John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as the chair of the PCS trade union parliamentary group. The Minister just said that there was an offer from Capita. It should not be an offer; it should be a requirement that it covers the recovery costs. It was outrageous that the civil service scheme was given to Capita after its failure on the teachers’ pension scheme, its failure with regard to the NHS data releases, and the failure on the military contract. This failure has affected so many civil service pensioners. It has caused real harm, suffering and stress. It is equally outrageous, I have to say, that its performance has not warranted the removal of the contract altogether. The Minister has today terminated the contract with Royal Mail. Why has he not terminated this contract? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raised the issue of the preparation of in-house provision of the civil service pension scheme. The Minister did not refer to those preparations. Will he meet the trade unions and discuss how we bring the administration of the civil service pension scheme in house, because as sure as night follows day, Capita will fail on this contract, as it has done on every other?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first associate myself with the comments made with regard to our colleague who stands at your left-hand shoulder? Madam Deputy Speaker, you may recall that a number of weeks ago, in my capacity as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, I raised the allegations of the smearing of journalists by the organisation Labour Together during the period when the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) was the director of that organisation. At that point, the Prime Minister referred the matter to the ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus. I have been in correspondence with Laurie Magnus, after he produced his report to the Prime Minister very quickly after the reference. I was in correspondence with Sir Laurie Magnus because I was informed that he failed to call any witnesses during that inquiry, even though written evidence was submitted to him by one of the journalists who was the victim of the smears. I wrote to him as he had informed the victim that he had not seen the evidence because his secretariat had not provided it to him. The journalist had written to Sir Laurie Magnus in advance to say he was submitting evidence. He submitted that evidence and it was not provided to him by his secretariat. The secretariat to the inquiry is the Cabinet Office. I wrote to express my concerns to Sir Laurie Magnus that his inquiry could not be complete, as he had not seen that evidence. I therefore urged him to withdraw the conclusions of the inquiry and to consider the evidence that has been provided to him. He has refused. I have kept the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee informed, but of course it cannot take up individual cases. It appears that the only route for me to secure the truth of this whole episode is for the Government to set up an independent inquiry. I have requested that in correspondence with the Prime Minister and others at least five times. We have tried the formal routes. We now need a full inquiry. The reason I raise this issue on behalf of the NUJ is because smearing journalists in that way destroys their careers. For at least one of the journalists concerned, I think it has put his safety at risk as well—it is as serious as that. We have Members on the Treasury Bench today. I want to put this issue on the record. In addition, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to ask those on the Treasury Bench to take this issue back to the Prime Minister; I urge them to press upon him the importance of this issue and the need for an independent inquiry.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Many on the Labour Benches, at least, will appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend’s apology today, but many of us remain bewildered about why the appointment took place, despite the warnings that many of us gave him. Is not the reality this? When he sought to realise his ambition to become leader of the Labour party, with very little base within the party, he became dependent on McSweeney, Mandelson and Labour Together to organise and fund his election. When he became the Prime Minister, the reward for McSweeney was control of No. 10, and the reward for Mandelson was the highest diplomatic office. The unspoken message to civil servants was, “What Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets.” This has damaged the party that I have been a member of for 50 years. I urge the Prime Minister to take steps to clear this toxic culture out of our party, and to take the first step by having an independent inquiry into Labour Together.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  There are only a few seconds left. I have heard the Minister’s arguments. I fully agree on the independence of the FCA from Treasury, but that does not mean that we must accept the FCA as infallible. In other instances where separate organisations have made mistakes, the Government have intervened. I understand that the Minister is not convinced this morning, but will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, so that we can take her through the report with our experts to convince her that there might be a different way forward from the one she is setting out this morning?