John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for grasping the nettle of IPP prisoners. I remind the House that it was Bob Neill, the Conservative Chair of the Justice Committee, who built consensus on that Committee and brought forward a report to urge the Government to act and set up a number of proposals. I see that Bob’s name is not on the list of advisers that the Secretary of State has mentioned. It would be useful having him on board, I believe.

• 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.

• 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.