest rates, that we could afford it. We have lost that window of opportunity, and I am angry that that happened. I am angry because I do not know any MP, exactly as has been said, who was not photographed behind a poster supporting the campaign. I pay tribute to the campaign. A lot of those ladies have been patronised over the years. It was a terrific campaign. In fact, it was so terrific that under this Government, it would most probably be proscribed, but there we are. We all recognise now that there is an injustice—we all accept that. We all know that the DWP operated essentially a sexist policy; it admits that now. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said it is a matter of principle. I do not think it is a matter of principle; it is a matter of hard cash as well, because large numbers of people are still suffering poverty as a result of what has gone on. All I want is a fair settlement, and that is all they are asking for. They are not going away—well, some of them have, because they have died—and this campaign is not going away. We will not let it go away until we get justice for these women. What the ombudsperson has done is put the matter back to this House. We in this House should be demanding that this House determines the scheme itself and is allowed to vote on that scheme. A Budget is coming up in November. A number of us will not support that Budget unless there is something in it for these women. Why should we? Why should we let this go on for another year, while people suffer and the injustice goes unremedied? I am angry about this. All the promises given over the years have been reneged on and dishonoured. That is not the way we should act as representatives of our communities. I want to be able to go back and say, “At least now the Government are going to offer you negotiations; then, they will report to the House and let the House determine the nature of the scheme.” I want that done within months, not allowed to drag on for years while people suffer in poverty, or lose their lives or their hope of compensation. Let us make this commitment today. To be honest, I do not expect the Minister to say much today, other than what has been regurgitated year after year, but let us, as an assembly, make that commitment today. Let us say that we will keep coming back over the coming months until we secure that commitment from the Government. I would like it to be a cross-party commitment which all the Front Benchers sign up to, so that we can have some confidence that it will be delivered. Like the WASPI women, I have had enough—enough of these debates, enough of promises not delivered, enough of watching the suffering that women in all our communities have had to endure because of this injustice and inequity.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review · Hansard source

  More

  The substation is located in my constituency and I was there on the day the incident happened. It was a massive fire and 200 of my constituents were evacuated from their homes during the night, and there was smoke flowing down the street. It could have been a much bigger disaster had it not been for the courageous firefighters who went on to the site, the help they got from the council, the back-up services and the NHS. I place on record the House’s congratulations to them and our admiration for what they did. My constituents want to be reassured, but the report demonstrates a catalogue of failure. The problem was identified in 2018—we are now seven years on. I welcome the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) back to her place, but sleep deprivation can affect the memory: her party was in Government for most of that period. I am worried that sites like this could be easily targeted by terrorist activity, so we need a process of reassurance. The recommendations set out in the review, about what we do from here to ensure resilience, have to take into account that the Government have a role in driving through the programme. We have to recognise that we cannot rely on some of the other agencies without a real Government thrust of leadership, but also securing accountability, because I do not want other areas to experience what we experienced that night.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  It is, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me explain. I want to know whether, if this order goes through and I go out to the demonstration that is mobilising at the moment to say that I am opposed to this, I will be prosecuted.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to come in so early in the Minister’s peroration, but we have limited time. Can I have the assurance, on the concession given this evening with regard to the Timms review, that its outcome and recommendations will be in primary legislation, not delegated legislation?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Briefly, to those who are saying that our attitude is, “We’ll debate the issues, but we’ll send the Bill off to the other place, for it to do our job,” I say that is not what I am here for. I believe that we are here to debate this Bill. In fact, I want to abolish the other place. Ten years ago, when the issue was debated before—I could not give my speech but my position was repeated by many Members—I agreed with assisted dying in principle, but thought that we did not have the safeguards available. However, today I will support the Bill, because measures relating to many of the issues raised in that debate have been built into this Bill—measures on how the assessments would be done, and measures to ensure that the panel includes psychiatrists, clinicians and others. Ten years ago, I did not argue for a judicial review, as I do not have the confidence in the judiciary that some hon. Members have. I wanted more experts, but at that time, the experts were split. They have always been split on the issue, and there will never be unanimity across the professions on the subject. One issue to which I have paid careful attention was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft). May I just say that I am so proud that she resigned over the benefits cuts? I know how difficult that was for her; she was my Whip—she was the nicest Whip I have ever had. She is right that the majority of the disability organisations—particularly the campaigning ones—are opposed to the legislation. That is why I tried to ensure that some of the issues that they have raised have been translated into the Bill. It was a huge breakthrough for this House to build in the disability advisory group, with representatives from a whole range of disability groups—including, I hope, Disabled People Against the Cuts, the radical group—that will advise on the implementation of the Bill. Another issue raised was about whether the NHS is ready for the legislation. As I said 10 years ago, it will take years to build up that capacity, which is why the four-year implementation schedule is so important to me. The choice is not between palliative care and assisted dying. We want the opportunity to have good palliative care. One of my closest friends died two weeks ago in Hillingdon hospital, and I want to thank the staff for the palliative care that they gave him so wonderfully. At the same time, I know others who have suffered greatly and wanted to go, but what have they been forced to do? Hide away the drugs over a period of time, send their families away, and then take the drugs and die a lonely death. Recently, another person starved themselves to death because there was no other option. I cannot stand by and allow that to happen any more. