John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  My amendment to the Bill would tackle the inequity that was introduced as a result of George Osborne’s policies, which targeted children and disabled people. That is what they did; that is what that was about. What the Conservatives have done today is what they did in 2013 when they introduced the policy. They thought, “How can we construct a moral argument for this?”, so they reverted to the 19th-century Poor Law and the argument of less eligibility. The idea behind the 19th-century Poor Law was that someone in need of support should never be raised to the level of decency of an ordinary labourer. This policy echoed the argument from the 19th century that we cannot allow people to be raised out of poverty; they must remain in poverty. That is what the Poor Law did, and that is what this policy did. It thrust hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and deep poverty.

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

  More

  New clause 4, in my name and the names of many hon. Members, echoes new clauses 1 and 3. I take reference from points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); when we came together to discuss the two-child limit and this Bill, the House was filled largely with compassion, because we had the view that we just could not stand by and watch so many of our children living in poverty. That is why we welcome the Bill and have campaigned for it for so long. We were building an element of consensus across a large part of the House, but the problem that we have, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is that a good Bill is being ruined—or damaged, anyway—by avoiding the issue of the overall benefit cap. As it is impossible for Back Benchers to move amendments that will incur Government expenditure, we could not move an amendment to abolish the overall cap, so through the amendments we have tabled we are simply saying to the Government, “Please acknowledge that the abolition of the two-child limit leaves a large number of our children in poverty.” My hon. Friend the Member for York Central has said that 141,000 children are affected by the overall cap, but from the last estimate the figure is about 150,000, and there are 50,000 families who gain nothing as a result of the Bill, which is excellent but does not go far enough. Another 30,000 families only get some partial benefit. All these amendments say to the Government, “Because we cannot move an amendment tonight that will scrap the cap, at least consult on the implications of this Bill and those it leaves behind.” New clause 4 lists a number of the organisations that we depend on for the analysis of poverty and the discussion of the implications. The amendments are not revolutionary; they are straightforward. They ask the Government to please tell us what their next steps are, because they must include the tackling of the overall cap. I welcome the reviews that are going on, but meanwhile time is ticking over. It took us a year to arrive at the final conclusion on the two-child limit, and there could be another year of all those children still living in poverty.

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

  More

  True, true, so I will bring this section of my remarks to a fairly rapid conclusion. What happened was that the Chancellor at that time—

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and we play a specific role in trying to protect the ability of journalists to report honestly and fairly across the world. We believe that what we saw was an attempt to smear journalists to prevent them from reporting the truth. That is why I wrote on five occasions to the general secretary of the Labour party, and to the Prime Minister, to ask for an independent inquiry. In the end, I was told that an inquiry was being undertaken by the Public Relations and Communications Association, which is not a regulatory body. I was told that the Cabinet Office was not carrying out an investigation, but assembling the facts. We now know that ex-Labour Together staff are in that team, and we know that Ministers have received donations, often to their office or their campaign. The scale of the donations from Labour Together is shocking, to be frank. It is almost as though an organisation has bought a political party—that is one of our worries. Now we are told that this matter will be referred to the independent adviser. Is it true that the independent adviser will investigate the whole sequence of events with regard to Labour Together, and not just the role of this individual MP, who is now a junior Minister, during the period when he was an MP or a Minister? We need to get the full truth of what went on. At the moment, this does not pass the smell test, as far as I am concerned.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is a whitewash—it is another whitewash!

