John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement on this matter and the list of issues. Those issues will be subject to consultation, which will be part of the negotiation. I want to reassure her that the RMT strategy is usually not just crossing its fingers.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  I was elated at first to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with these matters, until I discovered that the Government had redefined the nature of British waters. Restricting the measure to UK waters was even less effective.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Birmingham bin dispute has gone on for many months. The city has declared a major incident and many of the workers are facing severe hardship. Will the Leader of the House urge a ministerial colleague to come to the House to make a statement on the role that the Government could play in resolving the dispute after all these months, which has caused such harm to the city and to the workers?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. I declare an interest as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) is the chair. This will be like a Metropolitan police interview between us, and I am not sure which element I am doing. These debates have gone on for at least the 20 years that I have attended. What usually happens is that there is a large attendance, and hon. Members get up and list the names of local journalists to ingratiate themselves as much as possible. From the NUJ’s point of view, however, that never works. I will briefly run through the stats because what we are facing at the moment is pretty stark: 300 local papers have gone out of publication since 2005, which is when we had one of our earliest debates. An estimated 5.4 million people now live in deserts where there is no local paper. In my local area, like that of the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), we had five but we are now down to one that is not really local. I take pleasure in the local journalism students at Brunel University doing their best to revive a paper, but it is a real struggle. We are almost in a monopoly situation now. Nationally, Newsquest, NationalWorld and Reach cover 51% of local papers. The situation is even worse for DAB radio, which is two thirds controlled by Bauer and Global; they have 60% of analogue radio as well. The first issue for the agenda is that there is just a lack of regulation. We should not allow that sort of monopoly development to take place, so we urgently need to look again at regulation. We have just had another round of redundancies at Reach, as some Members will know because they signed the early-day motion on the issue. We have had 300 redundancies, and on top of that 50 sports journalists went during the summer as well. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill mentioned the issue with AI. The problem now is that the use of AI is very clever, because it looks as though news is almost localised when it is not—it is just a different use of language. It is a betrayal of local people that AI has been distorted in this way. We have stood back and watched this happen while the tech companies have exploited the whole industry and made fortunes. One calculation in our briefing was that the US tech firms have made about £15 billion of profits, a lot of it from us in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and I will both dwell on something fairly obvious to us: regulation definitely needs to be looked at again. The NUJ has always suggested that there should be a 25% limit or cap on how much is owned by any particular corporation. We also want to look at new models of ownership. We have had this debate before and stimulated some development, but it was not consistently resourced. One argument we have put to the Government is that we need a journalism foundation that looks at new ideas to bring together people from all sides of the industry. We are also calling on the Government to look at a tax on techs that can be reinvested in local journalism. We suggest 6%, but even limited taxation on the techs would mean we could provide a lot more support at local level. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it was a bit of a knock-back recently that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will not require local authorities to advertise in their local press. That is a valuable source of money. I am talking about information on alcohol licences and other local notices. We think that is a real step backwards and might, in itself, be make or break for some local newspapers. We would also like newspapers to be defined in the Bill as community assets, so that they have the same protection as other local community assets when they come up for sale. The BBC charter renewal has been mentioned, and we think there is a real opportunity there. I should also mention the local reporter scheme via the BBC, which we negotiated under a Conservative Government. It was an advance, but it is now being exploited by some local papers that are exploiting the individual journalist to do other work, rather than local reporting. We need to review that, but we think the scheme is good in itself. I have outlined a programme of reforms that we think the Government could readily work on. As we can see today, there is a lot of cross-party agreement on how we can go forward. As I repeat time and again, there is not a person here who does not value their local paper for holding him or her to account.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  I do not do that baloney about what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, but congratulations on your elevation to the chair, Dr Khan.