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  That theme runs through many of the reports that we have had from constituents about the failure of the FCA to protect them—to ensure that regulation was implemented to protect them. There were also elements of almost turning a blind eye and collusion, and that is the reason for the anger that people feel. Let me press on because the figures that we have heard in the past need to be challenged. As I said, many people thought that they had failed themselves, but in reality tens of thousands of businesses were deliberately targeted. Internal reports confirm that not 16,000, as claimed by the FCA, but 3 million customers were placed in NatWest’s non-core division, effectively a waiting room before being pushed into the notorious global restructuring group, or Lloyds’ equivalent business support unit. There are so many examples, but I will give just one. Steve and Joan Finch spoke movingly at our summit last November. They took out what was meant to be a simple fixed-rate loan from Lloyds bank to buy Bredbury Hall hotel. Alongside that loan, the bank added the credit liabilities of a derivative, a swap, with a starting hidden credit liability of £1 million, rising to £3 million. Those undisclosed arrangements generated £179,000 in secret up-front commissions. A further £1 million was taken in fees when the bank processed the case through its so-called business support unit, widely criticised as an asset-stripping mechanism. The business ended up there because undisclosed credit liabilities created a loan-to-value risk of 136%, against a permitted maximum of 70%. Despite being a thriving business, Bredbury Hall was manoeuvred into administration. Stephen Finch was bankrupted and the family had to raise £600,000 to pay off vulture fund Cerberus, to which the loan had been sold, to save their home. Suspicious of what had happened, the Finches contacted Greater Manchester police with evidence of all three offences that had been committed under the Fraud Act 2006. The police took the matter seriously and investigated, but when they asked the FCA for technical assistance, the FCA refused, so last June the police closed the case, citing three reasons: lack of FCA assistance, insufficient resources for a complex investigation, and concern that examining the case would oblige them to investigate numerous similar ones. There are so many other cases. One of the cases I have dealt with involved reading the last letter of a man who committed suicide in the hope that his insurance would pay out to save his family home. Many whistleblowers have courageously come forward. In fact, that is what led to the creation of BankConfidential. I will cite just one example: Mark Wright, a former Royal Bank of Scotland manager. One of our former colleagues, Norman Lamb, supported him. Mark provided internal evidence of the bank deliberately defaulting customers to improve capital ratios and targeting customers for debanking and insolvency. He even named the person who taught trainees how to forge customer signatures on bank documents. Mark experienced incredible levels of personal stress, and I congratulate him on his courage in coming forward, but the FCA failed to act. The failure of the system to reform or to deliver justice and compensation to victims has been the outstanding theme of our discussions and debates as an all-party group. Numerous schemes, inquiries and reports were meant to deliver meaningful reform and provide victims of banking misconduct with access to justice and redress. We have had the Foskett panel, the Swift review of interest rate hedging products, the Cranston review, the Tomlinson report, the Project Lord Turnbull report by Sally Masterton, the parliamentary commission on banking standards and various Treasury Committee inquiries. The truth is that they have had little effect: victims remain out of pocket and meaningful reform still has not happened. The result is that trust in the system has now been shattered. The FCA’s Financial Lives survey shows that less than half the public trust the financial sector and its regulatory framework. That is a damning indictment, and it is problematic particularly among SMEs, where we need business confidence to stimulate growth in our wider economy. Let me conclude. The all-party group, having consulted so many experts, victims and constituents, has come to the conclusion that the only way forward is some form of royal commission or equivalent inquiry to address the deep structural flaws in the system and the widespread injustices that remain unresolved. We need to establish what happened and who was responsible; otherwise, there is a real risk of history repeating itself, and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen. In the short term, we are demanding at least a specific inquiry into hidden credit and the role of the FCA. That inquiry must be fully independent, well resourced and—if it is to have confidence in it—judge led, and it must be granted statutory provision under the Inquiries Act 2005. This all arose because many of us, as individual MPs, were approached by constituents who have suffered. We must remember that it is ordinary people who have been the victims of this tragedy, and some of them are with us in the Public Gallery. They have kept the flame of hope for justice alive, and I urge them to maintain their efforts and to continue to inspire us with their righteous indignation and justified anger. However, I do not want to be here in years to come—as we were in 2016—dealing with the same problems and with a system that is not fit for purpose, with more victims making representations to us. I hope today that the Government will accept there is a need for an independent inquiry, that we can present the evidence to it and that we can successfully reform the system to protect our financial services and, more importantly, the people—our constituents—who rely on them.