Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now come to King’s consent. Do we have a Privy Counsellor present?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

King’s consent signified.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 2

National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my thanks to those in the other place for the work that they have done on this Bill, and particularly on Lords amendment 1, which I will explain my thinking on in more detail.

I stand to speak on this issue because of the importance of scrutiny of Government policy by the Select Committees of this House. While this House has an important scrutiny task, and Bill Committees have their job to do, there is a valuable role for Select Committees in scrutiny because of the depth of knowledge of the Committee teams, which are made up of Members, experienced expert staff, and Clerks. That depth of knowledge can be very helpful to Ministers and Governments, who can get useful input as policy is developed, and Select Committees have a particular role in relation to national policy statements.

More widely, I say to Members on the Treasury Benches that although I massively appreciate the work that the Minister has done to ensure that we lean into this issue —which I will touch on in a moment—Governments of whatever party need to be mindful when they are pushing legislation forward. We get elected with an agenda and, quite rightly, we are impatient to push things through, but we need to be mindful of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We diminish that at our peril, because we risk a slippery slope. One day, a mad, bad or dangerous Government—do not tempt me on that, given the past 14 years—could misuse the system. We need to stress-test what is being proposed by the Government of the day in the light of that important fact.

We have 13 national policy statements covering types of national infrastructure. I do not need to go into detail on that, but they include energy, transport, waste water and waste. The normal process has been that these statements are laid before the House, and Select Committees are involved. For time reasons, I will not go through the technical detail of how that works, but basically, Select Committees have an important role to play in scrutinising any changes to national policy statements. The Government are concerned that this can take too long, and have decided, as the Minister has explained, to introduce a new reflective amendment procedure. Under that procedure, the Government would not be subject to the existing statutory obligation to respond to a resolution of either House, or to recommendations from a Committee of either House, regarding the proposed changes.

The key question is: what is proposed to replace the existing procedure? As the Minister has said, there will continue to be a public consultation on reflective amendments —the smaller category of amendments that might be introduced. The Minister will need to write to the relevant Select Committee, and Ministers must make themselves available to appear before the relevant Committee to explain why the proposed changes to the NPS mean that the reflective amendment route is appropriate. The Minister and I have been discussing this for months—I have been speaking on behalf of those on the Committee corridor—and I thank him very much for his time.

On Report, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that Ministers would appear in front of Select Committees

“as far as is practicable”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]

I raised with him the concern that although “practicable” may be a legal term, it does not really work for Select Committees, because there is a question about what it means. The Minister could be on holiday, or could be visiting a constituency somewhere else in the country, and it might not be practicable for them to appear before a Select Committee. I have been a Minister, and it is right that Ministers should be accountable to this House. That should be a priority; it is the job of a Minister to steer legislation through the House, politically and practically. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether he can give us a reassurance that Ministers will be expected to appear before a Select Committee if required to do so, not just as far as is practicable.

Under the new approach, an amended national policy statement will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days—I am glad that the Minister has been clear that it will be sitting days, not days during a recess period; that is critical—and the Government will respond to any Committee reports during that time. However, they no longer have a statutory obligation to respond. I hope that the Minister can reassure me further, at the Dispatch Box, that they would be expected to do so.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee corridor, we are very clear that we would play our part in ensuring that these matters were turned around within a proper timeframe, and there would not be unnecessary delays. There is a great team of people behind our Select Committees. If you were not in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that I am privileged to work with probably the best set of Chairs of Select Committees that we have ever had, but that would cut you out, and you did important work that set the tone for us all. You were a leader in this field when you chaired the Women and Equalities Committee; we follow in big footsteps. There is a very talented team of people on the Committee corridor who want to make sure that this process works. We take very seriously our responsibility to scrutinise Government legislation, and our role in getting it through Parliament, although not necessarily without amendment. We will work very closely with the Government when submitting our views.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as the Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box, very large changes would go through the old process. There is no watering down of that, which is absolutely right and proper; the Government are leaning in the right direction on that. Our concern was about turning smaller amendments into reflective amendments. The Minister outlined four categories of amendment; when he sums up, I would be grateful if he could clarify who decides which of the four categories an amendment would be in, and whether there is any prospect that the process could be misused by a future Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister would misuse it, but in a bad world, could this process be abused by the Government of the day?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore that exact question last November, and we will shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to Government. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the Government’s plan to unlock the planning system in order to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs.

I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on land. I have to say, as someone who has been in local and parliamentary politics for 23 years, that that has always been the case, so it was unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he did not seem to have any solutions. He listed a number of things that the Government might consider, without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them, so it is clear that the Government will have to crack on alone if they wish to address this important issue.

The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond. I thank him for that.

Unfortunately, the Minister’s work has been made more difficult by briefings that characterise nature as a blocker to development. In fact, research from the Wildlife Trusts found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. I think these anti-nature narratives are at best lazy, and often unhelpful; they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support good planning applications. Tackling those genuine planning barriers, alongside this Bill, will be essential to building the homes that we need.

Lords amendment 40 would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by the Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefits for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) alluded to, harm to a site-loyal species would often be impossible to redress in a different location.

