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 6 of 160.
“I will do my best, Sir Alec. I want to relate my remarks to the Minister’s introductory statement on the quite significant extension to the definition of premises as national infrastructure. She said that in doing this the Government are upholding the right to protest. To be frank, all the evidence so far points the other way. I will give an example from my own constituency. Once something is defined as national infrastructure, it has an almost unlimited reach in its vicinity. In my constituency, we have been campaigning against the third runway for nearly 40 years now, and our tradition is sitting down in the road. Now that Heathrow is defined, in an undefined way, as national infrastructure, even roads that lead some distance from the airport are within the remit of this legislation.”
“Members are asking for is for this to be properly debated before we rush ahead with giving police powers that could result in people being imprisoned for 12 months and having a criminal record for the rest of their lives.”
“Sorry, but I am slightly bewildered. If the Minister is saying that the Government are undertaking a review of existing powers, I welcome that. That will not be published for a number of months, but this is how the police are exercising their powers at the moment. To be frank, many people who have been involved in protests and negotiations with police are critical about how the police have interpreted those powers, and we believe they have sometimes gone well beyond the legislation. The Minister is saying that the Government share some of those concerns and are reviewing the use of those powers, but at the same time, in advance of the publication of that review, we are extending powers to the police in other areas. I find that baffling. All that I think hon.”
“I associate myself with the condolences to the Jewish community in Australia that were eloquently expressed by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary. In the representations on Jimmy Lai, can I ask again that the case of Lee Cheuk-yan be raised? Lee, who is a trade union colleague of mine, was the general secretary of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Hong Kong. He has been in prison since April 2021. His trial was postponed twice this year, and we have now been given the date of 22 January. We are fearful that the trial may be delayed again, but also that he will receive a long sentence. All he did was to participate in the campaign for democracy in Hong Kong and for trade union rights. The whole campaign would be grateful for any representations that can be made.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not like doing this, but I have to. On behalf of several Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice last Wednesday in relation to the hunger strike taking place in our prisons by Palestine Action prisoners, some of whom have now been hospitalised. We wrote simply asking for a meeting with the Secretary of State, but we have not received any response. I informed his office yesterday that I would be raising a point of order. We gave it another day, but we still have not had a response to that letter. This is a matter of urgency, and I expect at least the courtesy of some response, even if the Secretary of State is not willing to meet us.”
“May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, urge those on the Treasury Bench to take back the message that that is an inaccurate statement? We need an urgent response on behalf of the several Members who put their names to that letter.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not having given notice of my point of order. Earlier today, I raised a point of order with regard to correspondence that I had submitted to the Secretary of State for Justice. I said that I had written to the Secretary of State a week ago with regard to the Palestine Action prisoners who are on hunger strike at the moment, some of whom have been hospitalised, but received no response. This evening—I have just picked it up—a Ministry of Justice spokesperson has said in a press release: “The Deputy Prime Minister has responded to and will continue to respond to correspondence on this issue”. I have received no correspondence or any reply whatsoever. I have checked all my emails and consulted colleagues.”
“This is about the Cabinet discussions that took place at the time, and Nicholas Ridley and so on. As we saw in the Shrewsbury campaign, there is also the matter of the influence they had on the courts.”
“One of the areas that is worth exploring is the Cabinet papers and the discussions that took place. These Cammell Laird workers are the innocent victims of a political strategy that was devised in Cabinet to suppress all opposition to the introduction of monetary policies—monetarism—under the Thatcher Government during that period. The Minister may not have been born at the time, but I was. In any areas where there was resistance to the Government, the resistance was suppressed. I was a Greater London Council councillor, and the GLC was abolished. In Lambeth and in Liverpool, councillors were surcharged and removed from office. Individual trade unionists were suppressed in a way that was more brutal than we ever thought possible. The Government inflicted damage, having forced trade union action, and there was also the imprisonment.”