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered hidden credit liabilities and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority. I will explain the genesis of this debate, Sir Roger. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services. The group was established some years ago as a result of hon. Members being approached by constituents who had experienced scandals in the delivery of financial services and the failure of regulatory bodies to address their concerns. It was chaired effectively by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has now gone on to greater things as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank him for enabling this debate to take place. The scandal that has come before our APPG is the use of hidden credit lines, which has caused such serious harm to so many small and medium-sized enterprises, and caused personal disasters for many individuals and their families. We have drawn on the evidence presented to us by constituents, specialist advisers and the reports of BankConfidential, a specialist whistleblowing service for banking staff. Put simply, the story commences with a large number of SMEs approaching their banks for a loan and some of the banks then attaching to the loan a derivative such as an interest swap, supposedly to protect the loan against the risk of interest rate changes, and establishing a hidden credit line. Lorraine Morris, an expert and specialist derivative lawyer, gave evidence to us on what she found: “My research confirms that, far from mitigating risk, these instruments were deliberately engineered to transfer significant, undisclosed, and uncapped risk directly onto the customer. The mechanism was the concealed creation of a credit-line liability, booked against the customer’s assets from day one. This contingent obligation was not a notional figure; it was a hard liability that directly impacted the customer’s credit grade”. Generally, when such a loan is taken, there is an agreed loan-to-value covenant. According to Ms Morris, the application of the derivative and credit line mechanisms impacted on those covenants and “pushed viable businesses into a state of artificial distress. The sale of products as ‘protection’ when their fundamental structure achieves the opposite is a profound and fraudulent misrepresentation. It is a profound tragedy that these banking frauds have pushed individuals to the brink, resulting in devastating loss of life, ill-health and destruction of families. As a legal advocate for justice, I believe this affront to human dignity demands not only our deepest sorrow, but a relentless and unwavering pursuit of accountability.” That is what we are about today. To understand the behaviours of the banks more fully, we drew on the evidence provided by Ian Tyler, a former senior banking executive who has used derivatives since the 1980s to manage interest rate risk for some of the UK’s largest banks. I will quote Ian at some length. He explained: “The fundamental truth that has been buried by the banks and the FCA is that when a bank executes an interest rate derivative, such as an interest rate swap, it is required by prudential regulation to mark a counterparty credit risk limit to cover the Potential Future Exposure. This credit limit is a hard credit limit as the exposure generates a risk weighted asset that requires the bank to hold capital in support. All hard credit limits are typically included in a bank’s Loan to Value security covenant calculation and so the moment a customer executes a derivative their LTV % increases and this weakens their credit standing. This situation was made materially worse in…2008 when in response to the failure of Lehman Brothers, policy makers reduced Bank Rate to 0.5%. This…led to a material increase in the credit line marked for the derivative as both the Current Exposure and the Potential Future Exposure increased, pushing many SMEs into the position where their LTV % was in breach of their security covenant. However, as the bank had invariably not told the customer about the derivative credit line, in clear breach of conduct regulation, the bank often forced a technical breach of loan covenant through some other mechanism and then transferred the business to their so-called Business Recovery Unit where most businesses were subsequently put into administration.” Many in the Public Gallery would testify to that. What was the motivation of the banks? Hidden credit liabilities generated huge up-front revenues, bonuses and commissions. Worse, when the financial crisis hit, they became a mechanism for destroying viable businesses, some already in breach of lending covenants on day one, because of the undisclosed liability that had been taken on. The potential financial upside was so significant that whistleblowers revealed that staff at the state-controlled NatWest Group were encouraged to send victory emails when they successfully brought down a business that could then be feasted upon, with the bank sometimes buying distressed assets directly from the victims of such