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 4 of 160.
“I apologise; this is one of those days when multiple debates are going on, on each of which I have received representations from constituents, so I will have to speak and leave. The point my constituents have made to me is exactly as my hon. Friend sets out, which is that we want a comprehensive strategy. We know wonders cannot be worked overnight, but we want a timed and programmed strategy that addresses the agenda of issues that he has raised, and to give hope to people as well. Where the Government develop strategies—for example, on cancer—we are having breakthroughs and success in terms of diagnosis and treatment. I hope that this debate will confirm that the Government are willing to develop a strategy, and of course resource it.”
“As well as body armour, which I support, there has to be the protection of workers having the ability to take industrial action and negotiate a safe working place.”
“I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. I also apologise as I am trying to represent my constituents in about four different debates today. One of the issues that the POA has consistently raised is the nature of the people it is dealing with at the moment. Many prisoners have severe mental health problems. The POA says that they should not be in prison; they should be in specialist units, as should those who are drug dependent. Recently, there have been examples of the POA having tried and failed to negotiate safe practices with management. Limited action has taken place and the union has been dragged through the courts because of the ban on it being able to withdraw its members’ labour. That has to be addressed; there have to be some basic protections.”
“Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I am trying to represent my constituents in four debates today. There was a Spanish Catholic priest called Padre Pio, who was made a saint because of the miracle of appearing in two places at once. I have not mastered that yet. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my chairing of the RMT parliamentary group. One of the key issues my hon. Friend has campaigned on—we campaigned on it together—is ensuring adequate staffing levels, not just in ticket offices, where we succeeded, but on the platform and on the trains themselves, for safety and security reasons. Does she agree that, under GBR, we need a very strong plan for the workforce, so that we have adequate staffing at all levels in all facilities?”
“Just as they served in the military so well, they serve so well within our community. We therefore owe them a debt of honour to resolve some of these issues, particularly on pensions. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned, yes, we have established the Gurkhas’ right of settlement, but there are issues with regard to visas and other matters that fly in the face of the practice of their family life and cultural life. Those need resolving. I would welcome the Government standing back, looking at whether we can develop a comprehensive strategy and reporting back to the House so that we can have a checklist of actions that we can all support on a cross-party basis to address the concerns of these people we have all admired so much.”
“I think there are issues with regard to their experiences and the impact that has had on them, and that as they get older, because of this myth, they may not be getting the support and treatment that they should rightfully access. So we need a Gurkha strategy—that is what I would like to see coming from this Government. In my community, 25 or 30 years ago there must have been only about five Gurkha families, but we now have a sizeable community of at least 500 or 600 families. We have set up a local Gurkha association. One thing we have been successful in is that it wanted a part of the local cemetery dedicated to the Gurkhas. It now has part of that cemetery and we have commemoration services there every year. The Gurkhas contribute widely to the community.”
“In addition, there are issues in our own community with Gurkhas suffering homelessness and financial distress. I would welcome the Government standing back and producing a strategy for the Gurkhas who have served this country, looking comprehensively at their current situation and at the measures that could be used to address that poverty. In my opinion, what that means is a fair pension settlement once and for all, so that we can get this issue resolved. There are issues with regard to housing, as I have said, but also with regard to health. We have always extolled the Gurkhas for their bravery, and different surveys have demonstrated that they may suffer less post-traumatic stress disorder than other service people, but I think that is a bit of a myth.”
“Momentum built up behind that campaign because people were outraged about the discrimination that the Gurkhas were suffering—it was as simple as that. I have to say that the points that hon. Members have raised today demonstrate that that discrimination continues today. On the issue of pensions, the argument always put by Government is that they cannot legislate or operate retrospectively, but they can—successive Governments have done that. We should not allow the discriminatory way that Gurkha pensioners have been treated, with all their service not being taken into account and the mythical date of 1997 being used against them; as a result, there are Gurkhas living in poverty here and Gurkhas living in poverty back in Nepal—despite all their service, which we have congratulated them on today.”
“The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) prompted me to start reminiscing about 29 April 2009. I do not want to be patronising, but there is a moral message and lesson here for hon. Members in my party: on that day, there was a majority of 21 in favour of a settlement being given to the Gurkhas, with twenty-seven Labour Members voting in favour of it. We were called rebels for that. Sometimes, though, we have to make a moral judgment and say to the Whips: “I believe this is the right thing to do.” It was a huge success and a fantastic campaign, with much publicity secured by Joanna Lumley, who ran a terrific campaign. The lawyers behind it were Martin Howe and his team, with Mark Collins and others.”