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay matters, but it is now being reported in the media that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has accidentally messaged details of his case to a mass WhatsApp group of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs, in which he said: “Jonny rang, PM will ask Laurie to look in to it. Aim is to move fast. But PET did find I had not broken the code.” I take it that Jonny is the Chief Whip and Laurie is the independent adviser. PET is the propriety and ethics team. However, the PET cannot determine whether or not a Minister has broken the code. A Government spokesperson has said: “This was an accidental post and clearly meant for a more private conversation. It’s right that the independent adviser takes this away now.” Could I have your assurance, Mr Speaker, that whatever has been provided to this Member from the propriety and ethics team will be published immediately, and that there will be openness and transparency on this matter?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  I have been trying to follow the Secretary of State’s responses regarding relationships with political parties and others. There are issues with regard to some companies. For example, the Quadrature hedge fund has massive investments in Palantir and donates to political parties in this country, including the Labour party, to which it made a £4 million donation in 2024. Will he take away the question of what influence that had on the decision-making processes for the award of contracts?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) yet again for leading these debates. Just so that people know, her sister was a friend of mine. She was a Labour party organiser who rose in the ranks and over the years supported me in my various general election campaigns. She was very supportive but, at the same time, quite terrifying for anyone politically stepping out of line. She was an absolutely wonderful woman. The reason I intervene in these debates is because I am inspired by hon. Friend, who I call a dear friend. In my constituency, I have a Mr and Mrs Atwal, who lost their daughter tragically and who every year undertake —with the Milan Asian ladies group and Councillor Kuldeep Lakhmana, who organise it—a sort of mini-mela to raise funds. I pay tribute to them and I want to thank them sincerely for not putting my Hindi singing or my bhangra dancing on social media. There are two small points I want to make. The first follows on from the speech by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones). The issue about access to scanning is absolutely critical. One of the issues that we have found is that there is not just a postcode lottery but a lack of awareness among some GPs about the national guidance. I know that GPs are incredibly busy, but we need to do something to raise awareness about that. I chair a group of unpaid carers—we had a meeting this afternoon—and the second issue for me is the need for an acknowledgment in Government that if someone becomes a carer, perhaps over a long period of time, and usually with children survivors, they are almost certain to come across living in poverty. We need to look at how we support carers overall, including on the additional burden they face. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden explained in the previous debate the transport needs she had and the way she was having to pay for accommodation for her sister when she was being treated. That is the same for so many other people—they cannot bear the costs. The briefing from the Brain Tumour Charity said that the total financial burden for those seeking to care was something like £78 million a year. The ongoing costs are incredibly significant. For many of the carers in the group I chair—they care for a whole range of conditions—of course the Government have assisted them greatly in raising the income they can arrange through employment themselves, but there are issues with flexible employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised that. There is not yet adequate acknowledgment of the need for flexible employment to enable people to earn a level of income that will help them survive. The issue, for those who literally cannot take on employment because of the hours they have to care, is that the level of carer’s allowance is abysmal. There is a recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, and further reports are coming out from the University of Sheffield, which is doing a lot of work on this. Somehow, we have to come to terms with the fact that we will have to raise the level of carer’s allowance. It needs to be related at least to the minimum wage. Then, on that basis, we may be able to help some of these carers cope with the work they are undertaking for their loved ones, but also ensure that they are not living in poverty, because so many of them are at the moment. We all supported the cancer strategy, and there is overwhelming support in the House to get on with the job, but looking at some of these fine details could transform people’s lives and how they are dealing with the situation at the moment. Part of it is about advocacy. What came out of my meeting today—this will sound a bit harsh—was that in the carers’ dealings with the various agencies, including the Department for Work and Pensions, they reported almost unanimously a lack of empathy in the way they are dealt with. If we can transform the cancer strategy to ensure that we embed that understanding and empathy, to understand what people are going through, and that they should not have to risk living in poverty and the whole family being impacted because of the financial consequences of the care they will have to undertake, we could transform the whole atmosphere around carers and the role they provide. We have produced figures for the £180 billion that carers save the country overall through the unpaid care they do, but we never then acknowledge that in the actions we take. In this coming period, it is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the first carer’s allowance—it was called invalid care allowance back then. This is the opportunity to address that issue because for many of those people who are caring for people with these conditions, particularly children, it desperately needs addressing.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  The reason we are here is that there is a profound responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament in particular, to ensure that our Government act in accordance with international humanitarian law. There are two questions that we need to pose time and again. First, what evidence would it take to convince the Government that there is a risk of genocide? That means evidence not that there is genocide, but that there is a risk of genocide. Secondly, what process should the Government use to determine that? On the first question, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the evidential methods that we have used in the past, when we have determined that there have been genocides, are not simply being accepted by the Government at the moment, given the loss of life—the 70,000, as has been said—and the way in which the genocide has been perpetrated. There are the attacks on health workers and doctors, with 1,700 killed that we know about, and at least 100 who have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, and even to their own families.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  No, I cannot accept any interventions. There is also the number of journalists killed—more than 300—because part of this genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. And, yes, there is the forced movement of people, with 9,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, 100 of whom have died in the past two years. That is the evidence we present time and again. It is the same kind of evidence we have used in the past to determine genocide, so why is it not acceptable now? The second question is about the process. I will just say to the Minister that time and again we have had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process that the Government are using to arrive at their determination of whether there is a risk of genocide. I am afraid that not only have Members of this House and the wider public lost confidence in the internal processes, but that is what is forcing people out on to the streets and into forms of direct action, because they have lost confidence in the Government’s own objective assessment. I therefore suggest this to the Minister: why not establish an independent commission? Use people such as Philippe Sands and others, and let the House determine who sits on that commission, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence available. I think that the Government, once they see the evidence, will have to accept that there is at least a risk of genocide, and that will have to determine their actions. Some of those have been set out today: the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, and the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people—and yes, for the Israeli people—for the long term.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really grateful for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I just want the assurance that the Government will not be able to exercise a veto over the information that will be provided via the Committee.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  If I could follow that, Madam Deputy Speaker—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to disturb the debate in this way. I have tried to follow it as much as possible while I have been in and out of the Chamber with other duties. A manuscript amendment has been agreed, with, I take it, cross-party agreement. People will be making up their minds on how to vote on that amendment, and we therefore need clarity—those on the Front Bench could intervene now to clarify this for me. I want to get this absolutely clear. We are all going to vote for the material to be released; there is consensus on that. The difference is with regard to who interprets what is released. The manuscript amendment excepts elements of information that are prejudicial to national security and international relations, “which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.” I agree with that, but I would like clarity on whether the Intelligence and Security Committee will make the decision about publication, or— [ Interruption. ] Please listen. Will it make the decision or will it simply advise the Government and the final decision will rest with the Government? It would be helpful to have that clarified before we vote.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration · Hansard source