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said that what is most important at the end of life is control, but it is also dignity. Through this legislation, I want to provide that dignity for those who have decided that the time has come.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to once again raise the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British-Egyptian citizen who is still imprisoned in Egypt. His mother has been on hunger strike for a long time now; she is in St Thomas’ hospital, and her health is deteriorating. I ask those on the Treasury Bench now to take a message back to the Prime Minister that we need to do everything we possibly can to secure Alaa’s release, because I fear that we may well lose his mother, Laila Soueif. One initiative that could be tried again is a joint approach between our Prime Minister and President Macron to President Sisi to urge Alaa’s release. I think we are in a dangerous moment. The Government have undertaken a number of actions; the Prime Minister committed to doing all in his power, and he has approached President Sisi. However, I just feel we need to make at least another last attempt, both to secure the release of Alaa and to secure the life of his mother.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Briefly, I would like to express my support for new clause 11. I declare my interest, as I am chair of the RMT parliamentary group and this issue is part of our campaigning, particularly given the rising number of assaults on bus drivers at the moment. I also express my support for new clause 13, and congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on her determined campaign on the joint enterprise initiative. Of course, I also support new clause 50, which deals with the right to protest, and who could not support new clause 122 after the speeches we have heard from Labour Members today? I want to raise an anomaly that has arisen in debates about terrorism legislation since 2020. I do not want to go into too much technical detail, but basically, section 69(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020 gave the Crown Prosecution Service the power to allege a terrorist connection “if the offence…(a) is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism, or (b) is committed for the purposes of terrorism.” The implementation of that legislation meant that if an offence was determined to have a terrorist connection, the sentences became aggravated and harsher restrictions were imposed, both within prison and on release. I believe that had cross-party support—there was no problem with it. However, in 2021, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act came along. The powers in the Sentencing Act related to schedule 1 offences such as murder, kidnapping and hijacking—things that we would naturally consider to be terrorism. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act extended the use of that definition to an offence that is “punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years”. By moving away from a schedule of offences, almost any offence before the Crown court meeting that definition was brought into consideration. For example, protest cases involving damages of more than £5,000 became interpreted as terrorist-connected cases. When we have had discussions about terrorism, we have always had problems with definition. Lord Carlile did a report for us way back in 2007, and he said that jury trial is one of the guards that can assist in protecting us from the misinterpretation of the range of definition. He said that “jury trial provides an important protection against prosecutions the public find unreasonable or arbitrary.” The problem is that the use of this section of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 does not involve juries. Such things are not brought before a jury; it is applied only by the judge at sentencing. As a result, we have found that since late 2024, the provisions in the 2021 Act have been deployed for the first time against protesters. Someone who has possibly committed criminal damage, aggravated burglary or, yes, violent disorder in a protest activity now finds themselves with a terrorist connection allegation. That will never be brought before a jury, because it will be applied only at sentencing. Amnesty International has expressed its concern about direct action protests being subject to the UK’s overly broad definition of terrorism laws, which are “open to misuse and abuse”. Four UN rapporteurs have expressed their concerns to the Government about the misuse of the terrorism legislation in this instance. They have said that the legislation is being used against political prisoners, which is raising concerns about the potential infringement of their fundamental rights. I raise that issue here because an increasing number of cases are being trapped by a misinterpretation of the legislation that we brought forward in 2020 and 2021. That is resulting, I think, in injustices and miscarriages of justice, an anomaly which we will have to address at some point if we do not address in this Bill, to correct a crucial misinterpretation of what this House intended back in 2021.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I tabled amendment 161 on public order issues and the policing of demonstrations. Before I get to that, I welcome the proposals in the Bill on fly-tipping, and I look forward to the guidance that will be issued to the various authorities to deal with it. I am attracted by the Opposition’s amendments on what is included in that guidance, largely because, like other Members, my constituency is plagued with fly-tipping. I seem to be followed by a mattress throughout my constituency in virtually every area I visit. I come to public order and my amendment, which I tabled to try to get on the record the reality of what is happening with the public order issue and demonstrations. In the explanatory notes, the Government have set out this argument: “The regular protests following the events in Israel and Gaza on 7 October 2023 highlighted gaps in public order legislation, principally the Public Order Acts 1986 and 2023.” They have therefore brought forward proposals in response to the policing challenges of such protests. Since 7 October, I have been on virtually every national demonstration in central London organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups. I understand the pressure on the police service; in fact, I have police constituents who have had their leave cancelled and all the rest because of the frequency of the protests, but that has largely been a response to the depth of concern about what is happening in Gaza. People have wanted to express their view, and one of the ways of doing that through our democratic system is to demonstrate and march and protest. All the demonstrations I have been on have been peaceful, good natured and—up until a few recent incidents—extremely well policed. In the explanatory notes, the Government set out that legislation is being brought forward in relation to three things, which I think we can all agree on. There is: “A new criminal offence of climbing on war memorials.” Secondly, there is “possession of a pyrotechnic article at a protest”, which is dangerous, anyway. The other is about concealing identity, although issues with that are referred to in other amendments, because that might well have an impact on the exercise of religious freedoms, particularly with regard to the veil and being able to dress. The Government do not cite in the explanatory