“I am intervening, first, to send my love to my hon. Friend’s mum. Secondly, in our debates over the years, we have always emphasised urgency because of the age of the victims. However, we also need to recognise and ensure that any inquiry recognises that this has gone down two generations now. We have met the families—the sons and daughters, the grandchildren—who have suffered extreme conditions as a result. It is just as my hon. Friend said; this has penetrated into the DNA of whole families. There is a sense of urgency, of course, but there must also be a recognition of the significance of this having affected three generations, as we have witnessed.”
“What Donald Trump said at the weekend was that unless the strait was opened, he would obliterate Iran’s power plants. I agree that attacking a nuclear plant could be extremely catastrophic. As we have made clear to Putin, however, attacking power plants that supply power to civilians is against international law and is clearly a move from defence to aggression. On that basis, while I join the Secretary of State in hoping that the next five days secure peace, may I ask him to confirm that UK bases will not be used to attack power plants? If there is to be such a change of policy, will he ask the Prime Minister for a debate and a vote in this House, because I want my constituents to know that I am not willing to support such escalation?”
“I have called on a number of occasions for an independent inquiry on the activities of Labour Together and APCO. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record again my request for the Government to consider the establishment of an independent inquiry into the activities of both these organisations.”
“I submitted a subject access request to Labour Together, which replied that because this is a complex case, the deadline for responding will be three months, not one month. I also submitted a subject access request to the US agency APCO, and I received a reply last night that confirmed that, yes, it has been collecting information on me. It does not say why, or who commissioned the work that it is undertaking. APCO then gave me 11 redacted pages that are nonsensical. Literally whole pages are redacted, except for three or four words on each page, usually just names. I am concerned that an organisation or agency could be collecting information on Members of Parliament. It does not know who for, or for what purpose, but if we look at what happened to those two journalists, the purpose was to smear them and affect their careers.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have raised concerns in the House about the activities of the organisation called Labour Together. Labour Together was exposed by a group of journalists for wrongdoings, including the non-declaration of political donations to the Electoral Commission. Members were concerned that Labour Together had commissioned a US agency, APCO, to collect information and investigate the journalists. APCO produced a report, which was then used in attempts to smear those two journalists, affecting their careers. After that matter was raised in the House, I was contacted by a journalist, and it was indicated that Labour Together might have been collecting information on not just journalists but possibly Members of Parliament.”
“As has been said, Trump and Netanyahu launched this war without consultation. They did it unilaterally, and recklessly and irresponsibly, and it was absolutely predictable that the strait would be threatened in this way. Yet some shipping is moving, is it not? Some shipping is going to our ally, India, because it is not engaged in the war, because it is at peace with Iran. Does that not teach us the lesson that we need to bring about peace, that that should be our main and prime purpose in negotiating a peaceful settlement, and that the first step towards that is de-escalation?”
“As other colleagues have said, some people came here under one system, but now the system is changing, so have the Government done any assessment of where those people are working? In my constituency, a large number of people are now in their fourth year before their cases were about to conclude, hopefully, to secure status. They work in the care sector and without them, to be frank, the care sector in my constituency would collapse.”
“Can I therefore ask him to assure us that there will be such a vote in this House, so that we do not drift into this war as we have done in the past?”
“Others have mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I think many of us know the way this goes. There are responsibilities on all of our shoulders. The Prime Minister is right that there needs to be a plan. Has the US President shared with him what the plan is, or consulted him on it? We know from experience that it is easy for politicians to fire weapons and start a war, but it is when the shooting ends that the nightmare begins. That is why we need clarity on our role as an independent country that is not swayed even by Donald Trump. When my right hon. Friend stood for the leadership of the Labour party, he clearly set out that there would be a vote in this House on any decision about military action.”
“It thrust hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and deep poverty.”
“We now know that ex-Labour Together staff are in that team, and we know that Ministers have received donations, often to their office or their campaign. The scale of the donations from Labour Together is shocking, to be frank. It is almost as though an organisation has bought a political party—that is one of our worries. Now we are told that this matter will be referred to the independent adviser. Is it true that the independent adviser will investigate the whole sequence of events with regard to Labour Together, and not just the role of this individual MP, who is now a junior Minister, during the period when he was an MP or a Minister? We need to get the full truth of what went on. At the moment, this does not pass the smell test, as far as I am concerned.”
