John McDonnell
MP for Hayes and Harlington · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is not a laughing matter—I am sorry for interrupting the flow of the discussion. It would be useful if the review looked at NATS’s long-term investment plans, particularly since its partial privatisation in 2001, which I opposed. I thank the Minister for meeting Unite this morning and thanking the workers, who have worked so hard.”
“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.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. NATS used to be in my constituency and then moved down to Swanwick. Of course, with Heathrow in my constituency, I receive—as I mentioned yesterday—a large amount of correspondence from a whole range of other MPs’ constituents, who think I am responsible for Heathrow airport.”
“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.”
“I apologise to my right hon. Friend; I should have checked this before the debate. The proposed new section 61G refers to priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State, which include a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out those priorities and objectives for the CAA.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,997 lines we hold for John McDonnell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 38 of 160.
“One of the biggest contentious issues at the moment is climate change. There are rows going on while academics are trying to identify a whole range of the causes of climate change as well as some solutions to it, and it is incredibly contentious. Lecturers and professors do have a responsibility to point out where they think something is wrong or ludicrous, and mark it down on that basis.”
“I really do think that the hon. Member for Congleton has a point. The issue is how we define that point. I hope that it applies retrospectively as well, because I would not mind challenging some of my essay marks from about 50 years ago. The point is that the only way that a large number of students can finance their PhD research is by doing separate tutoring at the university, and therefore they have an academic status. Somehow we must find a form of wording for this Bill that protects them. At the moment, it is too loose. Colleagues have tabled other amendments—actually, I have tabled amendment 45, which focuses on innovative research. I am fearful that someone who, like me, is a pain could challenge their mark for a particular essay purely and simply because they disagree with what is being taught, even if they are wrong.”
“Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, in academia, people are now extremely litigious. They will challenge individual gradings or the award of the degree classification. What we often find now—ask any university—is that a large amount of money and time is being spent on defending the awarding of degrees due to this sense of being a consumer, of buying a product. It is as though they are challenging the quality of the degree awarded as though it were a washing machine. There is a real issue here.”
“There are even elements in science itself where there are really contentious issues and we know that some scientific theories are being brought forward for political motives—we have seen that around race in the past, about genetics linked to racial groups and so on—but an academic would throw the whole essay out on that basis. There are some really contentious issues here. The hon. Member for Congleton is right to point out the issue of non-inclusion of students, but we must find a definition that enables us to ensure that there is a level of academic expertise at which the student should be operating, which qualifies that person to have academic freedom and the right to free speech. I think that is very difficult. To come on to the point made by my hon.”
“Right, I am waiting for the Minister to say that this will be covered in guidance. On this occasion, I might well support her, because it is complicated. It is a combination of the level of the degree and the content and status of the research. In some instances, there will be very specific examples and we will see it playing out in individual cases and challenges setting a precedent. If we are not careful, I can see the vista being lawyers making a huge amount of money at the expense of universities. The hon. Member for Congleton has raised a genuine issue and we should address it with subtlety, recognising that it could open the doors to a whole range of activities that would burden universities and confuse the individual academics and students themselves. I look forward to the guidance.”
“They cannot be defined just by the job description of that academic. We are digging ourselves into a hole by leaving this in the Bill. To the hon. Member for Congleton, I say: screw your courage to the sticking place, because if we had a vote on that today, we would most probably win it. I would be careful about the assurances that she may get from the Minister, which might not completely eradicate that form of words from the Bill.”
“All we are trying to do today is get a formulation—maybe by Report stage and certainly by the time the Bill gets to the Lords, which is packed full of legal experts—with more than even the Commons—who might well be able to assist us. I can understand exactly where he is coming from in wanting to maximise that freedom of expression of freedom of academic activity. I want also to consolidate the alliance I now have with the hon. Member for Congleton. It is interesting that a number of witnesses raised the point that this form of words does not work—we have to find some other formulation. I have worked with a whole range of economists in recent years who have commented on a whole range of matters unrelated strictly to economic matters—for example, wellbeing, health, social care. Areas of interest evolve over time.”