frauds. There are too many examples of that, and some of those affected are with us in the Public Gallery. Alongside the banks’ predatory behaviour, there has also been a catastrophic regulatory failure, associated with a deliberate policy by the Financial Conduct Authority and, before that the Financial Services Authority, of siding with the banks and often with Treasury policy under successive Governments, rather than the innocent business owners who were being fleeced at the time. The FCA has repeatedly and deliberately failed to act. I will give one example of participants’ experience from our all-party group. In November 2022, Lord Prem Sikka, Steve Middleton of BankConfidential and banking derivatives expert Ian Tyler, whom I have quoted, met the FCA to explain the hidden credit liability scandal in detail. They related what The Times assistant business editor James Hurley described across four articles as financial and accounting fraud, including theft from Ulster Bank fixed-rate loan customers, and all the hard evidence was shared. In our view, the FCA should have immediately launched an inquiry at that stage. Instead, it let the NatWest Group mark its own homework. When the bank concluded it had done nothing wrong, the FCA took no meaningful action, even deploying the astonishing argument that the fraud that had occurred was not criminal fraud. The FCA’s unfitness for purpose is not a new observation for many of us here. On 1 February 2016, Conservative MP Guto Bebb led a Commons debate on the motion, “That this House believes that the Financial Conduct Authority in its current form is not fit for purpose”. Nothing meaningful came out of that debate or has happened since. In many people’s eyes, that has left the FCA still not fit for purpose, with Parliament having failed in its duty to fix it. Where was the Treasury in all of that? The Treasury turned a blind eye and its motivation was simple. It needed the banks to do whatever was necessary to shore up their balance sheets after the global financial crisis, having already made the taxpayer bail them out. As I mentioned, where that has occurred the financial and emotional consequences for victims have been devastating in the extreme. The scale of the carnage has been horrific, with widespread forced insolvencies; suicides and early deaths; thousands of repossessions; and broken families. Many business people were made to believe that they had failed through their own fault, when in reality tens of thousands of businesses were deliberately targeted for insolvency.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think it would be really helpful if the Minister brought the guidance before the House at some stage, once it is completed, so that we could have some clarity about it. There will be protests in the future. A third runway at Heathrow has been threatened again, and there will be a cumulative impact of protests in my constituency. I want to know if I will have to hand myself in at some point in time as a result of that.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly support the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has tabled to Lords amendment 300. Those of us who have dealt with honour cases recognise the overall family involvement, and there needs to be recognition that we are talking about persons, not a person. I have listened to a large number of speeches that have done a tremendous job of setting out the principles behind the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 312, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which I support. I do not want to talk about the principles; I want to talk about the practicalities, because I am worried that it is when the Government rush to legislate around a particular incident, and do not provide adequate time for debate and individual votes, that Parliament makes significant mistakes. That has been demonstrated in the past. The Minister referenced the Manchester events, which were absolutely tragic, and the demonstrations that took place then. However, she also mentioned that the powers to deal with such events—to prevent and restrict demonstrations that are causing such distress—already exist. She also mentioned that the cumulative impact is a factor that police officers need to take into account; the change made by the Bill is simply that it will say that police will be required to take the cumulative impact into account. That seems like a simple, small step forward, but I think it will cause immense problems. In particular, it will place a burden on the police, but it will also introduce an element of subjective judgment by a number of senior police officers. I will give examples from our history. In the 1980s, I was involved in the City of London branch of the anti-apartheid movement, and for two years, we held a permanent demonstration outside South Africa House. I remember being there, singing Christmas carols, on Christmas day. It was disruptive, and people were arrested for individual offences, but that was the whole point. We were there because we said that we would not leave until Nelson Mandela was released. At that time, we were condemned in this House for supporting a terrorist, and for supporting a terrorist organisation called the African National Congress. These days, if we held up the banners that we held up then, we would probably be arrested. The other example I give is from 1985, I think. I was involved in the organisation of the people’s march for jobs. A group of