John McDonnell MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 14 Oct 2025 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For those of us on all sides who were here during the debate on the Iraq war, I want to thank Ming for the legal advice that he provided and the way that he addressed that debate, because he did so without seeking any party advantage. He simply set out the legal principles on which he was making his decision, and he did so with compassion and with the recognition of the moral duty that we all had. Many of us agreed with him and voted with him, and many did not, but everybody respected his judgment as a result. I believe he was a model MP, always speaking and voting on the basis of his conscience and the interests of his constituency and the country overall. He will be greatly missed, but I think his lesson will remain with many of us throughout our own parliamentary careers.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister mentioned his conversations with President Sisi, so may I take this opportunity to thank him for his conversations and interventions with President Sisi and his team to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah from an Egyptian prison? We are all elated at the release of the hostages and the detainees and prisoners, but there is some confusion about whether two prominent Gazan Palestinian doctors have been released. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya and Dr Marwan al-Hams were both detained and unfortunately ill-treated in Israeli prisons. It would be really helpful if the Prime Minister could confirm whether they have been released and, if they have not been, make further representations to the Israeli authorities.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To respond to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), in 1997—I do not know if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was with us then—we were concerned that the prison population was 40,000; it is now 80,000 and it is predicted to go up to 112,000 if we continue on the current flightpath. I just say to the hon. Lady that we are all straining to do our best to make sure that all our constituents are safe and that there is a just and effective system in our society to deal with crime and injustices. However, based on what I heard of her understanding of the Bill, I suggest it would be worth her while to sit down with Justice Ministers so that they can take her through some of the detail of the Bill, because I genuinely think there are elements of it that she has completely misconstrued. I say that not in any party knockabout way; I just think that would be worth while, because we want, particularly with this Bill, to build as much consensus as possible to reassure people out there that this House cares about their concerns. I declare an interest in that I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. There is no financial relationship or nexus to that and, as I have said before, the POA has made it clear that there is no benefit to me whatsoever—I would not get a south-facing cell, an extra pillow or anything like that; it is a privilege. I want to make four or five points very briefly, because I know that others want to speak, and they will to a certain extent echo those of my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). On the sentence management process, all the advice we get from Napo, which represents probation officers, shows that there is a shortfall of about 10,000 staff, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick said. The morale in the service itself—remember that probation officers have gone through privatisation, and then been brought back as a public service—is pretty low. They are very committed professionals, but having wages stagnate for a long period has had its effect, and recruitment and retention is a real issue that we need to address. I would not underestimate the stress they are under at the moment. We welcome the additional resource, but realistically there is a demand for more that we need to take on board. One issue with resettlement that has been raised with us by probation officers and others is that because of the cutbacks in local government and other funding regimes, a lot of the voluntary sector bodies that they relied on to refer their clients to are no longer operating or have been starved of resources for a long period. A lot of those voluntary sector bodies were specialists in their own way, in particular with regard to drug abuse. The second issue is about prison. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick that we need a lot more detail about earned progression, but prison officers tell us that the reality is that rehabilitation is almost impossible at the moment. Prisoners cannot access the courses that are needed. We do not even have the staff who will go to their cells to accompany them to rehabilitation and education courses. Again, the pressure staff are under is immense. One specific issue with the skilled worker visa system has been raised by the Prison Officers Association. It has had an impact on the number of staff working in our prisons. I was not aware of this to be honest, but there were recruitment campaigns in Africa and elsewhere. Staff have been brought here and now we are at risk of losing them because they fall foul of the new visa regime. It does not just affect prisons—it affects a whole range of services—but it needs to be looked at again. Another issue that has been discussed is the supervision of unpaid work. I am really worried that there are discussions about privatising that again. In London, we had the experience of Serco a number of years ago when it was privatised. To be frank, it was an absolute disaster. I am worried that it could be interpreted as simply exploiting prisoners for private profit in some instances. There is not much reference in the Bill to children and I wonder whether we will come back to that, because unless we look at the regime for children as well, we could be in a situation where children will be serving longer sentences than some adults. One other point in relation to children that has been raised by a number of organisations, such as the Howard League, is the publication of a prisoner’s or convicted person’s photo. I can understand the motivation behind that, but I believe the family often serves the sentence just as much as the prisoner. As a result, stigma is attached to the whole family. What we have found from our experience is that children have suffered because of crimes perpetrated by the parent. We need to be very careful about how we use the identification process. We need to do it wisely and look at the implications for