“On amendment 80, I want to warn the Minister. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has a propensity to get people into trouble. On one occasion some years ago, the Speaker called for a question in the House and shouted out “Hayes, the Whip”, but nobody was there and I got the blame for it, even though it was John Hayes, not the Member for Hayes and Harlington, so I caution the Minister. Ever since Pepper v. Hart, material in the House can be taken into account in legal actions, and the right hon. Gentleman is enticing the Minister into expressions around his amendment. I actually have some time for his amendment.”
“I want to repeat my declaration of interest as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck, University of London, which is the same as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I failed to declare that my wife is an educational psychologist and is now a part-time tutor at the Institute of Education at University College London. I just want to make sure that our register of interests is full. I cannot think of any other family who are involved, but at least I will get that on the record. Before considering the amendments, I want to reflect on the fact that we have come a long way since section 28 in the 1980s. We are no longer tolerating any Government interference in matters—for example, at that stage, in just talking in an educational setting about LGBT rights. It is interesting and gratifying that we have come this far.”
“The way in which people are victimised by their institutions—“providers”, as we call them—or their employers can be quite subtle, and quite undermining in a way that might not stack up if they go to an employment tribunal, so it is worth putting on the face of the Bill that a person can challenge the institution that employs them and have that protection.”
“The reference to “government or institutional interference” is quite significant. I say “institutional interference” because these days a large amount of policy development, and even policy making, is undertaken by agencies other than Government, agencies established by Government or institutions that have been funded and established to perform a role on behalf of Government. The other issue—the prickly one, really—is the right of an employee or academic to criticise the institution that they work within. That is quite fundamental. The Minister might argue that the protections are there already in employment law and so on, but the message we were getting from the evidence sessions is that they are not.”
“Amendment 46 seeks to re-emphasise the ability of academics to freely pursue their teaching and research without—this is where section 28 comes into it —“government or institutional interference”. It is fundamentally important that we say that. We need to learn the lesson of section 28. Given the policies that have been developed on equalities by all our political parties, I think we have learned that lesson, but it is worth legislating to that effect as well. I do not want to be here in another period of moral panic over a particular issue, with a rush to Government activity that seeks to influence institutions in a way that means people suffer as a result, and in subsequent years people realise their mistake, by which time, unfortunately, too many people have been harmed.”
“It seeks to make it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the provision pertains to innovative research as well. That was one of the issues that came from the evidence sessions: the biggest feeling of insecurity is among people who are doing leading-edge research that challenges existing establishment views and that, maybe for some, goes over the edge of acceptability. However, it is often the case—and I cite section 28 here—that those sorts of statements, activities and expressions of view become accepted wisdom within a period of time. All those equalities things that I can remember being condemned for personally in the Evening Standard throughout the 1980s are now accepted as Government policy and by all political parties. Putting “innovative research” in the Bill would close a door and clarify the situation.”
“Given the way that heads are toppling at the moment, anything could happen. The guillotine is out there, certainly. I now come to amendments 45, 46 and 48 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, to which I also put my name. I want to be completely honest about this: those amendments have come from discussions that we have had with individual academics and trade unions. Those matters also came up in the evidence sessions. One issue that came up time and again is employment protection for academics. Their biggest anxiety is not just their ability to exercise freedom of speech and academic freedom but retaining their jobs, having access to appropriate promotion and so on. The three amendments seek to provide that enhanced protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has covered amendment 45.”
“I hate to raise this subject, but it was suggested that someone in any field of academic expertise would somehow be denied the ability to talk about or comment on Brexit. Can we just clarify that?”
