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 fully agree, and let me also say that wheelchair compensation is significant in this legislation. Most of us have dealt with cases like that. Going back to accountability in the process, a number of different organisations have provided us with notes on the legislation. The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which I have worked with for over 20 years now, provided us with a helpful note. HACAN reminds us that when the CAA sets out airspace changes, the CAA oversees the progress of the stages and approves whether the consultation—its own consultation—has been adequate or not. In addition, it decides whether the proposals may proceed. It operates its own complaints route, and complaints on issues around airspace are almost impenetrable. The CAA has immense power, and it seems to be a law unto itself in many instances. It has been said in the House today that the lack of consultation is one of its main vulnerabilities. New flight paths are already being prepared, discussed and considered. In the Heathrow expansion, when Heathrow puts forward its plan for a third runway, it will not be Heathrow that says what the flight paths will be. It cannot be; it is now the airport service that has been set up under NATS. In all my experience with Heathrow, I have never known a thorough and adequate consultation process to take place with regard to the development of airport routes. I was hoping that we might get more detail in the legislation. That is why I come back to the issue of the Secretary of State’s document, which could be a really powerful mechanism. We could determine, through debates here—therefore, instructions to the Secretary of State—how the CAA will operate in the future. On the environment, I feel that there is a real lack of firm duties and responsibilities set out in the legislation and guidance procedure that takes into account the health and wellbeing of people and communities. Reference has been made to noise. I cannot believe that we are still in the same situation where we have different noise criteria used in different mechanisms when it comes to decisions being taken. The Gatwick and Luton developments are using two different criteria—two different levels—from which they place the restrictions. I have gone through the debates and discussions we have had over time and, as some hon. Members will know, we have gone from 57 dB to 53 dB, and then to 43 dB, which is the World Health Organisation’s figure—for the life of me, I do not understand why we do not respect its expertise in all this—and we apply different measures for different decisions, which are driven largely by factors other than the health consequences for people and the impact of noise. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) mentioned the all-party parliamentary group meeting we had on Monday, when we received the latest research. May I put on record my thanks to Dr Charlotte Clark, professor of environmental epidemiology and population health? She has done research on all of this over the years and is the expert. She looked at some of the health implications at the lowest levels of noise that we have been debating, and there was an element of shock for some of us: we knew about the cardiovascular impact, but we now know much more about the impact on mental health in particular. One of the issues that has come out of our discussions—this includes the Heathrow expansion consultation—is that the latest research on noise and health impacts has not been sufficiently monetised in the discussions and consultations that have taken place. So decision making—particularly on the latest Heathrow expansion proposals—could be on the basis of health impact monetisation as a result of increased noise whose level should be perhaps four times what the Government have put forward so far. Our constituents are becoming increasingly aware of the health impacts of noise in particular and are demanding greater protections However, from the legislation we are debating, I cannot see how those greater protections will be translated unless we have a stronger capacity in this House to determine the guidance given to the CAA and the parameters set for it in the decision-making process. I will give hon. Members this example of the debates that have taken place. For the aviation policy framework, we dealt with 57 dB. For the survey of noise attitudes, we looked at 54 dB. We then went to 51 dB and, as I said, 43 dB in the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night-time noise effects study analyses, which relate to the World Health Organisation. We cannot keep going on without a proper noise standard applicable across our whole decision-making process that reflects the latest research on health impacts. I do not think we are there at the moment. I am pleased with the legislation, because there are some meritorious proposals that will no doubt improve the passenger experience, but it really does not take into account the community experience and the impact it will have. That is why the running theme is that somehow— I will table amendments with others—we have got to get a greater level of accountability, a greater level of transparency and a greater level of empowerment of those communities who are impacted. The proposal by the hon. Member for Horsham for an ombudsman is one mechanism that could be used and could be helpful as a longstop. At the moment, when people in my constituency are faced with these problems, they do not know where to go; it is as simple as that. Finally, the debate that we will have on Heathrow expansion and the new policy statement will be interesting, given that we do not know what the flight paths will be. If I was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), I would be extremely worried. In my constituency, because the flights are largely east-west and west-east, we have the bizarre situation that they affect Longford where, when the aircraft fly over you feel like throwing yourself to the floor, and they affect a number of the Heathrow villages, but they do not as yet impact on the centre of my constituency. We now have the risk that the flight paths might well do that. So, again, we are talking about maybe another 1 million or so people being impacted by the development of Heathrow, yet in our debate in this House about the policy statement we will not have certainty about those flight paths. That cannot be right when making such a major decision. That is why I am hoping that when the Committee meets and when we come back on Report we can have a sensible debate about the sort of amendments that can be brought forward on that theme of accountability, because if we can increase accountability, we can increase confidence in Government decision making on this issue in the long term. I agree with hon. Members who have raised the importance of aviation to our economy. Of course it is important; it employs a large number of my constituents, and we are trying to make sure that we create aviation capacity that is economically beneficial to the country while protecting our constituents’ health and wellbeing overall.