the whole family. I will make two final points. On race, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been goaded by the Opposition, but the work he did on an exploration of the justice system highlighted discrimination in the system—we have to admit that. It is not about two-tier justice; it is about trying to get fair justice for everybody. The reality is that all the statistics demonstrate that for the same crime, those who are black or Asian will get a harsher sentence and will almost certainly have a harsher regime when in prison than others. We need to follow up the work done by my right hon. Friend. We need to be open and transparent, and get all the information out there again and re-examine it on intersectionality and the implications for the justice system. Finally, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick on IPP. We have been at this for a number of years and the Select Committee made its recommendation on re-sentencing. The Government rejected it, because they were worried about being branded as releasing prisoners into the community and worried that there would be risks. The re-sentencing exercise was about how to manage and minimise those risks. Every time we have this debate and we do not move forward, what happens? We have had suicides of those IPP prisoners. I am worried that unless we speed up the resolution of this problem, we will have an injustice. Lord Blunkett, who introduced the system, has subsequently absolutely condemned it, saying it was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in politics. We will render those injustices continuing ones and do more harm to both the prisoners themselves and—as those who have had constituents who have endured this will know—their families. As I say, the families serve the sentence as much as the individuals concerned. Although there has been progress on this, I do think we need to revisit it in some legislative form in the near future.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to attend the meeting on Friday, but the Minister must appreciate that there is an element of scepticism about the future, in particular about what is happening with this unit. It confirms in my mind that if you stand still long enough, things will come around time and again. In our constituencies in Hillingdon, we have gone from cottage hospitals that provided immediate care for minor injuries, as well as having beds, which were closed, to being promised Darzi units, which we never saw, to looking forward to the hubs themselves. On Friday, I want to be able to convince people that there is a comprehensive plan that will be held to and properly invested in, because people will be very sceptical about the closure of a unit without the confidence that the architecture will be in place to meet the needs of our constituents. The petition has garnered such a large number of signatures because of that concern.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I should explain to my hon. Friend that I will have to leave the debate to attend a meeting about the violence meted out in a demonstration outside an asylum hotel in my constituency, but I want to make this point very clear. Labour is going to Liverpool for its conference in three weeks’ time. If this legislation is not sorted by then, it should not expect a welcome from the people in Liverpool, because we have waited too long.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am chair of the Public and Commercial Services trade union group in Parliament. As Members will know, PCS members from the House’s security division are taking strike action today. These are professional, dedicated and committed staff, and it takes a lot to motivate them to take strike action: their sense of grievance. There is a clear difference of view between the management of the House and the union about how we have arrived at this situation. Could I use this mechanism to urge the senior management of the House to seek another meeting with the union to clarify the situation and to come up with a reasonable offer that will resolve this dispute? I do not wish to see our dedicated staff outside of work on this basis. They provide us with the security that we need.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 8 July, I wrote to the Home Secretary regarding the implementation of the proscription order against Palestine Action. I wrote to her asking whether any guidance is being issued to the police on the implementation of that proscription, and in particular whether or not the expression of opposition to the proscription falls foul of the proscription order itself. That includes both reporters reporting those who are opposed to the proscription or indeed any Member of Parliament expressing opposition to it. I asked whether that would be construed as support for Palestine Action, and would therefore be actionable. I have received no response, so through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and maybe through those on the Treasury Bench, it would be helpful to urge the Home Secretary to reply or to issue a statement.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to be clear on the Government’s legal position. On 11 June last year, the Government reported that they saw “no serious risk of genocide” in Gaza. All this time on, and after the statements that the Foreign Secretary has made, can I be clear: is he saying tonight that the Government accept that there is a plausible risk of genocide? If he is not, will he instruct his officials to undertake an immediate review and report to Members as rapidly as possible? If there is a plausible risk of genocide, that would place legal duties on the Government—and all of us, I believe—to act accordingly. As we have seen in the past when we have had rogue states, like South Africa, the best form of bringing them to heel is financial sanctions. If the Foreign Secretary met the finance houses and banks in this country and they denied credit lines to Israeli banks, that would be probably the most effective thing we could do to bring the Israeli Government to their senses.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  Many people will find it incredible that Cunliffe was not even allowed to look at public ownership. I also say mildly to the Secretary of State that the £100 billion he cites has largely been refuted by independent bodies and economists. Way back in 2014, I raised the example of Northumbrian Water and its use of various complicated devices for tax avoidance. That became endemic within the industry. Can we have a report on the water companies’ role in tax avoidance on a massive scale, so that we can then look at what further action could be taken against them?