“I declare an interest as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group. There is currently no reference at all in the Bill to staffing. Who will be the staff’s employer? What will happen with their pensions? Will TUPE apply on transfer? Will their existing benefits apply? Will there be a mandate on the levels of staffing on stations and elsewhere? That is an agenda for constructive engagement with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister commits to that when he responds to the debate?”
“We have worked on this legislation for more than 20 years. I just want to put it on the record for my constituents that I wish to abide by the manifesto commitment of day one rights, and I believe it is breaking a promise not to do so. However, other matters will be consulted on now. Some in the House of Lords may take confidence from the Government’s acceptance of this; can we send them the message that we will not in any way compromise any further on this legislation, that we will dig in, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) has said, we will sit for as long as possible, if necessary, to see it through?”
“If we get the seafarers’ charter operating effectively, it could transform people’s lives and take that pressure off them, as well as save people from harm and save people’s lives.”
“One example of the issues that we are increasingly dealing with at the moment is the abandonment of seafarers. They are recruited in one country, reach our country and then abandoned by the ship owners. That is happening more frequently across the globe. Yes, we can legislate for protections as best we can, but we need the wherewithal—the resources going into the charities and agencies that can help those seafarers, who are lost in a foreign country and bereft of support. Overall, a real programme of reform is needed. Raising the issue of mental health has been one of the strong concerns within the seafaring unions. There has been report after report across the movement about mental health issues and the stress placed upon people, and the increased number of suicides taking place as a result, and it does relate to the person’s employment.”
“The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Merchant Navy Welfare Board have recommitted themselves to joint working on seafarer welfare and met last month to do that, which we welcome. However, without the resources, effective action will be very limited. We have looked at what has happened elsewhere. Levy systems, including mandatory payments, are used by other maritime nations. They fund seafarer port facilities. We have heard some fantastic examples of those today. In New Zealand, the then Labour Government introduced a mandatory levy to fund shore-side facilities in 2022, which influenced the thinking in Australia as well. In Europe, France has operated a mandatory seafarer welfare levy system since 2016, and there are levy systems in Germany, Spain and Romania. It is critical that we introduce such a system.”
“Another consultation was held just before the 2024 general election, and the current Government are now seeking to reconsult. With one action—one effective piece of regulation—we as a Government could end nationality-based pay discrimination on UK-flagged ships. It would raise welfare standards in shipping and reinforce our country’s reputation as the gold standard in seafarer welfare and maritime safety provision. I urge the Government to act on this swiftly. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned support for charitable organisations and others in supporting seafarer welfare and the potential of a levy. Levies operate very successfully in many other countries.”
“The estimate emerging from surveys by the union is that tens of thousands of seafarers working today in the UK shipping industry are paid less than UK seafarers, simply because of their nationality and the flag of the ship that they work on. This situation impedes progress to improve seafarer welfare overall, both at the national level and the international level. The UK Government introduced secondary regulations in 2011 to do the bare minimum to avoid legal action by the European Commission over the continued practice of nationality-based pay discrimination among seafarers. I attended the Committee that agreed those regulations. They have been subject to two reviews that have never been concluded, which contravenes the post-implementation review regulations for a review to be carried out every five years.”
“It originates in part 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which explicitly permits racial discrimination against seafarers recruited overseas to work on UK-flagged ships for lower pay and longer periods than UK nationals. Way back in 2009, I was involved in the fight against this discrimination. Gordon Brown’s Labour Government initiated the Carter review to make recommendations on ending discriminatory seafarer pay differentials. Susan Carter, who led the review, recommended in 2010 that nationality-based seafarer pay differentials should be prohibited on all UK ships. The proposal was supported by the union, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government who came into office in 2010.”
“This charter is a major breakthrough, and the unions really welcomed it. Progress is being made and at the RMT union executive meeting this morning we discussed that. The RMT welcomes the detailed consultation that will take place in the coming months and the roll-out of the charter itself. However, I will now raise the issue of discrimination within the sector. I have been involved in this campaign for nearly 30 years, but the issue has gone on for 50 years. It remains legal to practise nationality-based pay discrimination against non-EU nationals working as seafarers on UK-flagged ships. That is a discriminatory practice.”