  More

  He is not giving way because he will not admit responsibility.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way? He should not be allowed to get away with this.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration · Hansard source

  More

  Maybe the Ministers at the time did not see Capita’s Army recruitment fiasco, its primary care fiasco that put patients at risk, the near-collapse of the teachers’ pension scheme or the cyber-attack in which Capita exposed the data of 6.5 million people and was fined millions. Does the hon. Member not think that Ministers might have taken those into account before awarding this contract?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration · Hansard source

  More

  I think that we are all going to be saying much the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) set out a comprehensive understanding of the situation at the moment. My latest contact has been from a Border Force guard who was planning his retirement but cannot get the information and has had to delay retirement. Others have not had their pensions paid. They are in a really serious plight. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. Let us be absolutely clear: this is a failed privatisation. It came in during the obsession of the last Government with privatisation during the early 2010s. At that time the union warned that there would be problems of this sort. We also warned that what will happen with these privatisations is that they get sold on—the companies get taken over and contracts are re-awarded. I found it shocking that Capita was awarded the contract in the first place, having lost the teachers union pension contract. I find it extraordinary that that was not properly taken into account. People are aware that the general secretary of the union has written to the Cabinet Office about this on behalf of the union. So that hon. Members are aware what has happened, all that the union is asking for is clarity about the disclosure of the resources that Capita and others are now putting into resolving this problem. What level of staffing will be devoted to this problem? What is the timetable for resolving this problem? As many Members have said, there needs to be a direct instruction to Capita about dealing with the hardship cases—the bereavements and so on: the priorities that the members of the pension scheme have set out though their union. The union has said it needs an assurance that if there is a prioritisation taking place, the completion of the voluntary exit schemes should be delayed. The prioritisation should be focused on getting the money out to those people who need it. Angela MacDonald has been announced as setting up the recovery scheme in the current crisis. My worry is that we might be here in two, three or four years’ time—whenever it is—because this privatisation has demonstrated that it cannot work. That is why so many members are asking the Government to please not exclude the possibility of bringing the scheme back into public administration. I do not want to be here again, pleading for people who have not had their pensions. On that point, I would like the Minister to say whether there is a clause within the existing contract that allows for its termination if it has failed, as it is failing at the moment. That could give us the opportunity for a fresh look at bringing it back in-house.