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

  More

  I will do my best, Sir Roger. I want to address new clause 8, tabled in my name. It is a procedural clause and I do not think it is particularly contentious. Before I address the new clause, I want to say that I am still getting emails and still being met on the bus and at community events by people who are extremely distressed about this legislation going through. I want to put on record for my constituents that, as always, I will not vote for any legislation that cuts benefits to some of the poorest people I represent. I just cannot do that and I want that underlined. Ironically, just to give some context, some Members may have listened today to an interview on the “Today” programme with George Osborne, who is now the chair of the British Museum, in which he was talking about the Bayeux tapestry coming to this country. I remember another tapestry, which was brought to this House when he introduced cuts to benefits for disabled people. It showed the names of the people who had committed suicide. Do hon. Members remember that? It was one of the most distressing things I have seen in my political life and I wept that day. I do not want that to happen again. Let us be honest, as sure as night follows day, if cuts go through on the scale proposed, people will lose their lives. People will suffer immense harm. Let us all understand that. Members talk pompously about “The House at its best”, but last week’s debate was a good day for the House. People on all sides expressed their views, the Government responded, although not as far as I wanted them to respond, and the House held the Government to account. It is not often that we see that, but it happened, and the reason it happened was that we were dealing with primary legislation that hon. Members could debate and amend. I have put this new clause forward because, if the Government do anything, they should do it through primary legislation and not delegated legislation, which goes on in Committee, where there is no chance to amend it and it is often rushed through on a vote with no debate. This matter is so important that that is not the way we should operate as a House. Last week, hon. Members on all sides of the debate showed how democracy should work in this Chamber. That is why my new clause says that the Government must bring forward primary legislation in draft form so that we can all see it—no bouncers any more—and it is not done as delegated legislation so that Members do not have the chance to amend it or properly discuss it. That is all I ask for, and to be frank, it is not contentious. I would expect the Government just to accept it, because it is the normal democratic process in this Chamber. I want to be able to go back to my constituents when the review comes forward, and say, “I argued your case, I tried to amend it, I won on some and lost on others—that’s democracy.” I support new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). It is truly an excellent setting out of how co-production could work. The only element on which I disagree with her is when the process moves on and we become dependent on the Government making a statement, which we could reject so that they could not move on. The problem with that is exactly the same as with delegated legislation: we cannot amend a statement. I have been here so long that I know what Governments do. They bring forward a statement including some good stuff that we cannot vote against, but there is also some bad stuff that we disagree with. If we cannot amend it at that stage, it is all or nothing, and as a result, we get bad legislation. None the less, the part of new clause 11 that sets out who should be consulted, be involved and elect the chair is critical. I do not want to sound patronising, but the speech made by the hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge last week brought tears to my eyes, and it is not often a speech in this House does that. The justified anger that she expressed about what went on under the Tories moved me deeply, and I think it moved the whole House. I do not want a Member standing up in five years’ time equally angry about what we did in this legislation. I want us to be able to hold the Government to account, not aggressively but constructively, in a way that we can debate and amend, and hopefully we might even be able to build consensus. That is what my new clause is all about, and that is all I want to say.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Services for Adults with Learning Difficulties: Hillingdon · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He will know that the garden centre also provides an essential service to my constituents. I have visited the place for either 20 or 30 years—I am not clear—and it was commended by the former Conservative leader of Hillingdon council, who called it a jewel in the crown. That is why it has come as such a shock that this Conservative administration is now willing to close it with such brutality. Does the hon. Member agree that the council should, even at this late stage, think again and consult properly—including all those volunteers and parents as well as the people who use the centre—to look at a wider range of options? This does not have to happen now: the council just needs to listen to us.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Services for Adults with Learning Difficulties: Hillingdon · Hansard source

  More

  I fully appreciate the point that the Minister makes, but will she take advice from colleagues in other Departments on the following specific point? My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and I have been working with different groups and we have sought to register, under relevant legislation, the Rural Activities Garden Centre as a community asset, which would force the local authority to properly consult with us and to engage with the wider community. The council is going ahead with the decision to sell or close in advance of even considering whether it should be a community asset. Will she help us by taking advice, from whichever Department is relevant, about whether or not there is anything we can do, as a Government, to ensure that Hillingdon council abides by the legislation that was passed to protect community assets such as this one?

• 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?