“I apologise to the Minister for interfering again. I want to be absolutely clear about these amendments, though, because at the moment, I am not. She has dealt with amendment 45; could she make it absolutely clear that, even if she will not accept the amendment to include “innovative research” on the face of the Bill, the Bill does encompass protections for innovative research? With regard to amendment 46, the Minister has made no reference to the protections against Government interference in academic work. Again, it would be helpful to get assurance about that, and if we cannot get that assurance I would urge my hon. Friends to press amendment 49 to a vote, which is about protections enabling members of staff, academics and others to criticise their own institution.”
“In addition, we have introduced another opportunity for claiming a tort instead of going for a breach of duty as well, which is broadly framed in the Bill but is not specific. When you raised this question, it struck home with me. Do you believe that there should be elements in the Bill that give us more guarantees about its implementation so that it is effective, accountable and transparent? That means building in mechanisms for future advice. It means being more explicit about the nature of the sanctions and how they operate. To be frank, if I were an administrator at one of these bodies at the moment, I would be working in the dark about how the Bill will be implemented. Professor Stock: I can see that it is a risk. In a sense, every time you legislate, I assume you are a hostage to fortune to some degree because there is always—”
“Do you share my view that if the Bill is to proceed, we have to be careful about unforeseen consequences? If we place a duty on a body, there should be a mechanism to ensure that the duty is exercised effectively and under advice as well. There are no advisory structures set out. For example, you cited in your evidence various incidents that have taken place. There is no mechanism by which you can advise on how things can go forward. In addition, with regard to the sanctions, my worry is that although others might have confidence in the Secretary of State, I have never had confidence in any Secretary of State without direct accountability to Parliament that is open and transparent. At the moment we do not even have a schedule of what sanctions could be levied against institutions and individuals as well as student union bodies.”
“Q Professor Stock, on a point that you raised, you are right that we need to ensure that freedom of speech in the academic field is regularly debated. We need to remind ourselves of the critical importance of it as well. My concern is that sometimes in Parliament we see an issue and we rush to legislate, which is not always well thought out as a result of the lack of preparation and consultation. The famous Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is an example. You expressed concern about some elements of the Bill. The Bill itself lays a huge range of conditions on student unions and university and academic institutions, and then it brings in potentially draconian sanctions, but we do not know what the sanctions are yet. They all reside at the moment with the Secretary of State.”
“We are talking about institutions. There is more than one set of vexatious complaints to worry about and, arguably, only one of those ruins people’s lives, so that is to the forefront of my mind, but I accept that there is indeterminacy here, because I think there has to be legislation.”
“We try to limit that risk. Professor Stock: I am not saying that is a good aspect of any legislation. I agree that up to a point a lot is left unspoken. A lot depends on the interpretation of the Bill by whoever the free speech champion is. They are going to have to drive the project. It is going to be really important to get the right person and they are going to have staff, obviously, but I cannot reassure you on these points—I did not draft it. I have read various critical responses to the Bill that talk about the possibility of vexatious complaints and lack of transparency, but it seems to me that, while I am not downplaying those as potential issues, we also need to remember that there are lots of vexatious complaints against individuals going on at the university level and there is a lack of transparency there.”
“Q I completely understand that, but by addressing one type of vexatious complaint, you could be causing others. With regard to the point that you made about the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, again there are no structures linked to that in—”
“Were I a student today, I would without any question whatever be campaigning to have a student union decision that any facilities under the control of or paid for by—although I know they do not have union subs any more—my student union were not used in any way, however indirectly, to support the actions of the Chinese Communist party in Xinjiang. In so far as that is concerned, I am completely with you. I do not think that you need legislation for that. Every student union has a general meeting or a council that can decide that that is what it wants—”
“Could the Bill could be improved by having some form of mechanism to enable that element of flexibility? The Office for Students—the director for freedom of speech—could ensure that there is a proper and effectively exercised mechanism to ensure that such consultation takes place. Therefore, we could have a range of limited exemptions where we do not wish in any way to use resources—whether student union or university resources—to enable the promotion of something that might be speculative to some, but is certainly not to some of us, which is the genocidal attack on the Uyghur people. I put the question to Trevor, as he raised it—it is a real-world issue for many of us. Trevor Phillips: It is a really important point. I have an immense amount of sympathy with what you have just said.”