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  No, I never mentioned it; don’t worry. Does the Minister agree about the sense of urgency in this debate? I will give an example from my constituency. We had those demonstrations outside the asylum hotels, largely fuelled not by local people, but by organisations, quite ruthless ones, with masked men trying to break into the hotels and all the rest. Also, on social media, we have had allegations made against asylum seekers that are completely untrue, but specifically designed to sow division in our community. We lack a very locally focused newspaper, so people have no access to finding out what the truth really is. They get beguiled and misled by that social media, which is deliberate, because those social media clicks become clickbait, and those individuals make money from it. That is the significance of local media, in particular local press, at the moment when our society is under such threat from those individuals and far-right organisations.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  May I welcome the additional money for the criminal legal aid advocates and for more pupillages? If we are to rely more on judges, often sitting alone, is there not a need for greater transparency with regard to the selection of those judges, even to the point of individual selection on individual cases? I wrote to the Secretary of State this morning on behalf of a number of our members about a particular instance of the disappearance of a judge. I would be grateful if he could read that letter and possibly meet a group of MPs concerned about that matter.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns. My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century. The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty. New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked. I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to argue the case for Wessex. [ Laughter. ] No, I don’t. I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject. Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment. I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has mentioned children. Last night I met Dr Mohammed Tahir, the doctor featured in the film “The Mission”. In that film, he is shown operating on children without anaesthesia, with dead children at his feet. Only 10%, at best, of medical supplies are getting through to Gaza at the moment. Can our Government not do more to enforce a greater supply?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I heard the word “finally”, and that moved me to intervene. I offer my support and thank the Government for amendments 116, 117 and 118 on air pollution, which render redundant the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the expansion of Heathrow. Before the Minister moves on, what is the Government’s attitude to new clause 29? It seems to embody many of the Government’s policies. If she will not accept that new clause tonight, will she work on some of the issues within it for the Bill’s next stage of consideration?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The thing that seems to bind us all together is the search for the truth. I just hope that, through this process, we might be able to agree about how we can achieve that. One of my earliest Adjournment debates, way back in 1999, was on the murder of Patrick Finucane. Only weeks before that, I had been on a platform with Rosemary Nelson as part of the human rights campaign. Weeks after was murdered by a loyalist bomb under her car, so we are all desperate to find the truth, because hopefully that might bring some closure. I desperately want this Bill to work, and I want to ask a number of questions about how I believe some of the issues should be addressed. The first is about ECHR compliance. Clause 26 deals with that. It basically says that a statement will be published giving guidance to which investigations will have to have regard about standards and how certain elements of the investigation have to comply with certain rules of behaviour. That narrows it towards the ECHR, but there is no express provision on that. I just do not understand why there is no express provision requiring Legacy Commission inquiries to meet ECHR standards. Clause 11 is the same. It says that “human rights should be respected”, rather than complied with. Why is there a change in the wording of the joint framework, which was specifically about compliance, not respect? Let us be clear: the national security veto gives the Secretary of State the ability to redact reports to families on security grounds, and as a result there is a fear about potential concealment. The measure refers to the relevant Secretary of State—the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—but some of these people will be responsible for MI5 and military intelligence, which might be the subject of an investigation. There is a clear conflict of interest there. Why not assign security decisions to a judicial panel member rather than leaving them in the hands of a Secretary of State? There are immense powers in the hands of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair, the commissioners, the director of investigations, the chief executive officer and the judicial panel. The Secretary of State has a duty to take advice from a relevant panel of persons—the names are to be subsequently published. It is not clear who those advisers will be, what their status will be or even what their experience will be. In addition, under the Stormont House agreement, the Justice Minister makes appointments on the basis of a binding recommendation from an appointments panel of statutory office holders. Why have we departed from that approach in this piece of legislation? There has been reference to the internment clauses: clauses 89 and 90. I remind the House that a number of members of the Provisional IRA were interned, but it was not just suspected Provisionals who were imprisoned at that time. There were more general political opponents of Unionism, too. There were members of civil rights organisations and trade unionists. I believe that they deserve justice as much as anybody else. I hope that, as we reach the next stage, there will be a cross-party element to the Bill’s improvement so that we can secure the confidence of all as we go forward. If we do not, it will remain a matter of rancour for the future, and I do not believe that we would be serving our constituents or anybody else properly in that respect.