“I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and we play a specific role in trying to protect the ability of journalists to report honestly and fairly across the world. We believe that what we saw was an attempt to smear journalists to prevent them from reporting the truth. That is why I wrote on five occasions to the general secretary of the Labour party, and to the Prime Minister, to ask for an independent inquiry. In the end, I was told that an inquiry was being undertaken by the Public Relations and Communications Association, which is not a regulatory body. I was told that the Cabinet Office was not carrying out an investigation, but assembling the facts.”
“It’s right that the independent adviser takes this away now.” Could I have your assurance, Mr Speaker, that whatever has been provided to this Member from the propriety and ethics team will be published immediately, and that there will be openness and transparency on this matter?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay matters, but it is now being reported in the media that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has accidentally messaged details of his case to a mass WhatsApp group of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs, in which he said: “Jonny rang, PM will ask Laurie to look in to it. Aim is to move fast. But PET did find I had not broken the code.” I take it that Jonny is the Chief Whip and Laurie is the independent adviser. PET is the propriety and ethics team. However, the PET cannot determine whether or not a Minister has broken the code. A Government spokesperson has said: “This was an accidental post and clearly meant for a more private conversation.”
“All these amendments say to the Government, “Because we cannot move an amendment tonight that will scrap the cap, at least consult on the implications of this Bill and those it leaves behind.” New clause 4 lists a number of the organisations that we depend on for the analysis of poverty and the discussion of the implications. The amendments are not revolutionary; they are straightforward. They ask the Government to please tell us what their next steps are, because they must include the tackling of the overall cap. I welcome the reviews that are going on, but meanwhile time is ticking over. It took us a year to arrive at the final conclusion on the two-child limit, and there could be another year of all those children still living in poverty.”
“Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is that a good Bill is being ruined—or damaged, anyway—by avoiding the issue of the overall benefit cap. As it is impossible for Back Benchers to move amendments that will incur Government expenditure, we could not move an amendment to abolish the overall cap, so through the amendments we have tabled we are simply saying to the Government, “Please acknowledge that the abolition of the two-child limit leaves a large number of our children in poverty.” My hon. Friend the Member for York Central has said that 141,000 children are affected by the overall cap, but from the last estimate the figure is about 150,000, and there are 50,000 families who gain nothing as a result of the Bill, which is excellent but does not go far enough. Another 30,000 families only get some partial benefit.”
“New clause 4, in my name and the names of many hon. Members, echoes new clauses 1 and 3. I take reference from points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); when we came together to discuss the two-child limit and this Bill, the House was filled largely with compassion, because we had the view that we just could not stand by and watch so many of our children living in poverty. That is why we welcome the Bill and have campaigned for it for so long. We were building an element of consensus across a large part of the House, but the problem that we have, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon.”
“Our financial sector operated like a casino. We came to a financial crisis, and when George Osborne became Chancellor in 2010, he decided that it was about not the deregulation of our financial sector but Government overspending—it never was—so he introduced a policy of austerity, which targeted the most vulnerable. He targeted—”
“That is why I urge Ministers to act swiftly in response to that review. I believe that all logic will drive these reviews to recommend the elimination of the overall cap, once and for all. I hope we will get something from the Minister tonight—some form of words that acknowledges the seriousness and urgency of the issue. I hope the reviews will report swiftly, so that we can, almost consensually, get legislation on this issue though this House incredibly speedily. I am sorry that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), is not very well, and I hope that when she recovers, she will discover compassion, because that is not what we heard tonight. We need to understand the genesis of the overall cap and the two-child limit. It goes back to the financial crisis of 2008-09.”
“The claim that there was no money left was disproved time and again. The argument that the Tories put forward was that we were spending too much on tackling poverty, on paying teachers and on our health service, but the crisis was a result of speculation, due to deregulation under the Tories for over 30 years—”
“My amendment to the Bill would tackle the inequity that was introduced as a result of George Osborne’s policies, which targeted children and disabled people. That is what they did; that is what that was about. What the Conservatives have done today is what they did in 2013 when they introduced the policy. They thought, “How can we construct a moral argument for this?”, so they reverted to the 19th-century Poor Law and the argument of less eligibility. The idea behind the 19th-century Poor Law was that someone in need of support should never be raised to the level of decency of an ordinary labourer. This policy echoed the argument from the 19th century that we cannot allow people to be raised out of poverty; they must remain in poverty. That is what the Poor Law did, and that is what this policy did.”