“It was introduced to protect seafarers in the short-sea ferries sector, regardless of their nationality or the flag of the vessel they work on. It will cover standards of pay, roster patterns and other employment conditions through collectively bargained standards in the industry. It will also set out maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, which is absolutely critical. There will be robust requirements to manage seafarer fatigue, which is an issue that my hon. Friend raised so forcefully. It will reinforce training requirements for operators, such as familiarisation with the vessel, to support safety and skills, so that the seafarers have the time to understand and appreciate what is needed on a particular vessel. There will also be strong standards of sick pay, holiday pay and pension rights, which is vital.”
“The mandatory seafarers’ charter that has been introduced in the Employment Rights Bill is a huge step forward for us, and I congratulate the Government on it. The charter arose, as my hon. Friend said, partly out of the P&O scandal, whereby P&O just sacked its entire workforce. That was a scandal recognised across the House, and it should not have happened. P&O sacked its entire workforce, introduced agency staff on lower wages with no holiday or sick pay, and paid the minimum amount that it could possibly get away with. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, that means that those agency staff are working under intense pressure, which inevitably has consequences for safety. Safety is one of our main worries, which is why the mandatory seafarers’ charter is so important.”
“The number of ships registered elsewhere is startling. The practice of registering under a flag of convenience has begun to dominate the industry. Ships are registered in places such as Panama, the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Cyprus, the Bahamas and Malta, and that undermines the ability to maintain standards of basic welfare for seafarers. Huge numbers of ships are registered in the Philippines, Indonesia, China, India, Ukraine and Russia. Some of those countries undertake no inspection of their vessels whatsoever. They fail to manage welfare standards, which has resulted in a reduction in those standards and even, as my hon. Friend said, in tragedies, because of the pressure the workforce are under. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact the Government are seeking to address a range of these issues.”
“At the moment, there are 120 Maritime and Coastguard Agency staff who undertake surveys and inspections. Last year, they undertook about 2,800 inspections and 3,000 surveys on UK-flagged ships, and 1,500 port state control inspections on international ships. There are 100,000 vessels calling into UK ports every year, and there is a real concern that, with so few staff, the ratio of inspections for the ships is insubstantial. For some time now, there have been calls for an increase in resources for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. My hon. Friend raised our concern that, for the last 40 years at least, there has been a tendency for shipowners to flag elsewhere, rather than the UK, with the aim of reducing labour costs. They do that, as my hon. Friend said, by putting pressure on the workforce.”
“Friend the Member for Thurrock said, one of the issues is that seafarers’ welfare is directly related to the conditions of their employment, which are governed by the International Labour Organisation’s maritime labour convention. That is the primary legislation that sets out legal standards for seafarers. In this country, the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the competent authority for ensuring that every UK vessel, or vessel entering our ports, complies with that legislation. There are specific legal responsibilities under the convention on welfare standards. As my hon. Friend said, we have 160,000 seafarers—unfortunately, fewer and fewer are British, but that is the overall number. They work on UK and internationally flagged ships in UK ports.”
“These are civilian crew. There was some confusion on the day, because the BBC reported that it was a member of the Royal Navy. It is important that we improve communication, because that caused some distress among a number of families who were trying to find out what had happened. I met some RFA-RMT representatives today, who asked me to raise the fact that in the defence review there is a reference to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary that is causing some confusion about the role it will play and what investment there will be. I ask the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence the message that the RMT would welcome a meeting with the Secretary of State or a Minister as soon as possible to discuss the defence review. As my hon.”