• 18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, send my condolences to the family of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary member who has been lost. The RFA is unique in that it is largely civilian-crewed by members of the RMT trade union, working alongside Royal Navy personnel. They work as a very professional, tight family; any loss like this will be a real blow to them. I wish to raise the issue of the security of Chinese nationals and others in this country. Two weeks ago I was at a demonstration on behalf of Lee Cheuk-yan—our colleague, the former general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong—who has been in prison now for four years. At those demonstrations, there is always a fear of the monitoring of demonstrators and particularly for the security of Chinese nationals in this country. I would welcome the Minister’s view on what further action could be taken to reassure people that, in the exercise of their democratic rights in this country, they do not become vulnerable to any actions by the Chinese state here.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  When we introduce new legislation and new procedures, it is important that we calculate the implications and where they could lead us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have worked—for decades, to be frank—with asylum families, and in particular children. What I find is that the children are extremely traumatised. What we try to do is give them security and peace of mind for the family. Now what will happen is that every 30 months that security could be undermined and they could face removal. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has consulted the Children’s Commissioner, education psychologists or others about the implications of what she is saying today? The other issue is that in the past, she has mentioned the forced removal of families. I just remind my colleagues that in the past that was happening and families were often detained in Harmsworth detention centre. I used to visit the children. It was one of the most distressing experiences I have had as an MP. Can she give me the assurance that no child will be placed in detention as a result of this policy change?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue. In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes. That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40. Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate. In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent. King’s consent signified.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an extremely considered speech. On that point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), we now have concerns being expressed by virtually every environmental organisation we have ever worked with, including SERA—the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—Labour’s own environment campaign. Could there not be a compromise here? If the Government were really clear on the process for the future, the issues that my hon. Friend has just raised could be considered. Then, we could see that there was a strategic approach on some issues, but that there would be further consideration on others that the Government could come back to. There is potential there for a compromise with the other House as part of this ping-pong process.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You’ve got a canal.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must say that I do get a bit edgy when Front Benchers agree so much. In respect of Lords amendment 84, I want to be absolutely clear about what the Minister has said. As far as I am aware, it will now be a human being making the decisions: an authorising officer. The authorising officers will be able to draw upon all other information—that is what the Minister said—but it is still not clear to me whether a decision can be made simply on the basis of the EVM information. It would therefore be useful if the Government’s intention were read into the record more clearly. As for Lords amendment 43, I want to follow up on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). We have received representations with regard to, in particular, people suffering from mental health issues, some of whom would be leading chaotic lives. The Minister is right to say that it is not for Ministers to engage in the process of making individual decisions because that is for the authorising officers to do, but the one occasion on which the Minister can be held to account is when the annual independent review takes place. According to my understanding, the Minister said that the reviewer would not be prevented from exploring the issue of the exercise of powers and the impact on vulnerable people. May I suggest that that could be strengthened? Perhaps he will tell us when he responds to the debate. It is not just about prevention; it is appropriate for the independent review to consider that issue, largely because of the representations that we have received consistently throughout our debates on the Bill, and from a wide range of organisations that represent people with disabilities and, in particular, mental health challenges. A statement to that effect would be more reassuring than the words that we have heard so far. I do not really understand why the Government would resist this, because it is just a basic element of accountability in an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has said, could affect so many people and could have such a significant adverse effect. I do not want to exaggerate, but I was in the House throughout our discussions of the introduction of the work capability assessment, and, although the last Government refused to accept it, we now know that it resulted in a large number of suicides. In this instance, I would not want us to enter into a reform of the processes specified in the Bill without a regular review of the harms that could be caused, which would enable us subsequently to adjust the legislation if necessary. I would welcome a clarification from the Minister, or perhaps a strengthening of the words that he has used so far.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to clarify one point. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are resisting having contained within the annual review the question of whether harm is being done, because that is, to be fair, the only way we will learn whether the legislation is operating in the way the Government wish it to, and then whether any changes in the system are needed. When we had the work capability assessment, it took us 10 years and more than a thousand suicides before people accepted that there was a problem, because there was no review mechanism publicly available. That is all this amendment is asking for. All I am asking for today is for the Minister to put on the record very clearly that it is perfectly appropriate for the independent reviewer to look at the harms that could have been created by this legislation.