John McDonnell MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I want to get on record what has happened in my constituency, because I said to my constituents that I would. With the expansion of Heathrow airport, land prices have gone up. Manufacturers have moved to cheaper areas, often with grants, and in the former manufacturing areas, a large number of flats have been built. I would normally welcome that, but the prices of those flats are prohibitive for local people. However, a large number of young people—bless them—have done everything they can to raise the £300,000 or £350,000 needed to buy one of those small flats. They have new homes, and we have welcomed them into the community, but we are now getting a flood of constituents coming to see us because the increase in service charges has pushed them over the edge. In response to surveys, young people have explained in heartfelt terms, “We’ve not had a family because we can’t afford a family.” Some of them have tried to sell on, but some got a grant to buy their flat and have to pay it back, so they are caught in a Catch-22 situation. They say to me, “Here are the service charges, and this is what we get.” The service is absolutely appalling. We have had numerous examples of that. I understand the call for regulation and a regulator, and I agree with them, but the best form of regulation is to give ownership to the people living in the properties. My simple message to the Government is: please deliver the Law Commission’s remaining recommendations on enfranchising people to manage. Another issue that has come up time and again is developmental value. This is an issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has been campaigning since the early 2000s. It is ludicrous that people have to pay up front for a development that might never happen, and that might be costed by the freeholder. That prevents people from buying or selling on. The Law Commission has made a key recommendation on this point, and I urge the Government to act on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned that the threshold for participation in a move to commonhold is set at 50%. In other areas, that does not apply; for example, the threshold for tenant management organisations is 20%. We are now removing such onerous criteria from employment rights legislation, because they prevent participation. In areas like mine, a lot of properties are owned by overseas landlords, and it is very difficult to get them to participate in any way. The request is that we move the threshold to 35%; that is reasonable and manageable. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) that 40 years is too long to wait before changing the situation regarding ground rent. We will have the WASPI women banging on our door soon, won’t we? I know of no other issue on which there has been a 40-year notification period. The recommendation is to get it down to 20 years. I would get rid of ground rent now, because I think it is wealth extraction in return for no service whatsoever. Finally, I turn to the Government’s proposals for ensuring that lease extensions and freehold acquisitions are cheaper overall. Ultimately, they will benefit a large number of our constituents, but they need to be implemented as rapidly as possible, which is why I welcome the Bill. I hope that the new regime allows us to get this legislation through as fast as possible.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the frustration that we all have, and I want to live long enough to see Netanyahu before a criminal court. When we raise individual cases, it is frustrating to not know whether it will have any effect, but sometimes it can have the effect of letting people know that they are not forgotten. Part of the annexation of the west bank has been about the arrests of individuals, and one of them is Dr Mazen al-Rantisi, known as the doctor of the poor. Can I ask the Minister to raise his case with the Israelis? Could he also raise another case that we mentioned some time ago—that of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who has been in isolation for 500 days? If we could raise those cases, at least their families would know that they are not forgotten.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  The debate we have had so far highlights the issue at hand. This is an immense change to the way in which we will determine the delivery of drugs to the NHS, and one of my fears is that it will begin to weaken the existing controls. I think it politicises the process, because what will happen now is that Ministers will be able to determine the thresholds. In addition, I am concerned that decision making in the negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies has been transferred from NHS England to the Department itself. There will be real concerns that when we look for objective advice from NICE, the system that we have will now be politicised. I say to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that it behoves the Government to ensure that we have a proper debate on this issue. I welcome the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), because I find them interesting, just as I have found the contributions from Members across the House. The costs have been set out today, and there is a vast range of figures. This could be resolved if the Government just published the impact study that we have all been asking for. Members have emphasised that when No. 10 said very clearly that any additional costs would have to come from the NHS, we wanted to have a debate so that we could ask, “Where from? What areas of service will be reduced?”