“I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing the debate, which she introduced eloquently. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the convenor of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to start by referring to the loss of life in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. A few weeks ago, we lost a crew member. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary has civilian crew; they are not Royal Navy, but they work alongside it. During a debate a few weeks ago, we were passed a note saying that one of our RMT members had lost his life overboard. I can now say that his name was James Elliott. On behalf of us all, I want to repeat our condolences to his family. I also pay tribute to the RFA for the essential role it plays alongside our Royal Navy and the work it does in protecting our shores.”
“I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement on this matter and the list of issues. Those issues will be subject to consultation, which will be part of the negotiation. I want to reassure her that the RMT strategy is usually not just crossing its fingers.”
“I was elated at first to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with these matters, until I discovered that the Government had redefined the nature of British waters. Restricting the measure to UK waters was even less effective.”
“I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Birmingham bin dispute has gone on for many months. The city has declared a major incident and many of the workers are facing severe hardship. Will the Leader of the House urge a ministerial colleague to come to the House to make a statement on the role that the Government could play in resolving the dispute after all these months, which has caused such harm to the city and to the workers?”
“I do not do that baloney about what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, but congratulations on your elevation to the chair, Dr Khan.”
“It was an advance, but it is now being exploited by some local papers that are exploiting the individual journalist to do other work, rather than local reporting. We need to review that, but we think the scheme is good in itself. I have outlined a programme of reforms that we think the Government could readily work on. As we can see today, there is a lot of cross-party agreement on how we can go forward. As I repeat time and again, there is not a person here who does not value their local paper for holding him or her to account.”
“Friend the Minister that it was a bit of a knock-back recently that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will not require local authorities to advertise in their local press. That is a valuable source of money. I am talking about information on alcohol licences and other local notices. We think that is a real step backwards and might, in itself, be make or break for some local newspapers. We would also like newspapers to be defined in the Bill as community assets, so that they have the same protection as other local community assets when they come up for sale. The BBC charter renewal has been mentioned, and we think there is a real opportunity there. I should also mention the local reporter scheme via the BBC, which we negotiated under a Conservative Government.”
“Friend the Member for Salford and I will both dwell on something fairly obvious to us: regulation definitely needs to be looked at again. The NUJ has always suggested that there should be a 25% limit or cap on how much is owned by any particular corporation. We also want to look at new models of ownership. We have had this debate before and stimulated some development, but it was not consistently resourced. One argument we have put to the Government is that we need a journalism foundation that looks at new ideas to bring together people from all sides of the industry. We are also calling on the Government to look at a tax on techs that can be reinvested in local journalism. We suggest 6%, but even limited taxation on the techs would mean we could provide a lot more support at local level. I say to my right hon.”
“We have just had another round of redundancies at Reach, as some Members will know because they signed the early-day motion on the issue. We have had 300 redundancies, and on top of that 50 sports journalists went during the summer as well. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill mentioned the issue with AI. The problem now is that the use of AI is very clever, because it looks as though news is almost localised when it is not—it is just a different use of language. It is a betrayal of local people that AI has been distorted in this way. We have stood back and watched this happen while the tech companies have exploited the whole industry and made fortunes. One calculation in our briefing was that the US tech firms have made about £15 billion of profits, a lot of it from us in this country. My hon.”
“An estimated 5.4 million people now live in deserts where there is no local paper. In my local area, like that of the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), we had five but we are now down to one that is not really local. I take pleasure in the local journalism students at Brunel University doing their best to revive a paper, but it is a real struggle. We are almost in a monopoly situation now. Nationally, Newsquest, NationalWorld and Reach cover 51% of local papers. The situation is even worse for DAB radio, which is two thirds controlled by Bauer and Global; they have 60% of analogue radio as well. The first issue for the agenda is that there is just a lack of regulation. We should not allow that sort of monopoly development to take place, so we urgently need to look again at regulation.”