unemployed workers marched from the north all the way to London, and my job was to prepare for their arrival in London, but in every town and city, they were met with a demonstration. On many occasions, those demonstrations were disruptive—that is cumulative. For me, the other issue is that unfortunately, I think this change is largely targeted at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstrations in London. I have been involved in some of the processes of negotiation with the police on each of those demonstrations—I have been on virtually every one, over two years. I have been advising the organisations involved when they are going into the negotiations, as well as during those negotiations. So that Members understand, what happens is that a date is identified months in advance. As that date gets nearer, discussions take place with the police, and severe restrictions are placed on the route and the timing of the march. The issue of synagogues has come up; I do not think there has ever been a synagogue within half a mile of one of those marches, but the demonstrators themselves have said, “We’ll adjust the times, so that it does not in any way interfere with any service.” Those are the negotiations that go on. It is a thorough process. However—I do not say this lightly—as a result of my experience of the whole process, I have lost confidence in the judgment of the senior Metropolitan police officers. I say that because I was involved in some of the discussions on the demonstrations in which Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham were arrested. I found then that the use of the restrictions was deliberately provocative. What has been said in court since then has been disingenuous, because I was there on the spot, and I saw what happened. In fact, the next day, I was pulled into the police station and interviewed as a result of the events that day. I have lost that confidence, because we were assured that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his senior team would consult with the wider communities in advance of planning for these demonstrations, so that views could be taken on board, particularly the views of the Jewish community. “Consultation with the Jewish community” has largely been interpreted as consultation with the Board of Deputies. The Board of Deputies represents a certain section of the Jewish community. In fact, it has split. Last year, 37 members expressed their concern about how the Board of Deputies was expressing its position on Gaza. During the demonstrations, I start the march with the Jewish bloc. I have marching beside me Stephen Kapos, the Holocaust survivor who became quite a famous architect. The organisations in the Jewish bloc have never been consulted about the march. The Haredi community, which is the largest Jewish community, particularly in London—the orthodox Jewish community —has never been consulted about these demonstrations. I am sorry, but I have lost confidence in the assurances that we have been given that there are wider consultations with the community. In the past few weeks, I have lost so much confidence in the judgment of Metropolitan police senior officers. Every year for decades, we have had a march in London for the Palestinians on the anniversary of Nakba, to commemorate the Palestinians being forcibly removed from their own land. Nakba means catastrophe. There is a march in London every year around 16 March. This year, it was going to go ahead as normal. Planning and discussions were taking place, and then the police said, “No, you can’t go on your normal route.” Why is that? Because the police had allocated it to Tommy Robinson. We saw what happened last year in London on Tommy Robinson’s march. There was violence, and there were attacks on police and individuals, yet the Palestinian demonstration was displaced for this far-right group—thugs, in many instances. That demonstrated to me the bias among Metropolitan police senior officers. In many ways, it demonstrates how they could start interpreting the concept of cumulative impact in this legislation, which will go through today. With every move towards restricting peaceful protest in any way, there is a risk. We have seen in the past, on a number of occasions, that if we deny people the right to peaceful protest, they will riot. There is a risk that, through this legislation, we undermine our historic, real commitment to democratic, peaceful protest. That right has achieved so much in our country; we have achieved so much through the reforms that have been demanded. This legislation puts in peril those rights, and in addition, through it, we could be acting provocatively, undermining the peaceful protest that we want to see. That could result in the potential for riot. That is why we needed more time to debate and discuss the issue, and why we needed a right to vote on the motion to disagree. That is not going to happen tonight, and I think we will regret it in the long term.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He made the point earlier, and I think it is completely rational and understandable. What adds to my anxiety is that in the normal run of things, a serious matter such as this would be introduced in the House of Commons, and there would be a proper Commons debate, after which the matter would go off to the Lords, and then come back to us. I feel that we are being bounced into this today, and I did not expect that of my Government on an issue of this sort, because it is so important, and because it will have major consequences for us in the future—and particularly for our movement, which was based on protest from the very beginning. We seem to be undermining our historic tradition, and our commitment to a role that we have played historically and will almost inevitably need to play in the future.