• 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.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and will speak in that capacity, but I am also a victim of the Goldsmith foundation, which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) referred to. If Members are unaware of what the Goldsmith foundation was all about, it was basically an organisation funded by James Goldsmith that employed Carter-Ruck to identify people who James Goldsmith politically disagreed with, and targeted them. In my instance, I was writing to expose the then MP for my constituency—a Conservative MP—who was being hosted on a series of trips to Iraq by Saddam Hussein and then coming back here to justify the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, where 4,000 people were gassed to death. I was then sued by Carter-Ruck. It was the same issue overall: you just cannot afford to fight. In fact, as a result of that action, I had to hand over the deeds to my property—we simply could not fund it. Even though there was some Labour party support for funding, the general view was that we could not match that sinking pit of funding. That is just one example of how the Goldsmith foundation operated. It is an example of the operation of SLAPPs, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, have happened over a long period of time—that was way back in the ’90s. Reference has been made to how the issue of SLAPPs is not just about journalists. It is not, but they have been the main target, and the consequences for some have been devastating because of the legal costs they have had to incur just to try to demonstrate that they have been writing truthful analyses of the events they have been trying to report. SLAPPs stifle free speech and undermine the right of the general public to know information. Exactly as has been said, there is a deterrence effect: they are a form of intimidation against telling the truth. The previous Prime Minister gave a commitment with regard to legislation; unfortunately, that was not in the King’s speech. Now is the time to pick up the pace. I am grateful to the Minister for now offering briefings on how we can move forward, as well as for working on a cross-party basis. The issue for us is that although everyone who has spoken so far welcomed the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, it just applies to economic crime reportage. Therefore, even though some journalists will be protected under that legislation, the individual they have been reporting on will find another matter on which to take action, and as a result the journalist is not protected. The thresholds and criteria of judgments taking place—whereby the judge has to consider the intent of the SLAPP filer and the intent of the defendant—are far too high. We can cite case after case, but the most recent to have caught publicity was that of Dan Neidle. He exposed a firm operating a tax avoidance scam and won the case, but he was left with £146,000 of legal fees. As has been said, there have been various attempts by hon. Members to try to tackle the issue. The Scottish Government have also said that they are awaiting an opportunity to bring forward legislation. The NUJ is part of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition. The proposals put forward include: clear, 10-point criteria to identify SLAPPs; a higher merits threshold for likely success at trial; and a filter mechanism for swift disposal of actions that clearly seek to gag individual journalists and others. We welcome the Government’s engagement now—hopefully including with the NUJ over these coming weeks—so that we can get this legislation on the statute book as rapidly as possible and protect freedom of speech.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Minister has got the message— [ Laughter. ] No, I am being serious. We cannot go on like this. We cannot keep on turning up and debating like this, and taking no action. The Minister is effective and has got the message, and I think that over the next few weeks we might see some action. I desperately hope so. We have all been talking about physical infrastructure and the annexation of the west bank, but I also want to talk about what the Israelis are doing to civil society, and mention two cases that I have been raising over the last few weeks. About two weeks ago, the house in Ramallah of Dr Mazen al-Rantisi, known on the west bank as the doctor of the poor, was raided and he was arrested. We have not seen or heard from him since, and we do not even know where he is detained. He is chair of the Union of Health Work Committees on the west bank. It is registered with the Palestinian Authority, but it has been declared illegal by the Israelis. We do not know why, as no grounds have been put forward. Will the Minister convey to the Foreign Office that we need information about where Dr al-Rantisi is, and how we can get him some independent access and assessment? The second case is more worrying for me. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya has now been in solitary confinement for 18 months. His lawyer visited him last week—we all got the message, didn’t we? His lawyer saw him. It looked as though he had been interrogated again, and tortured, and his lawyer said that he could not sit up straight and was falling over. In addition, his lawyer said, “I actually think his life is now at risk.” I raised the issue in the House 10 days ago, and directly with the Foreign Office Minister, and we got an assurance that it would be raised by the FCDO. I have been here long enough to know that, in other such instances, the country’s ambassador has been brought in and given a clear view of the Government’s position. With regard to Dr Safiya, all we are asking for is access to an independent medical assessment, so that he can be assessed and receive some treatment, rather than being tortured in the way he is being. I raise that because I have fear that if we do not take some action, within a few weeks, he may no longer be alive.

• 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?