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

  More

  I am pleased that I have sat through the whole debate today. The speeches I have heard from Members on the Government Benches have been incredibly eloquent and moving, and I am really pleased that we are where we are now in scrapping the two-child limit. I have listened to the speeches by Opposition Members. Looking back in history, they were reminiscent of the debates on the Poor Law in the early 19th century. If people remember their history, they will know that there was an economist called Malthus at the time. He suggested that if anything was given to the poor by way of support or benefits, it would make them lazy and make them breed, and he thought that the only way to control the population was to starve the poor. That was reflected in the debate today. I hope that one day we will have a civilised society in which those views are not heard, especially the racist views expressed by Reform on how to separate our society, when we know that there are divisions and that we need to bring people together. Let me say to my hon. Friends and to those on the Front Bench, please do not spoil this Bill now. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but others have raised the issue of the overall cap. If we allow that to exist, it will spoil the Bill; it will not do the job that we need it to do. Scrapping the two-child limit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, but, as others have said, if we maintain the overall cap, it will mean that 150,000 children will still be hit. That means that we will not have done our job. I know we can argue that we will come back to that, but the longer we delay, the longer those children will live in poverty. There must be a way to resolve this issue quickly, and this piece of legislation could be that way. In comparison with removing the overall two-child limit, it is—I say this in inverted commas—“relatively inexpensive”. I think the cost would be about £500 million compared with £3 billion, so we could do it. It cannot be done by an amendment from a Back-Bench Member, because only the Government can bring forward proposals that involve increased expenditure in any form. I appeal to those on the Front Bench: please do not spoil the Bill at this stage. Try to bring us all together in absolute consensus across most of the House and do the job properly. Lift all children out of poverty in this way, because, as I say, I think it will be relatively inexpensive, and the impact of not doing so will be severe. I do not want to get into another row over this particular issue. I voted against the two-child limit when it was introduced. I railed against it—I do not think that I have ever been so angry in this House as I was that day—and that is why I have continually voted to scrap it. I know that people are anxious about the vote in the King’s Speech debate, but that was a vote not against the King’s Speech but in favour of scrapping the two-child limit. I understand the argument that it must be done as a component part of a Budget so that we can afford it, but that is why I was disappointed that we had not done it first—because it was so meaningful for me to scrap the limit itself. We are where we are now, and I am really pleased. I just want those on the Government Front Bench to go that little step further and scrap the overall limit. There are other issues, such as rate controls, but we can come back to those at the next stage of tackling child poverty through our strategy. So I make that appeal. Let me just say that although a Back Bencher cannot table an amendment that raises expenditure, we can table ones that make the Bill dependent on further reports being published within a time-limited period on scrapping the overall limit. I will be open in giving notice now that, if the Government do not bring forward a meaningful amendment, I will seek to work with the Clerks to table an amendment that at least commits the Government to consider and report back to the House on scrapping the overall limit. If necessary, I will push that to a vote.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I would rather not, because other people need to come in. Let me just make a point about parliamentary process. If this is to be done not through primary legislation that we can debate and amend, but via a statutory instrument, it needs to be done under the double affirmative process, so that we can have a debate and the opportunity for amendments. Otherwise, I think the Government are going to run into opposition of a scale that they have seen on other issues, frighten people and undermine our support, completely unnecessarily. If there are issues around immigration that we have to deal with—if people can remember, we did it with the bogus colleges—we should do it through proper legal process and prosecution. If there are abuses in the system, let us address the abuses, but do not harm people in this way as a result.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Through you, Sir Edward, may I address the Minister? Just read the room. The only other times it has been as packed as this when I have been here in recent times have been for debates on the two-child limit and on welfare benefits. I do not want to see our Government make another embarrassing U-turn like that. The reason we are here is that every one of us has a case that, if the proposed change goes through, will be absolutely tragic. Families have settled, sold their accommodation and everything in their home, worked hard and delivered everything asked of them, and we are going to deny them and their children the right to the future that they hope for. If this goes ahead, every one of us will report social care collapsing in our constituencies. I remind people that it was many of these workers, with their experience, who delivered us through covid. Some of them sacrificed their lives. This is just unjust, and the Minister needs to recognise that, take the message back to those who are developing our strategy as a Government and say, “This isn’t the route to go down.”

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an extremely significant matter to announce on a Thursday, when the House is usually light in attendance, with limited notice, and with a very detailed document having been lodged in the House of Commons Library. Through your offices, and through liaison with those on the Treasury Bench, can time be found over the next fortnight for a full and comprehensive debate on this issue? I know that when I get back to my constituency, there will be many very angry people who feel let down, if not betrayed. Members need the opportunity to reflect the concerns of their constituents here.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Labour Members fully agree with the Minister on that point, certainly. I refer to my registered interest as a member of Unite. As time is limited, will the Minister address the key question that several Members have put to her? The Government have a specific, special role in this matter. It is not like other disputes between the council and a workforce: because of the role of commissioners appointed by the Government, there is a responsibility that falls on the Government’s shoulders. There will be a major picket on 30 January that trade unionists will be coming to from across the country, to support their comrades—their brothers and sisters—in the dispute in Birmingham. I will be going as well. There is a limited time in which that picket could be made redundant if the Government convened a meeting of all the parties concerned. It behoves the Government to do so, because it seems as though it is the commissioners who are blocking the settlement. I urge the Minister to convene that meeting and get people round the table, because I think a negotiated deal could be forthcoming as a result.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  It is almost heartbreaking to witness this happening. It is pure sophistry to say that the Government do not have a role or that they have no locus. The Government appointed the commissioners, who report to them. I appeal to the Minister: simply get people in the same room, because a deal is available.