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I think the House is at one with the Prime Minister on the inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire. The problem that we face is that today there have been more airstrikes against the Lebanese, and the Israeli artillery is now shelling Lebanese cities and towns. Many of us feel that it is because Netanyahu is out of control, and Donald Trump is not willing to exert that control or influence to bring him into line. In the Prime Minister’s next discussions with European leaders that he is successfully convening, will he place on the agenda a comprehensive European sanctions strategy, so that we can exert some influence to prevent Netanyahu running out of control and creating problems for the globe, and not just the middle east?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. I also apologise as I am trying to represent my constituents in about four different debates today. One of the issues that the POA has consistently raised is the nature of the people it is dealing with at the moment. Many prisoners have severe mental health problems. The POA says that they should not be in prison; they should be in specialist units, as should those who are drug dependent. Recently, there have been examples of the POA having tried and failed to negotiate safe practices with management. Limited action has taken place and the union has been dragged through the courts because of the ban on it being able to withdraw its members’ labour. That has to be addressed; there have to be some basic protections. As well as body armour, which I support, there has to be the protection of workers having the ability to take industrial action and negotiate a safe working place.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I am trying to represent my constituents in four debates today. There was a Spanish Catholic priest called Padre Pio, who was made a saint because of the miracle of appearing in two places at once. I have not mastered that yet. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my chairing of the RMT parliamentary group. One of the key issues my hon. Friend has campaigned on—we campaigned on it together—is ensuring adequate staffing levels, not just in ticket offices, where we succeeded, but on the platform and on the trains themselves, for safety and security reasons. Does she agree that, under GBR, we need a very strong plan for the workforce, so that we have adequate staffing at all levels in all facilities?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  One minute.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Gurkha Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) prompted me to start reminiscing about 29 April 2009. I do not want to be patronising, but there is a moral message and lesson here for hon. Members in my party: on that day, there was a majority of 21 in favour of a settlement being given to the Gurkhas, with twenty-seven Labour Members voting in favour of it. We were called rebels for that. Sometimes, though, we have to make a moral judgment and say to the Whips: “I believe this is the right thing to do.” It was a huge success and a fantastic campaign, with much publicity secured by Joanna Lumley, who ran a terrific campaign. The lawyers behind it were Martin Howe and his team, with Mark Collins and others. Momentum built up behind that campaign because people were outraged about the discrimination that the Gurkhas were suffering—it was as simple as that. I have to say that the points that hon. Members have raised today demonstrate that that discrimination continues today. On the issue of pensions, the argument always put by Government is that they cannot legislate or operate retrospectively, but they can—successive Governments have done that. We should not allow the discriminatory way that Gurkha pensioners have been treated, with all their service not being taken into account and the mythical date of 1997 being used against them; as a result, there are Gurkhas living in poverty here and Gurkhas living in poverty back in Nepal—despite all their service, which we have congratulated them on today. In addition, there are issues in our own community with Gurkhas suffering homelessness and financial distress. I would welcome the Government standing back and producing a strategy for the Gurkhas who have served this country, looking comprehensively at their current situation and at the measures that could be used to address that poverty. In my opinion, what that means is a fair pension settlement once and for all, so that we can get this issue resolved. There are issues with regard to housing, as I have said, but also with regard to health. We have always extolled the Gurkhas for their bravery, and different surveys have demonstrated that they may suffer less post-traumatic stress disorder than other service people, but I think that is a bit of a myth. I think there are issues with regard to their experiences and the impact that has had on them, and that as they get older, because of this myth, they may not be getting the support and treatment that they should rightfully access. So we need a Gurkha strategy—that is what I would like to see coming from this Government. In my community, 25 or 30 years ago there must have been only about five Gurkha families, but we now have a sizeable community of at least 500 or 600 families. We have set up a local Gurkha association. One thing we have been successful in is that it wanted a part of the local cemetery dedicated to the Gurkhas. It now has part of that cemetery and we have commemoration services there every year. The Gurkhas contribute widely to the community. Just as they served in the military so well, they serve so well within our community. We therefore owe them a debt of honour to resolve some of these issues, particularly on pensions. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned, yes, we have established the Gurkhas’ right of settlement, but there are issues with regard to visas and other matters that fly in the face of the practice of their family life and cultural life. Those need resolving. I would welcome the Government standing back, looking at whether we can develop a comprehensive strategy and reporting back to the House so that we can have a checklist of actions that we can all support on a cross-party basis to address the concerns of these people we have all admired so much.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise; this is one of those days when multiple debates are going on, on each of which I have received representations from constituents, so I will have to speak and leave. The point my constituents have made to me is exactly as my hon. Friend sets out, which is that we want a comprehensive strategy. We know wonders cannot be worked overnight, but we want a timed and programmed strategy that addresses the agenda of issues that he has raised, and to give hope to people as well. Where the Government develop strategies—for example, on cancer—we are having breakthroughs and success in terms of diagnosis and treatment. I hope that this debate will confirm that the Government are willing to develop a strategy, and of course resource it.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Nuclear Test Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  I am intervening, first, to send my love to my hon. Friend’s mum. Secondly, in our debates over the years, we have always emphasised urgency because of the age of the victims. However, we also need to recognise and ensure that any inquiry recognises that this has gone down two generations now. We have met the families—the sons and daughters, the grandchildren—who have suffered extreme conditions as a result. It is just as my hon. Friend said; this has penetrated into the DNA of whole families. There is a sense of urgency, of course, but there must also be a recognition of the significance of this having affected three generations, as we have witnessed.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  What Donald Trump said at the weekend was that unless the strait was opened, he would obliterate Iran’s power plants. I agree that attacking a nuclear plant could be extremely catastrophic. As we have made clear to Putin, however, attacking power plants that supply power to civilians is against international law and is clearly a move from defence to aggression. On that basis, while I join the Secretary of State in hoping that the next five days secure peace, may I ask him to confirm that UK bases will not be used to attack power plants? If there is to be such a change of policy, will he ask the Prime Minister for a debate and a vote in this House, because I want my constituents to know that I am not willing to support such escalation?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have raised concerns in the House about the activities of the organisation called Labour Together. Labour Together was exposed by a group of journalists for wrongdoings, including the non-declaration of political donations to the Electoral Commission. Members were concerned that Labour Together had commissioned a US agency, APCO, to collect information and investigate the journalists. APCO produced a report, which was then used in attempts to smear those two journalists, affecting their careers. After that matter was raised in the House, I was contacted by a journalist, and it was indicated that Labour Together might have been collecting information on not just journalists but possibly Members of Parliament. I submitted a subject access request to Labour Together, which replied that because this is a complex case, the deadline for responding will be three months, not one month. I also submitted a subject access request to the US agency APCO, and I received a reply last night that confirmed that, yes, it has been collecting information on me. It does not say why, or who commissioned the work that it is undertaking. APCO then gave me 11 redacted pages that are nonsensical. Literally whole pages are redacted, except for three or four words on each page, usually just names. I am concerned that an organisation or agency could be collecting information on Members of Parliament. It does not know who for, or for what purpose, but if we look at what happened to those two journalists, the purpose was to smear them and affect their careers. I have called on a number of occasions for an independent inquiry on the activities of Labour Together and APCO. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record again my request for the Government to consider the establishment of an independent inquiry into the activities of both these organisations.