“The National Union of Students has a list of organisations that reflects Government views about terrorist organisations, and so on, that you would not wish to use any form of premises to promote their ideas. For example, in the Uyghur case, if the students through the National Union of Students or their local student body consult or even ballot and come to a view that they do not wish organisations associated with the Chinese Communist party to use their premises to promote or defend what is happening to the Uyghur people, which many now believe to be genocidal, surely there must be a mechanism in the Bill to enable that expression of view to have effect. Those sorts of meetings could intimidate Chinese students on university campuses and elsewhere.”
“Q David Simmonds registered an interest as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck—so am I. I did not realise that it was a registered interest, or that anyone would be interested, but anyway. Trevor, this is for you really. You have raised the issue of Chinese students, which I think is important. I want to explore it. One of the issues around legislation is ensuring that you do not build into it contradictions that will come back at a later stage and cause problems. I am a campaigner for exposing what is happening to the Uyghur people, which some are describing as a genocide. My concern is this: I think you are right about the influence on Chinese students at the moment.”
“Q Trevor, my point is about the contradiction in this legislation. We could have legislation that forces the student union to give a platform to the Chinese Communist party to advocate the genocide of the Uyghurs. Trevor Phillips: I do not think that there is anything in the legislation that will force a student union to do that. What I would agree with is that it is entirely possible that a group of three students might decide that they want to do something like this on campus. I get that. I am afraid that I have to say that if that is what happens, that is what happens. The student union can say, “Well, you can’t do it on our premises”—I think that is fine.”
“Q It cannot under this legislation. Under this legislation, that would be challengeable. Trevor Phillips: I do not think that the legislation will compel any part of a university to agree to let anybody speak on its premises. I do not think that that is the case here.”
“Q But it is open to challenge. Trevor Phillips: I am not going to dodge your question, John. I am quite straightforward about this. The student union can say, “No, we’re not having it”, but, ultimately, if a group of individuals—academics and so on—say, “We want to have this person from the Chinese embassy speaking to explain what they are doing in Xinjiang”, I cannot in all conscience agree that it is a university’s duty somehow to prevent that happening. What I will say, coming back to my earlier point, is that, unless there was some compelling reason otherwise, such a meeting should always be open to all members of the university community so that that point of view is under challenge. In the end, that will be a more valuable pathway than simply saying, “We’re going to ban you.””
“Q The point you made earlier, which I agree with, is that some element of the right to protest should be put into the Bill then. Trevor Phillips: If one could find the right formulation, I think that is worthwhile.”
“To my mind, if you want to resolve these matters through a legal lens, you should go to court and court will decide. I am not sure how the OfS would have the expertise to do it and therefore there is a risk that what it then publishes does not necessarily protect the rights of the individuals who are either named or identifiable through the reporting.”
“We are often talking about essentially legal judgments, because we have to judge whether speech is within the law or outside the law. You can see a situation where somebody wants to say something that somebody else regards as defamatory, and therefore says, “You can’t say this about me.” It goes off to the Office for Students, who, on some basis—I have to say it is not clear to me—is supposed to form a view on whether or not the statement was or was not defamatory, and then it will publish a report on that. The OfS is protected under this legislation, because it has that absolute privilege, and the Ministers are protected, but in some ways what you will have done is taken the original defamatory statement and published it more widely, as far as the individual is concerned.”
“Clause 7(13) states: “For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege attaches to the publication of— (a) any decision…and (b) any report”. I raise this point about this particular legislation because, although I can understand why privilege is awarded to Ministers, Secretaries of State and others in certain instances, we could be in a situation where individuals could be named, and in a way that could affect their whole careers and lives, without having any ability to take action with regard to anything defamatory that is said about them. It seems to narrow down the ability to secure redress and, for me, that cannot be right in any piece of legislation, particularly when we are talking about individual rights. What is your view on that? Smita Jamdar: That raises a problem that permeates the Bill.”