notes the issue in clause 114 of restriction on protests at places of worship. In all the national demonstrations in London that have taken place, there has never been an incident outside a place of worship. Concerns have been expressed by some groups, but largely, I think, they have been by groups who have motivations other than concerns about public order. In the negotiations with the Metropolitan police on each demonstration that has taken place, there has been a long discussion in which the route is identified, and usually there is overall agreement to avoid any areas that could be seen as contentious and could provoke a reaction. Even when a place of worship, such as a synagogue, has been some distance from the demonstration, the organisers have tried to ensure not just proper stewarding, so that the demonstration does not go anywhere near it—usually, it has to be 10 or 15 minutes’ walking distance away—but that the times of services are avoided as well. Interestingly, until recently there had never been a problem, but the police seem to have hardened their attitude, I think as a result of coming under pressure from organisations that might simply not want the protest to go ahead in any form because they take a different attitude to what is happening in Gaza and Pakistan. [ Interruption. ] If the water the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is carrying is for me, I thank him.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Business without Debate · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I were called for interview by the Metropolitan police following our participation in a demonstration in January calling for peace and justice for the Palestinian people and an end to the genocide in Gaza. It was alleged that we failed to follow police restrictions on the protest. That is untrue, and at all times we followed police instructions. We can now report that the police have dropped the case against us and there will be no charges. The reason for this point of order is that in the correspondence to our solicitor Martin Howe, the Metropolitan police informed us that our case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service because, as MPs, we were to be held to have “a greater culpability”. This is an unacceptable practice that flies in the face of the principle that we are all equal before the law. I wish to place on record my concern about that behaviour by the Metropolitan police.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Covid: Fifth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The intervention on an intervention was definitely worth it. I will briefly raise another issue. One of the messages the clinicians wanted me to get across was exactly that: children have not been spared. Some of the research they have done, for example, indicates that covid doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in children as well. A recent study in America indicates that up to 20% of children at the moment are endangered and experiencing long covid symptoms. One of the other issues that came out of my discussions with the clinicians is that repeat infections are cumulative and dangerous, resulting in long covid that increases the risk of cardiovascular, neurological, gastrointestinal and endocrine diseases. These clinicians are trying to get across how challenging the situation is. The problem we have at the moment is that the Office for National Statistics’ covid infection survey has been shut down. I can understand the argument for doing so at the time, but the figure coming out of the recent GPs’ survey is that 3.2 million people are experiencing long covid at the moment—again, a staggering figure. A number of recommendations have been made, one of which is to restore national infection surveillance as quickly as possible. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has said, we should fund research and clinical services for long covid. We should implement public health mitigations to reduce infection, particularly in places such as hospitals, classrooms and so on. We benefit from air circulation in this building; others should as well. Finally, as my hon. Friend said, we should protect vulnerable populations—including children—from the chronic disability that covid can impose. I will circulate the briefing paper to all Members, and we can have another discussion at another time. I was hoping no one would turn up today and I would have longer for my speech.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Covid: Fifth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I have never seen an intervention on an intervention. I will follow on from that point. The clinicians are trying to get across to me that, as others have said, covid doubles the risk of a heart attack. We have seen heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and deep-vein thrombosis. In addition, the team is trying to get across the message that long covid is not simply fatigue. It is an umbrella term for a range of chronic, multi-system pathologies that have an effect. There is one issue that affects children in particular. The work of Dr Danielle Beckman has shown that covid breaches the blood-brain barrier. As a result, it infects the neurons and causes persistent brain inflammation, thereby imposing cognitive impediments.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Covid: Fifth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I will follow on from my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). I have been meeting a group of clinicians who approached me, led by Dr Rae Duncan, a consultant cardiologist and long-covid physician and researcher at Newcastle hospital. She has provided me with a detailed briefing note; the two-minute limit will not allow me to do any justice to it, so I will circulate it to hon. Members, but its message is very straightforward. The team want to get across the message that covid is not over. It is not seasonal, and it is not just a cold. It is a long-term, substantial and chronic burden.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Rosebank Oilfield · Hansard source

  More

  Have a good one, Mr Speaker! The big issues to consider in this decision-making process will be the economic and environmental impacts. As the Government develop their thinking, will they consider and report to the House on another issue? Ithaca is one of the companies seeking to benefit from the large profits from the Rosebank development. It is owned by Delek, an Israeli oil conglomerate that has been listed recently by the UN for human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not believe that our Government would want to be associated with a company like that, and many pension funds are now divesting from that company, too. Can we have a report as the Government’s thinking develops on that crucial matter?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Rosebank Oilfield · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps he plans to take in relation to the Rosebank oilfield.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced. What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built. Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result. With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford. Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there. Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess. New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally. For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.” In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.