“I will be brief. I declare an interest as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) is the chair. This will be like a Metropolitan police interview between us, and I am not sure which element I am doing. These debates have gone on for at least the 20 years that I have attended. What usually happens is that there is a large attendance, and hon. Members get up and list the names of local journalists to ingratiate themselves as much as possible. From the NUJ’s point of view, however, that never works. I will briefly run through the stats because what we are facing at the moment is pretty stark: 300 local papers have gone out of publication since 2005, which is when we had one of our earliest debates.”
“That is the significance of local media, in particular local press, at the moment when our society is under such threat from those individuals and far-right organisations.”
“No, I never mentioned it; don’t worry. Does the Minister agree about the sense of urgency in this debate? I will give an example from my constituency. We had those demonstrations outside the asylum hotels, largely fuelled not by local people, but by organisations, quite ruthless ones, with masked men trying to break into the hotels and all the rest. Also, on social media, we have had allegations made against asylum seekers that are completely untrue, but specifically designed to sow division in our community. We lack a very locally focused newspaper, so people have no access to finding out what the truth really is. They get beguiled and misled by that social media, which is deliberate, because those social media clicks become clickbait, and those individuals make money from it.”
“May I welcome the additional money for the criminal legal aid advocates and for more pupillages? If we are to rely more on judges, often sitting alone, is there not a need for greater transparency with regard to the selection of those judges, even to the point of individual selection on individual cases? I wrote to the Secretary of State this morning on behalf of a number of our members about a particular instance of the disappearance of a judge. I would be grateful if he could read that letter and possibly meet a group of MPs concerned about that matter.”
“Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment. I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.”
“I want to argue the case for Wessex. [ Laughter. ] No, I don’t. I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject. Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon.”
“Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked. I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.”
“Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty. New clause 13, which some of my hon.”
“My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns. My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century. The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency.”
“We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.”
“My hon. Friend has mentioned children. Last night I met Dr Mohammed Tahir, the doctor featured in the film “The Mission”. In that film, he is shown operating on children without anaesthesia, with dead children at his feet. Only 10%, at best, of medical supplies are getting through to Gaza at the moment. Can our Government not do more to enforce a greater supply?”
“I heard the word “finally”, and that moved me to intervene. I offer my support and thank the Government for amendments 116, 117 and 118 on air pollution, which render redundant the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the expansion of Heathrow. Before the Minister moves on, what is the Government’s attitude to new clause 29? It seems to embody many of the Government’s policies. If she will not accept that new clause tonight, will she work on some of the issues within it for the Bill’s next stage of consideration?”
“I would welcome the Minister’s view on what further action could be taken to reassure people that, in the exercise of their democratic rights in this country, they do not become vulnerable to any actions by the Chinese state here.”
“I, too, send my condolences to the family of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary member who has been lost. The RFA is unique in that it is largely civilian-crewed by members of the RMT trade union, working alongside Royal Navy personnel. They work as a very professional, tight family; any loss like this will be a real blow to them. I wish to raise the issue of the security of Chinese nationals and others in this country. Two weeks ago I was at a demonstration on behalf of Lee Cheuk-yan—our colleague, the former general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong—who has been in prison now for four years. At those demonstrations, there is always a fear of the monitoring of demonstrators and particularly for the security of Chinese nationals in this country.”
“I hope that, as we reach the next stage, there will be a cross-party element to the Bill’s improvement so that we can secure the confidence of all as we go forward. If we do not, it will remain a matter of rancour for the future, and I do not believe that we would be serving our constituents or anybody else properly in that respect.”
“It is not clear who those advisers will be, what their status will be or even what their experience will be. In addition, under the Stormont House agreement, the Justice Minister makes appointments on the basis of a binding recommendation from an appointments panel of statutory office holders. Why have we departed from that approach in this piece of legislation? There has been reference to the internment clauses: clauses 89 and 90. I remind the House that a number of members of the Provisional IRA were interned, but it was not just suspected Provisionals who were imprisoned at that time. There were more general political opponents of Unionism, too. There were members of civil rights organisations and trade unionists. I believe that they deserve justice as much as anybody else.”