“I do not want them to live in deep poverty, not be able to go on school trips with the other kids in their classroom, or not be able to afford new shoes, a new coat and all the rest of it. We have heard almost the same sort of speeches that were made in this place in the 19th century, the sort that are why the Labour party was founded. It was founded to represent working-class people, and we want to eradicate poverty from our society. As we pass this Bill into law, I urge the Minister to give us some indication of what the next Bill will look like. Surely it must ensure the abolition of the cap.”
“The moral case for the Poor Law’s principle of less eligibility was disproven, because the result was to drive people—in particular, children—into poverty and real hardship. That is what the two-child limit did, and that is what the overall cap has done. All we are appealing to the Government to do in introducing this excellent piece of legislation, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, is not leave the 150,000 behind. Will they give us an indication that they have a plan to tackle that issue? We were virtually united in compassion when this Bill was introduced, and we can be united in compassion once again in scrapping the overall cap, but there is a sense of urgency now. I do not want children in my constituency to continue to live in poverty in accommodation for the homeless, and in temporary accommodation.”
“There is an element of contradiction in what the Minister has said. Until now, the Government’s argument has been that one of the most disastrous disincentives to work is low wages, so they have rightly concentrated on raising the minimum wage and aiming for a proper living wage. Our argument has never been that lifting people out of poverty is a disincentive to work—it has always been about low wages.”
“I have been trying to follow the Secretary of State’s responses regarding relationships with political parties and others. There are issues with regard to some companies. For example, the Quadrature hedge fund has massive investments in Palantir and donates to political parties in this country, including the Labour party, to which it made a £4 million donation in 2024. Will he take away the question of what influence that had on the decision-making processes for the award of contracts?”
“In this coming period, it is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the first carer’s allowance—it was called invalid care allowance back then. This is the opportunity to address that issue because for many of those people who are caring for people with these conditions, particularly children, it desperately needs addressing.”
“What came out of my meeting today—this will sound a bit harsh—was that in the carers’ dealings with the various agencies, including the Department for Work and Pensions, they reported almost unanimously a lack of empathy in the way they are dealt with. If we can transform the cancer strategy to ensure that we embed that understanding and empathy, to understand what people are going through, and that they should not have to risk living in poverty and the whole family being impacted because of the financial consequences of the care they will have to undertake, we could transform the whole atmosphere around carers and the role they provide. We have produced figures for the £180 billion that carers save the country overall through the unpaid care they do, but we never then acknowledge that in the actions we take.”
“There is a recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, and further reports are coming out from the University of Sheffield, which is doing a lot of work on this. Somehow, we have to come to terms with the fact that we will have to raise the level of carer’s allowance. It needs to be related at least to the minimum wage. Then, on that basis, we may be able to help some of these carers cope with the work they are undertaking for their loved ones, but also ensure that they are not living in poverty, because so many of them are at the moment. We all supported the cancer strategy, and there is overwhelming support in the House to get on with the job, but looking at some of these fine details could transform people’s lives and how they are dealing with the situation at the moment. Part of it is about advocacy.”
“The ongoing costs are incredibly significant. For many of the carers in the group I chair—they care for a whole range of conditions—of course the Government have assisted them greatly in raising the income they can arrange through employment themselves, but there are issues with flexible employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised that. There is not yet adequate acknowledgment of the need for flexible employment to enable people to earn a level of income that will help them survive. The issue, for those who literally cannot take on employment because of the hours they have to care, is that the level of carer’s allowance is abysmal.”
“I chair a group of unpaid carers—we had a meeting this afternoon—and the second issue for me is the need for an acknowledgment in Government that if someone becomes a carer, perhaps over a long period of time, and usually with children survivors, they are almost certain to come across living in poverty. We need to look at how we support carers overall, including on the additional burden they face. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden explained in the previous debate the transport needs she had and the way she was having to pay for accommodation for her sister when she was being treated. That is the same for so many other people—they cannot bear the costs. The briefing from the Brain Tumour Charity said that the total financial burden for those seeking to care was something like £78 million a year.”