“Q I want to seek your advice about another piece of the Bill: subsection 12 of clause 7 about the review that will take place. It states: “This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State requests the OfS to— (a) conduct a review of the scheme or its operation (or any aspect of either of those matters), and (b) report the results of the review to the Secretary of State.” We are not sure about what the contents of that review will be and we have not seen any guidance on that yet, but I would expect it to start looking at cases—potentially individual cases. We could get into a situation where individuals are named as a part of that review, because we are talking about the operation of the scheme.”
“From memory, there is something similar in relation to the OIA under the Higher Education Act 2004. If it is okay, I will check that after this and let you know in writing. If it exists, that would be the only place that I have seen it before.”
“Q I use this example. For a number of years I was in local government, as both an elected member and a civil servant. There have been cases within local government, such as inquiries with regard to the involvement of directors of social service in individual cases. Even though there have been inquiries and published reports, those reports have never had absolute privilege. There has always been the right of that individual to go to court to resolve any matters, including any elements where they thought they had been identified or any comments about their actions were seen as defamatory. I have not seen this before in legislation. Is it common? Smita Jamdar: I do not know if I can answer whether it is common or not; I am not a defamation expert.”
“Q How will people have redress under this? If they were defamed, is there any right of redress? Is there any method of redress where there is absolute privilege like this? Smita Jamdar: Again, that is something I would have to try and work through in my mind. If it is okay with you, I will give a written response to that.”
“May I raise a constituency matter with the Prime Minister? More than 800 local Afghani families have contacted me about their concerns over their relatives in Afghanistan. The thousands who are coming to this country are largely coming in through Heathrow and being quarantined in about seven hotels in my constituency. There is real anxiety, given the performance in the past on asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency, that those people could be trapped in those hotels for quite a long time to come. I would like the Prime Minister to arrange a meeting with myself and the relevant Minister or officials to discuss the plan to support those families—like everybody else, I welcome them, as do those in my community—but also the long-term relocation plan to make sure that they have all that they need to settle here for the future.”
“At the moment, the Government are being advised by a panel they set up on the future of public service broadcasting. The panel does not publish its minutes and is not meeting in public. Why is that happening? Why is it not more open and transparent? Why can the Minister not explain the role of the panel, and indeed its composition? That generates concerns that there is more to this than any rational thought about the future of broadcasting. It is more about ideology, and maybe an element of political spite.”
“Paul Siegert, the NUJ’s national broadcasting organiser, gave a true reflection of its members’ views in saying: “It’s hard to see any justification for privatising Channel Four other than ideology. Channel 4 has achieved what it was asked to do and has proved a hit with viewers.” If it is not broken, why are the Government proposing the fix of privatisation? Four years ago—I remember this, because I was there—the Government said that Channel 4 would continue to be owned by the public. In our view, they should honour that promise. I hope they see sense. I have to say that the consultation that is going on, particularly over the summer period, flies against all the rules of consultations. Let me ask one final question of the Minister.”
“Channel 4 provided 10,600 jobs across the UK in 2019, of which 3,000 were jobs supported by Channel 4 in the nations and regions. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) set out, it is working with private sector producers to bring forward talent on an eminent scale. It has done so successfully, and has been well rewarded by the various independent bodies that adjudicate on these matters. It is very difficult to understand the rationale for the Government’s pursuit of this privatisation. Others have given their views about the range of attitudes. The Father of the House has demonstrated yet again his wide-ranging experience of what has been going on over decades. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), in a very balanced way, indicated the concerns that he and many others in the Conservative party have.”
“From the trade union point of view, we look at the security of jobs and the economics of the organisation that we are negotiating with. When looking at the economic performance of Channel 4, I cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is for the Government. The latest figures show a record £74 million pre-tax surplus. As other hon. Members have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), Channel 4 is now opening up offices around the country—hubs in Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol—and is doing exactly what the Government want by investing in the regions as part of the levelling-up strategy. Channel 4 is economically sound and completely in line with the Government’s policy direction.”