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  That is an incredibly relevant point in this debate. Many of us have examples of that, which is why we need to have a wider debate about the supply of drugs, their effectiveness and how they are evaluated. I thought we had a relatively objective system, but the deal throws that objectivity into question. Figures on the scale of deaths have been bandied about. I want to hear the Government’s view and their proper analysis of that, because we have to engage with the reports from Karl Claxton, Andrew Hill and so forth, as others have mentioned. The justification for the Trump deal was that it would increase UK exports to the US and increase overall investment in drugs in this country. I have yet to see any published evidence of that; in fact, the Government have not brought forward any evidence. I also say to my hon. Friend the Minister, and this is political, that I remember the commitment given by the Prime Minister and the former Health Secretary that the NHS would not be on the table in any Trump deals. This deal does put it on the table, because it has consequences not just for the supply of drugs, but for investment in the NHS and decision making about what our constituents can access. It relates not only to what level of drugs they can access, but—if there are reductions in other expenditure—to whether they will get access to a GP or A&E, or get the care services for which we have been advocating for quite a while. I thank the people who have been providing us with briefings on this issue, such as Global Justice Now and Just Treatment, which I have worked with over the years. They want to engage in the debate with the Government and to bring their expertise to the table, so I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to bring in those organisations before we move forward with implementation. This is my worry and that of those I have worked with: Kamran Abbasi, the editor of The British Medical Journal , has said that the deal “will end up harming vulnerable people to boost the profits of already obscenely profitable drug companies.” I do not want to support a deal that does that.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Can I, through my hon. Friend, ask the Minister to look at the Heathrow statement, which seems not to align with the policies we are advocating today? Also, some of the factual evidence that has been produced as part of the impact studies that the Government have also published does not seem to be reflected in the statement accurately.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Human Rights: Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate, which is much needed. Also, it is not often that I thank an Everton supporter for anything, but thank you very much, Mr Dowd, for stepping into the breach. A number of organisations have been working incredibly hard with me and other Members on a number of fronts relating to this issue for some time. I thank the Corporate Justice Coalition, which is a large coalition of organisations. I thank the TUC and my own union, Unison, for circulating briefings. I also thank Anti-Slavery International; ActionAid; Sarah Benn Gordon, who put together a range of information for me; and the wonderful House of Commons Library. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is an excellent piece of work, not surprisingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has gone, but he is a specialist in Aristotle, and we can see the logic in the report. I have read the Government’s response and want to make sure that I have it clear; the Minister can clarify later in the debate. First, the response says that the Government share the Committee’s concerns and accept that there are real worries about global supply chains and that we have to ensure that, as a country, we are not complicit. Secondly, it states that “the Government is actively exploring options to strengthen protections.” Thirdly, it states—as hon. Members have noted—that their response will be based on the trade strategy review that was launched some time ago, which aims to ensure that we have responsible business conduct in supply chains and companies operating in the UK. I found it interesting that the Government’s response listed exactly the same concerns, about “human rights, labour rights, the environment, and anti-corruption” and said that there has to be due regard to the costs of implementation. It then listed the Departments engaged in the review as “the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Cabinet Office”. There was no reference to the Treasury whatsoever—nor, seemingly, to the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England. The small point I want to make is that the finance sector seems to have been excluded from the whole debate. It is certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. We need to be concerned. It is not just about goods in; our concern is about finance out and the scale of investment by the City and by our finance sector, unfortunately, in abusive business practices around the globe. That investment is sometimes funded by money that has been laundered into the City and then laundered out. I remind people that only a few years ago the City of London was described as the “Russian laundromat” due to the Russian oligarchs’ money that was coming in and then invested in a whole range of schemes that abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation. That is why I want to know whether the finance sector will be included in the overall review. At the moment, we largely rely on the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive to cover the finance sector. The problem is that the omnibus proposed in 2025 watered down the role that would play and the requirements within it. There is also a finance exemption. A large section of the finance sector is completely exempt, so investment and lending are largely exempt in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes down- stream partners—the companies they invest in. Additionally, there is no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment virtually unregulated. There is other legislation, such as the EU sustainable finance disclosure regulation, but there are various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. In addition, we have a situation where compliance is virtually voluntary. Certainly, it is unclear and unmonitored. We then rely on treaties and memoranda of understanding, but the standards that relate to human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. A report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I served on at the time, found that treaties and memoranda of understanding are virtually devoid of parliamentary scrutiny. We never debate treaties on the Floor of the House. There is no central register of memoranda of understanding from which we could get some comprehension of what they cover and so on. As a result of that, there are numerous examples of the implications of the unregulated nature of our finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. My questions are: will any new supply chain regulation cover the finance sector; if it does, what consultations will take place to ensure the sector is included; who will be involved in those consultations; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked, what will the timescale be? We are waiting—the “soon” we heard is becoming a long soon. I do not want to take up too much of the debate so I will shut up at this point, but there is always this argument that finance regulation somehow restrains the animal spirits and as a result undermines growth. Actually, in the finance sector, my word is my bond, and nothing is more important that trust and confidence. As a result, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is a consideration that needs to be properly debated and given the time to be debated. My specific point is that if the US moves against Cuba and imposes and demands a wider trade ban, for example, the argument could be made that we are undermining our own interests if we do not co-operate with the US. That argument has been used in the trade negotiations so far. Under this legislation, we could have an organisation designated specifically around trying to break that blockade. That is my worry. That leads me on to a minor point about designation. At the moment, designation is made through the affirmative procedure, which brings a statutory instrument before the House that we can vote for or against; we cannot amend it. What we saw under the proscription process, particularly with Palestine Action, was that the statutory instrument came before us with a bloc of 20 organisations. We had to vote for it or against it; we could not distinguish in voting between any of those organisations. I ask the Government to consider that when we deal with this matter, it should be dealt with through the super-affirmative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. In the super-affirmative procedure, there is a process of consultation in which individual organisations can be dealt with, rather than dealing with organisations en bloc. In that way, we could take a more considered decision about the individual roles and aspects of organisations that the Government are designating. I hope the Government will consider that process better, because it would reassure us more that this legislation will be effective and will not have the sweeping consequences that bloc proscription has brought so far. We have seen maybe 3,000 people going through our courts simply for holding up a poster with regard to Palestine Action.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s consideration of my mental health, et cetera. The designation covers “foreign interference in elections” and we will be campaigning to maintain solidarity with Cuba itself. On the second designation— “is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”— in our current trade negotiations with the United States, we are taking decisions about the “interests” of the UK as interpreted by the US. So I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that when we introduce such legislation, we must discern what could be the worst that could happen and how could it go wrong? We are opening up an opportunity for things to go wrong. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not designate the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, but in a certain situation, certain Administrations would. By not including sufficient protections in the legislation we are, unwittingly, opening the door to its being used to designate organisations, and therefore individuals, as breaking the law, with significant penalties imposed. That is why the rush to legislation is my concern. If we are not engaging with outside bodies that could be in the specifics of the legislation, as the explanatory notes say, that is where we will make mistakes. What consultations or discussions have been had with some of the organisations campaigning on the international implications of what is happening, particularly regarding the role of the US. What discussions have taken place? There could be ramifications well beyond what we all agree on today with regard to the designation of the IRGC and others that, at this moment, could be specifically designated as advancers of terrorism.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, QED. There we have it. Under the Bill, as members of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, I and many other hon. Members will be committing an offence—

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest that I chair, and have done for about five years, a group called Solidarity with the Iranian Workers’ Movement Committee. We formed officially about five years ago and have been working for about 10 or 15 years. It is a group of Iranian refugees and trade unionists in this country, and we have tried to provide solidarity and campaign on human rights issues, focused on trade unionists in Iran. We started informally around the Tehran bus workers’ dispute, if people can remember that taking place, because a lot of the trade unionists we worked with were subsequently arrested and detained, and some were executed. That brought us together in solidarity. On new clause 3, we have been raising time and again the proscription of the IRGC and have expressed our disappointment at the lack of action by the Government. I understand why the legislation is brought forward, and I hope that it will be brought through effectively and with the impact that we want, particularly on that organisation. Members will remember that we worked with the National Union of Journalists. In this country, the IRGC targeted journalists in particular, and a broadcasting station in Chiswick had to depart and operate from New York for a period. Although I support the intentions of the legislation, may I also express my reservations about it? I have been in this place long enough to have experience of legislation that has come through not with undue haste, but with haste, and it is in that legislation that we usually make mistakes because we have not taken into account others’ views about the impacts. What worried me was that the explanatory notes—the Secretary of State asked us to look at them in some detail—made clear: “Given the pace at which this legislation was developed, outside groups have not been engaged on the specifics in the Bill.” A range of organisations are now expressing concern, such as the Red Cross, and that worries me. That is why rushing a Bill through in one day is precipitous. I am worried that as a result of that, we will legislate poorly. When I say “poorly”, I am referring to incursions on people’s rights; I do not mean the right to in any way defend the organisations or states that many hon. Members referred to on Second Reading, but people’s right to express solidarity with some organisations or even countries in struggle, which we have had in the past. To cite an example, I am a member of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. Trump is now targeting Cuba and has designated it as a terrorist state. Under the Government’s proposals, for an organisation to be designated there are two factors, which were set out on Second Reading. First, a body has to have been “involved in foreign power threat activity”, as set out in proposed new section 33A of the National Security Act 2023 and in the Bill’s explanatory notes. One of those activities is foreign interference in elections. Secondly, the Secretary of State may designate a body if they believe that “is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.” In the coming months, even until the next general election if necessary, I will be working in solidarity, through the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, with the current Cuban Government. I will be working to influence that election to ensure that a Government are elected that prevent the hostile attack by the US on Cuba, so that will be seen as foreign interference in an election.