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  As has been said, Trump and Netanyahu launched this war without consultation. They did it unilaterally, and recklessly and irresponsibly, and it was absolutely predictable that the strait would be threatened in this way. Yet some shipping is moving, is it not? Some shipping is going to our ally, India, because it is not engaged in the war, because it is at peace with Iran. Does that not teach us the lesson that we need to bring about peace, that that should be our main and prime purpose in negotiating a peaceful settlement, and that the first step towards that is de-escalation?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  As other colleagues have said, some people came here under one system, but now the system is changing, so have the Government done any assessment of where those people are working? In my constituency, a large number of people are now in their fourth year before their cases were about to conclude, hopefully, to secure status. They work in the care sector and without them, to be frank, the care sector in my constituency would collapse.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Others have mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I think many of us know the way this goes. There are responsibilities on all of our shoulders. The Prime Minister is right that there needs to be a plan. Has the US President shared with him what the plan is, or consulted him on it? We know from experience that it is easy for politicians to fire weapons and start a war, but it is when the shooting ends that the nightmare begins. That is why we need clarity on our role as an independent country that is not swayed even by Donald Trump. When my right hon. Friend stood for the leadership of the Labour party, he clearly set out that there would be a vote in this House on any decision about military action. Can I therefore ask him to assure us that there will be such a vote in this House, so that we do not drift into this war as we have done in the past?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is why I urge Ministers to act swiftly in response to that review. I believe that all logic will drive these reviews to recommend the elimination of the overall cap, once and for all. I hope we will get something from the Minister tonight—some form of words that acknowledges the seriousness and urgency of the issue. I hope the reviews will report swiftly, so that we can, almost consensually, get legislation on this issue though this House incredibly speedily. I am sorry that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), is not very well, and I hope that when she recovers, she will discover compassion, because that is not what we heard tonight. We need to understand the genesis of the overall cap and the two-child limit. It goes back to the financial crisis of 2008-09. Our financial sector operated like a casino. We came to a financial crisis, and when George Osborne became Chancellor in 2010, he decided that it was about not the deregulation of our financial sector but Government overspending—it never was—so he introduced a policy of austerity, which targeted the most vulnerable. He targeted—

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is an element of contradiction in what the Minister has said. Until now, the Government’s argument has been that one of the most disastrous disincentives to work is low wages, so they have rightly concentrated on raising the minimum wage and aiming for a proper living wage. Our argument has never been that lifting people out of poverty is a disincentive to work—it has always been about low wages.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The moral case for the Poor Law’s principle of less eligibility was disproven, because the result was to drive people—in particular, children—into poverty and real hardship. That is what the two-child limit did, and that is what the overall cap has done. All we are appealing to the Government to do in introducing this excellent piece of legislation, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, is not leave the 150,000 behind. Will they give us an indication that they have a plan to tackle that issue? We were virtually united in compassion when this Bill was introduced, and we can be united in compassion once again in scrapping the overall cap, but there is a sense of urgency now. I do not want children in my constituency to continue to live in poverty in accommodation for the homeless, and in temporary accommodation. I do not want them to live in deep poverty, not be able to go on school trips with the other kids in their classroom, or not be able to afford new shoes, a new coat and all the rest of it. We have heard almost the same sort of speeches that were made in this place in the 19th century, the sort that are why the Labour party was founded. It was founded to represent working-class people, and we want to eradicate poverty from our society. As we pass this Bill into law, I urge the Minister to give us some indication of what the next Bill will look like. Surely it must ensure the abolition of the cap.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The claim that there was no money left was disproved time and again. The argument that the Tories put forward was that we were spending too much on tackling poverty, on paying teachers and on our health service, but the crisis was a result of speculation, due to deregulation under the Tories for over 30 years—