“I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, so naturally, when this issue came up again, I sought a meeting with those at the NUJ and talked with them about their views, and they consulted their members. I think we are all in the same position: we just cannot believe that this matter has come around yet again—especially those of us who were involved in the 2016 discussions, when we thought that the future of Channel 4 had been sensibly resolved. The privatisation seems to be a particular obsession of the Minister—it is almost as though he needs some counselling. It has become an addictive obsession that he has been pursuing since the 1990s, as others have said, and it is completely irrational.”
“This continuous blackmail—and, indeed, emotional blackmail—of my constituents is simply unacceptable. As the email from my constituent made clear, it is having a direct impact on their mental health. We are facing a pandemic of mental health problems because of the covid crisis, but this adds to it. It requires Government intervention which is serious, which takes responsibility, but which then pursues the developers to ensure that they are held accountable as well.”
“I welcomed the news of developments that would provide homes for local residents, but not a single one of the planning gains that Ballymore promised has been delivered. It went bust, and was then bailed out by the Irish Government. Subsequently—and since this scandal has hit us—Ballymore initially refused to meet and seriously discuss with residents the problems that they were facing. My constituents demonstrated, so Ballymore is now meeting them and having proper discussions, but it threatened them that if they demonstrated again, it would end the talks. Now it has applied for the building safety fund, but will not give any assurances that it will cover the full costs of what my constituents are facing until it knows what resources from the fund are available to it.”
“This government has totally ignored the cries of its citizens for help. Knowing that there is a ready solution to the issue in Australia—which could easily be adopted in the UK as well…shows that the Government is simply not interested in fixing the problem for innocent leaseholders. The contempt—with which they treat their citizens—is truly shambolic.” I received that email from one of my constituents this week, and I think that it reflects the views of hundreds of them. In opening the debate, the Minister mentioned Ballymore. I am dealing with Ballymore; I have dealt with Ballymore since it first submitted a planning application to build apartment blocks in my constituency.”
“In the final minutes of the debate, perhaps I can provide some time for the words of one of my constituents. The latest email that I have received says this: “The impact of the Fire Safety Scandal on leaseholders’ mental health is considerably underestimated” by the Government. “From the many messages on Twitter and Facebook, there are millions of devastated lives and souls in the country. Many families and young adults had to live through not just the pandemic during the last 18 months, but also the added anxiety of the unfolding and ever growing Fire Safety Scandal. It is a triple hit for so many leaseholders: the pandemic, then losing jobs or being furloughed on smaller salaries (with the constant threat of losing their jobs if their employer would go bust) and then the ever increasing costs of the Cladding scandal.”
“Let us stand up for humanity, let us show the best of this House, let us show the best of our country and let us offer people succour, safety and security through the asylum system, with protection for them and their families.”
“We will welcome refugees and, yes, we know the benefit of those who come here and the significant contributions they make to our country.” A number of MPs have stood up and said, “Listen to the people.” Well, I am listening to my constituents—there will be different views, too—and sometimes we have to stand up for what is right. I know some have criticised my colleague who referred to the 1930s, but some people in the 1930s, and particularly some of the right-wing press, prevented a Government from allowing Jewish people to come to this country from Germany. Yes, we accepted the children, but we did not accept the parents and, unfortunately, they lost their lives in the concentration camps.”
“This is a shameful, squalid, small-minded and racist Bill, and it does what this Government do best—in fact, the only thing this Government do well—which is whipping up division and demonising people to distract from the Government’s own failures. I join all those who ended their speeches by echoing the call that refugees are welcome here. To those people I met yesterday, and to the relatives of the young man who died in my constituency at the weekend, I say that refugees are welcome here. I will do everything I possibly can to oppose this Bill. I want people to know that there are many in this country, many in my constituency, who are willing to stand up bravely and say, “We will uphold basic human rights.”