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank all those families in my constituency who have been raising funds for years for the Brain Tumour Charity. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), who has pioneered our debates on this issue over recent years so effectively, and I thank my friend Sonya Kean, who has consistently brought me up to speed on all the recent developments. I just want to ask one question, which comes out of the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies). Let me just run through again the stats from the Brain Cancer Justice provisionals, as they have been described: there is a 30% shortfall in consultant radiologists, which he referred to; only 40% of patients report having access to a clinical nurse specialist; there are only 40 consultant neuro-oncologists nationwide, so there are huge regional gaps; many trusts lack dedicated trial nurses and clinical nurse specialist support; 60% of pathologists report inadequate staffing and resources; and there is no mandatory neuro-oncology training or protected research time. I have just one question, because it is important to give the Minister time to respond to the debate. I just want to know what immediate action will be taken—now—to address the workforce shortages and how we can develop, in a very limited time, a workforce strategy that addresses some of the issues identified in this briefing.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is significance evidence of low pay and the way that people are discriminated against consistently throughout the outsourcing mechanism. Given all the research that has been done, that is unchallengeable. I want to concentrate on the issue of loss of skills. Under British Rail, when someone joined the railway, they could have the vision that if they were committed and stuck with the organisation, they could secure additional training and rise up the ladder. All the way up, they would be gaining additional skills, but under outsourcing there has been a lack of investment in skills. The precarious work means that we are failing to invest in the next generation and, as a result, we may not have the skills to operate an effective system.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought that was coming. I will speak to amendments 15 and 35, which stand in my name. Amendment 15 deals with the creation of an industry-wide travel scheme. One of the benefits of joining British Rail was that travel passes were extended to workers and their families. That was a real perk of the job, and I think it was protected under legislation on a cross-party basis for existing staff. However, that was only for existing staff, and as other companies took over, that benefit was lost. There was a range of different schemes. All that amendment 15 would do is place a responsibility on GBR to bring together those schemes, so that there is one consistent scheme that will continue into the future for the benefit of the railways. We have written to the Secretary of State on this issue—in March, I think—and we are still seeking a meeting. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that will take place.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Certainly, although I do not get an extra minute for this one.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think we can place it on the agenda. I hope the Government will have taken this amendment on board by the time we get to the other House, because it is such a simple mechanism to bring together. My second point is about amendment 35, which seeks to promote the insourcing of workers into GBR. The Government have announced the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and the amendment could create benefits by ensuring that the Government implement that promise. As people know, cleaning, catering, security guards and revenue inspectors have all been contracted out, but the biggest example is workers working on the infrastructure. I will run through the figures, which are staggering. Network Rail now directly employs 14,000 workers to maintain its rails and signals, but it also engages tens of thousands of subcontracted workers. Its renewals programme, for example, has been contracted out to a number of construction companies, which engage people on zero-hours contracts. It is insecure work with low wages and without adequate working conditions, and as Members across the House have said, there is often bogus self-employment as well.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he did over the years to develop the policies that this legislation is largely based on. On the issue of trade union negotiations, we have advocated for sectoral collective bargaining in this sector, as in others, for quite a while. Why? Because it gives a voice to the workers themselves and brings about stability on issues such as employment and long-term investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one of the building blocks for the new system we are creating?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is dealing with things at breakneck speed, and incredibly competently, but I think he has missed the confirmation in his briefing that he is willing to meet the RMT parliamentary group to discuss travel facilities for staff and insourcing.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly. We just need one comprehensive scheme under which everyone is treated equally—it is a benefit, one that helps to attract staff, but also to retain staff because of the commitment it demonstrates. Just to understand the scale of outsourcing that has gone on, we believe that at the moment in excess of 100,000 infrastructure workers are engaged through outsourcing and subcontracting. People will be familiar with the impacts of that, including precarious contracts for the workers, but a report has recently been published by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—an independent report produced by Nina Jorden and Joel Hoskins. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the convener of the RMT parliamentary group. The report identifies the scale of costs that contracting out involves, and the critical issue that the contractors have very short-term horizons, so they fail to invest in skills. Time and again we have seen those companies undertake cost-cutting exercises, and the churn of workers leads to the loss of valuable skills and experience.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I will just say that it is not for the US to determine the future of the Cuban people—that is for the Cuban people themselves—or to use such methods to try to influence the regime. The UN Secretary-General has made clear his view that Cuba is on the brink, and children are already dying as a result of what is happening in the hospitals. Some of the sanctions have affected the ability of the Cuban Administration and Cuban companies to access banking and, more recently, payment facilities. What discussions have the Government had about assisting the Cuban Administration to overcome these US Government activities, which are endangering the whole Cuban economy?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take 30 seconds to associate myself with the Speaker’s remarks about Sir Alan Haselhurst? He was in the Chair when I seized the Mace, and he expelled me from the Chamber, but he did it with such good grace that we became firm friends and have been ever since. I send my condolences to his wife. As the Minister knows, I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. We are now experiencing in Lebanon exactly what we saw in Gaza, with the targeting and murder of journalists. When he was there in April, Amal Khalil, the famous woman journalist, was hit by an Israeli strike, and the Red Cross ambulance that went to assist her was hit as well. The Lebanese Prime Minister has made it quite clear that these are war crimes. Could I ask that the Government join others in collecting the evidence, so that we can take action against the Israeli Ministers who have perpetrated these war crimes against the Lebanese people, just as they did against the Palestinians?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  Given the huge sums that the Secretary of State is talking about, what I want to raise might appear relatively trivial, but for my community it is quite significant. We have a charity called Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, which used a lake where local young people in particular could learn to sail and canoe. That lake was taken over by HS2 as part of the route and has not been available for six years. An alternative was not identified until very recently—again, that is part of the decision making on HS2. All the charity’s reserves have now gone, and staff are being laid off. Will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting for me with her officials and HS2, so that I can talk through the opportunities that there might be to assist the charity in continuing to provide an excellent service to our community?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am the secretary to the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and I raised earlier this week a point of order concerning the role of the US agency APCO in undertaking the investigation of journalists for Labour Together, which resulted in the smearing of those journalists. I explained that as a result of concern about the reach of APCO’s investigation, a number of hon. Members have submitted subject interest requests to the company and to Labour Together. There has been a delay in the response from Labour Together to those requests, but APCO has confirmed, in a very redacted form, that information on MPs was being collected. I referred this week to information from a whistleblower —a freelancer involved in the Labour Together inquiry—indicating that APCO had instructed this person to destroy files and material related to the inquiry. Only hours ago, we had it confirmed online by the Financial Times that tapes exist that include conversations by APCO’s head of media relations for Europe, Tom Harper, discussing the deletion of an email account and saying “they will be able to see that through digital forensics or something like that” with regard to references and this inquiry. He also refers to processes to “muddy the waters” and the audit trail. I can also report— [ Interruption. ] I am sorry for the delay. I can also report that evidence was submitted to the inquiry being run by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser, by Paul Holden, one of the journalists and victims of the smears, but evidence was not supplied by the Cabinet Office to the secretariat to the Sir Laurie Magnus inquiry. On behalf of the NUJ parliamentary group, I express our concern— [ Interruption. ] This is important. The NUJ parliamentary group is concerned about the smearing of journalists. We need to know what surveillance, if any, was taking place of hon. Members and for what purposes. We call again for an independent inquiry into the role of APCO and Labour Together in this issue.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Fire and Rescue Services: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am also a member of the FBU parliamentary group. I understand that consultations on the formula are going on, and we welcome them. Will the Minister ensure that trade union representatives are built into those regional consultations?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentioned my recommendation that the Prime Minister should refer himself. I did that because when someone is under attack like this, they should not run away from the attack; they should face it with confidence. They should argue that if people want to criticise the individual concerned, they should produce the evidence. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the Privileges Committee would deal with this matter fairly, and I believe that the Labour party would come out stronger as a result.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over a number of weeks, I have been raising the issue of Labour Together and its link with the agency APCO Worldwide. APCO prepared a report for Labour Together that smeared journalists. I called for an inquiry into Labour Together. A number of hon. Members then submitted subject access requests to both Labour Together and APCO. Labour Together has gone for an extension, and the three-month period should be up shortly, but a number of us received responses from APCO. I raised this in the House; the responses were heavily redacted, but they demonstrated that APCO was collecting information on hon. Members of Parliament. Last week, a whistleblower—this is before the London Court of International Arbitration at the moment—confirmed that APCO had instructed one of the freelance employees involved in the investigations to destroy materials related to the investigation, and evidence. May I request again that Members on the Treasury Bench take back to the Prime Minister that we need a full, independent inquiry on the role that Labour Together, and APCO in particular, has played?