John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dame Siobhain—I am not sure if that is beneficial to the debate, but there you are. I declare an interest as the chair of the PCS trade union parliamentary group. I first want to thank the Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance, which worked with the trade union to expose what is going on. I also thank the Minister for her open-door policy. On 9 September, Capita supplied her with information that, let us say, has a passing relationship with the truth. For the October statement, could we ensure that we have the full publication of the Grant Thornton audit report, so that we can see the hard information? The PCS is willing to work with the Minister on the insourcing strategy. I also ask that we have a full inquiry into how this contract was awarded in the first place, and how Capita has been awarded further contracts despite its successive failures.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On a number of occasions, I have raised the case of Lee Cheuk-yan, who many Labour Members will remember was the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong. He was detained during the democracy movement five years ago. In the last 48 hours, we have heard that he will be before the courts again on Friday. Having served a five-year sentence, he is now being tried for subversion, and faces the threat of a 30-year sentence. Will the Leader of the House liaise with the Foreign Secretary to see whether we can get a statement on behalf of Lee, urging clemency, and hopefully secure his release?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, as I will need to speak and then leave as I have a Bill to present in the Chamber—I am keeping my eye on the business. I declare my interests as well; I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to raise one of the RMT’s concerns. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to see this all through—it is an excellent piece of work—and to have a review very shortly afterwards. I want to put something on the agenda for that review, if that is possible. Let me go through some of the details. The union itself, and the seafarers’ unions overall, welcome the new regulations but they do not improve the situation for access for seafarers. In fact, they simply repeat the restrictions we already have in section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was introduced at the height of the Conservative Government’s introduction of anti-trade union legislation and attack on trade union rights. The regulations now mean that trade unions will only be able to improve access on UK-flagged ships, whereas in the recent period we have seen a large number of companies flagging in other countries. That means, for example, that the RMT will not, as a result of the access regulations, be able to organises seafarers on P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries, Cobelfret and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they call at UK ports on a daily basis. When this issue was raised in the House of Lords, in an amendment tabled by our friend Lord John Hendy back in 2025, Baroness Jones gave the commitment that the Government would “explore how they could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 69.] At that point, John Hendy’s amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to Great Britain. That link, as the Minister will know, was 120 calls at an individual port. Ideally, that is where we want to go. It is just a matter of wanting to get in the review, as rapidly as possible, the right form of words to give the protection that the Government intend for all workers. We do not want to be in a situation where seafarers remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, at P&O.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I think that goes to the heart of the debate that we are having, which is about levels of accountability within our structures themselves. NATS is accountable to the CAA, but who is the CAA accountable to? I have raised with the Secretary of State proposed new section 61G of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, on the priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State in relation to aviation, which sets out that they must issue a document that is a directive to the CAA. The reason I asked about the proposed new clause is that, given the way it is drafted, I thought we were eventually going to move towards a more expansive document that would set out in detail some of the issues, particularly on the environment, for my interest, but also service delivery and so on. In fact, the document is currently simply a letter, a couple of pages long, that will be sent on a regular basis, usually annually, and laid before Parliament. I thought that this legislation would be useful in giving us something more substantial; something that would be consulted on in more detail; and something that would set out a more detailed direction to the CAA as to how it should implement its responsibilities and role, as a result of which the CAA would then become more accountable to the Secretary of State and therefore to this House. The point is that when things go wrong, actions are agreed, but we never really get the substance of the follow-up on those actions. That is the problem. I will just raise another example that people might remember taking place at Heathrow, which is when the substation went up in flames, and we then discovered that the fall-back operations were not working effectively either. There is a real vulnerability for the future. I think we need a bit more of an authoritative role for this House, in terms of how the Secretary of State can influence the CAA and make it more accountable. That is the main point I wanted to make. I do not think that people realise the massive power that the CAA has and the implications that has for the lives and health of literally millions of people when it determines flight paths and standards of performance. The legislation needs further debate on other aspects as well, but I do not think we have got much further in establishing an effective structure for airspace decision making. There is very little independent monitoring in the decision making, and it becomes impossible to challenge, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, because local communities do not have the resources for judicial review—they are just on their own. There does not seem to be the basic accountability mechanism that we would expect of other bodies performing similar public duties.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, as I will need to speak and then leave as I have a Bill to present in the Chamber—I am keeping my eye on the business. I declare my interests as well; I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to raise one of the RMT’s concerns. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to see this all through—it is an excellent piece of work—and to have a review very shortly afterwards. I want to put something on the agenda for that review, if that is possible. Let me go through some of the details. The union itself, and the seafarers’ unions overall, welcome the new regulations but they do not improve the situation for access for seafarers. In fact, they simply repeat the restrictions we already have in section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was introduced at the height of the Conservative Government’s introduction of anti-trade union legislation and attack on trade union rights. The regulations now mean that trade unions will only be able to improve access on UK-flagged ships, whereas in the recent period we have seen a large number of companies flagging in other countries. That means, for example, that the RMT will not, as a result of the access regulations, be able to organises seafarers on P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries, Cobelfret and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they call at UK ports on a daily basis. When this issue was raised in the House of Lords, in an amendment tabled by our friend Lord John Hendy back in 2025, Baroness Jones gave the commitment that the Government would “explore how they could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 69.] At that point, John Hendy’s amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to Great Britain. That link, as the Minister will know, was 120 calls at an individual port. Ideally, that is where we want to go. It is just a matter of wanting to get in the review, as rapidly as possible, the right form of words to give the protection that the Government intend for all workers. We do not want to be in a situation where seafarers remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, at P&O.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Listening to the debate, I think part of the problem is that the Bill is being brought forward in an enormous transitional period. Some of its original objectives might be being met within the legislation that we are proposing, but the debate has moved on since then. We also have to admit that the debate has moved on within the Labour party because the change of leadership. So in some instances, we might not be talking to this Bill; we might be debating what we want to see in the next Bill, which needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment in our country and that we must address the threats that are creating that moment. I can understand the Government not being willing to accept several of today’s amendments, and there might not be time enough when the Bill goes to the other place to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that they can be legislated for quickly. However, I would urge a rethink about the next Bill, which should certainly be brought forward before the end of the year to take into account this whole range of measures, particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the Bill, which is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the House’s political debate. I have tabled two very straightforward new clauses. I thought they were in the tenor of the original Bill, and I was surprised when they were not included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments in 2022. They relate to the Bill’s aims to bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the reforms taking place in Scotland around the age limit of 16. Also, I thought that we were going to ensure that the franchise was the same. As people know, Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. At the moment, because we base voting on citizenship, 4.4 million residents cannot vote in a general election in our country, and 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland cannot vote in any election. That means that 16,300 people in my constituency have no vote whatsoever—people who live here and work here. Most pay their taxes, and fund our public services, but they are locked out of the democratic system. My new clauses argue that, as in Scotland and Wales, voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. Some may argue that there should be some investment of time, and other countries designate a timescale for residency. In New Zealand, for example, 12 months’ residency allows someone to vote. New clause 36 deals with local elections, and would permit those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in elections. New clause 35 would extend that to general elections for those with settled status—that is an accepted term in many of our pieces of legislation—and indefinite leave to remain. It is an amendment that we have supported in the past. It would mean a simpler system of registration, and it would increase voter participation. Above all else, it would bring about a greater sense of social cohesion: people who live in our society yet have no say in our society would be brought into the political system. We have had the debate about different languages and all the rest—to be honest, I wish we had never got rid of the Latin mass, but that is another thing, and might offend the other side on that issue—but all my new clauses try to do is recognise the reality of our society. The reality is that our society is a diverse community. This legislation could recognise that diversity, and ensure that everyone has a stake in our society and a democratic right to vote.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to briefly return to the issue of trafficking. I welcomed Theresa May’s proposals and legislation on trafficking, which represented a huge breakthrough. I did so because in my constituency, we had hundreds of unaccompanied children coming into Heathrow, being taken into care and then disappearing. They would often end up in cannabis farms. We also had a large number of young women being brought in for prostitution in local hotels, and often they would have a drug dependency. Like the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who has criticised the Government for the language that they have used and for their contextualisation of this issue, I am appalled at the way in which trafficking has been included in this Bill, but also at the narrative that has been developed by those on the Labour Front Bench. Qualifying for asylum as someone who has been trafficked is not a soft touch. As the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) said, no one individual can claim asylum in that way, because there has to be a first responder—in my constituency, it is usually a police officer. Then there is an assessment process, which is tough. The first stage is demonstrating grounds. The second stage is demonstrating conclusive grounds, and it is a tough assessment. It is a high threshold to meet. I am concerned that we have been dragged into this debate in a way that undermines the whole process that we have developed in recent years and have been so proud of. The debate does not seem to relate to the reality of trafficking. We are introducing a time limit, and are saying no to people who did not claim that they were trafficked at the first instance, or within a limited period of time. The people we are dealing with are traumatised. Some of them, such as the young women I mentioned, have been made drug dependent and are often ashamed to admit to what they have been doing. The Bill does not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground. As a result, some people who have been trafficked will be made vulnerable again. I am really disappointed. The Home Secretary said that this Bill was all about the calculus of those people who were thinking about coming here on the boats. I think it is electoral calculus, and if it is, it is mistaken calculus, because I think it will lose the Labour party votes. It will also lose us the respect we gained for our cross-party approach to tackling trafficking. I am extremely disappointed, and I think this is a step backward. I cannot support the Bill tonight, and I will vote against it at every opportunity.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. I take it as read that, when the Minister refers to the stakeholder group, it will include PCS, as the trade union. I also take it as read from the tenor of the questions so far that insourcing will be top of the agenda for that review. I ask him, in all rationality: how is it that Capita has been awarded a £320 million contract to administer the pay of 250,000 civil servants?