“I pay tribute to them and I want to thank them sincerely for not putting my Hindi singing or my bhangra dancing on social media. There are two small points I want to make. The first follows on from the speech by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones). The issue about access to scanning is absolutely critical. One of the issues that we have found is that there is not just a postcode lottery but a lack of awareness among some GPs about the national guidance. I know that GPs are incredibly busy, but we need to do something to raise awareness about that.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) yet again for leading these debates. Just so that people know, her sister was a friend of mine. She was a Labour party organiser who rose in the ranks and over the years supported me in my various general election campaigns. She was very supportive but, at the same time, quite terrifying for anyone politically stepping out of line. She was an absolutely wonderful woman. The reason I intervene in these debates is because I am inspired by hon. Friend, who I call a dear friend. In my constituency, I have a Mr and Mrs Atwal, who lost their daughter tragically and who every year undertake —with the Milan Asian ladies group and Councillor Kuldeep Lakhmana, who organise it—a sort of mini-mela to raise funds.”
“There are the attacks on health workers and doctors, with 1,700 killed that we know about, and at least 100 who have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, and even to their own families.”
“The reason we are here is that there is a profound responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament in particular, to ensure that our Government act in accordance with international humanitarian law. There are two questions that we need to pose time and again. First, what evidence would it take to convince the Government that there is a risk of genocide? That means evidence not that there is genocide, but that there is a risk of genocide. Secondly, what process should the Government use to determine that? On the first question, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the evidential methods that we have used in the past, when we have determined that there have been genocides, are not simply being accepted by the Government at the moment, given the loss of life—the 70,000, as has been said—and the way in which the genocide has been perpetrated.”
“Some of those have been set out today: the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, and the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people—and yes, for the Israeli people—for the long term.”
“I am afraid that not only have Members of this House and the wider public lost confidence in the internal processes, but that is what is forcing people out on to the streets and into forms of direct action, because they have lost confidence in the Government’s own objective assessment. I therefore suggest this to the Minister: why not establish an independent commission? Use people such as Philippe Sands and others, and let the House determine who sits on that commission, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence available. I think that the Government, once they see the evidence, will have to accept that there is at least a risk of genocide, and that will have to determine their actions.”
“No, I cannot accept any interventions. There is also the number of journalists killed—more than 300—because part of this genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. And, yes, there is the forced movement of people, with 9,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, 100 of whom have died in the past two years. That is the evidence we present time and again. It is the same kind of evidence we have used in the past to determine genocide, so why is it not acceptable now? The second question is about the process. I will just say to the Minister that time and again we have had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process that the Government are using to arrive at their determination of whether there is a risk of genocide.”
“That is why so many members are asking the Government to please not exclude the possibility of bringing the scheme back into public administration. I do not want to be here again, pleading for people who have not had their pensions. On that point, I would like the Minister to say whether there is a clause within the existing contract that allows for its termination if it has failed, as it is failing at the moment. That could give us the opportunity for a fresh look at bringing it back in-house.”
“As many Members have said, there needs to be a direct instruction to Capita about dealing with the hardship cases—the bereavements and so on: the priorities that the members of the pension scheme have set out though their union. The union has said it needs an assurance that if there is a prioritisation taking place, the completion of the voluntary exit schemes should be delayed. The prioritisation should be focused on getting the money out to those people who need it. Angela MacDonald has been announced as setting up the recovery scheme in the current crisis. My worry is that we might be here in two, three or four years’ time—whenever it is—because this privatisation has demonstrated that it cannot work.”
“We also warned that what will happen with these privatisations is that they get sold on—the companies get taken over and contracts are re-awarded. I found it shocking that Capita was awarded the contract in the first place, having lost the teachers union pension contract. I find it extraordinary that that was not properly taken into account. People are aware that the general secretary of the union has written to the Cabinet Office about this on behalf of the union. So that hon. Members are aware what has happened, all that the union is asking for is clarity about the disclosure of the resources that Capita and others are now putting into resolving this problem. What level of staffing will be devoted to this problem? What is the timetable for resolving this problem?”
“I think that we are all going to be saying much the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) set out a comprehensive understanding of the situation at the moment. My latest contact has been from a Border Force guard who was planning his retirement but cannot get the information and has had to delay retirement. Others have not had their pensions paid. They are in a really serious plight. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. Let us be absolutely clear: this is a failed privatisation. It came in during the obsession of the last Government with privatisation during the early 2010s. At that time the union warned that there would be problems of this sort.”