I do believe, though, that it is reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the Bill which environmental issues EDPs could be developed for in future, as Lords amendment 40 would do. If guided by current robust scientific evidence, or evidence that might come to light in future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond only water and air pollution.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely considered speech. On that point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), we now have concerns being expressed by virtually every environmental organisation we have ever worked with, including SERA—the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—Labour’s own environment campaign.

Could there not be a compromise here? If the Government were really clear on the process for the future, the issues that my hon. Friend has just raised could be considered. Then, we could see that there was a strategic approach on some issues, but that there would be further consideration on others that the Government could come back to. There is potential there for a compromise with the other House as part of this ping-pong process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.

In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, we did not.

[John McDonnell]

I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.

[John McDonnell]

The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes.

That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40.

Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate.

In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), a fellow Transport Committee member. We do not have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams.

[John McDonnell]

You’ve got a canal.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We do have a canal. We also have the Thames, the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland river, but I do not think any of them are chalk. The issues for chalk streams, particularly sewage going into them in Oxfordshire, causes us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency—I digress.

I welcome the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill, and I welcome the amendments that have been made during its passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) said so eloquently, the most important thing about the Bill is that will it bring more homes. There is high demand for housing in the borough of Hounslow; people desperately need adequate, affordable and good-quality housing but cannot get on to the housing ladder. Some people can afford to rent or buy privately, but I know from door-knocking that all the flats that have been built over the past 20 years are fully occupied.

West London is desperately short of housing, for those already living in the area who want to stay close to their family and for those who want to come to live in the area to take advantage of the many job opportunities in growth sectors. Sadly, some developments that have planning permission have not yet been built, partly because of changes to designs following Grenfell, and partly because other building regulation and industry changes. I hope that those developments get on stream very quickly.

I will focus on Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue, and I thank him for that.

The new procedure introduced in clause 2 applies to amendments to national policy statements that reflect policy or legislative changes, or decisions that have been through the courts. The implication is that the provision will enable the quicker implementation of light-touch amendments—those involving less material changes—to national policy statements. That concerns some of us, as the Chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently. Some of these changes could be very significant, and they deserve proper scrutiny. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will come later to some examples specifically relating to transport.

The Government’s changes will give

“Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning that Government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure to update an NPS”.

The “reflective amendment procedure” is what I would call “the reduced procedure”, but we will get forewarning—great. The Government will also have to formally announce a review of an NPS by making a statement in Parliament—great. When there is a partial review, the Government will

“informally update the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee”

by writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an NPS.

In Committee, the Minister said that

“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 105.]

It is the words “so far as is practical” that have concerned the Chairs of the Select Committees.

A letter received by the Liaison Committee also stated that if a Select Committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes within the public consultation period, then the Government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid before Parliament and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS “wherever feasible”.

When the Minister sums up, I hope he will clarify those two phrases: “so far as is practical”, in relation to the Minister coming to the Select Committee; and “wherever feasible”, in terms of the Government responding to the Committee’s report.

As I have just said, the reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to national policy statements that reflect legislative decisions, Government decisions, the publication of Government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the ANPS. I have a question, which I would really like to know the answer to: by what criteria will the new process be used, and who decides? When will the full-fat version, with the involvement of Parliament, be used?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right: the Bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Although the changes I have just referred to relate not to homes but the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—big clean energy projects, water reservoirs and so forth—there are other changes in the Bill that do support a more streamlined local planning process.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress, because I know a lot of hon. Members want to get in and there are lots of points I need to make before I can bring others in.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, new clause 55 is an appeal on the basis of fairness. My constituency has already suffered at the hands of big infrastructure—predominantly High Speed 2, but other projects too. It is about fairness. Where communities against their will have been forced to take these huge, massive infrastructure projects—my constituents will live for more than two decades in a construction site—they should be let off some of the other housing targets that are coming along. They should be let off that further unwanted development, because they have already taken enough.

[John McDonnell]

There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced.

What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built. Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result.

With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford.

Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there. Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess.

New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally. For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.”

In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I wish to speak about my new clauses 46 to 48.

The Bill concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately, in the Government’s view those turn out to be nature and the general public, and to that end the Bill proposes a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard, or to have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity, because gaining consent is not an impossibility.

Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition Government. Done well, they represent the best version of local knowledge and local wishes, but there is not so much as a single mention of them in the entire Bill. Nothing could reveal more effectively how far the Government’s focus is from the views of local residents, who are to be treated as “hostiles” who must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I have tabled new clause 48, which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision making. Otherwise, I am not sure why they exist at all.

I have also tabled new clauses 46 and 47, which are directed at the need for local infrastructure. New housing development comes with two key promises: that it will bring affordable homes for local people, and that the extra funds it brings will mean more civic amenities. Both these promises are routinely broken. For the last decade, the pace of house building has been rapid in my constituency. Residents have been asked to support large-scale development because, they have been told, it will bring new schools and clinics along with it. In reality, they have seen the houses built but not the services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers, but the real fault usually lies with the Government.

Incredibly, although a school may in good faith be written into a local plan, signed and sealed via a section 106 agreement, that guarantees nothing. When the time comes to build the school, the Department for Education will often withdraw its support, and no DfE support means no school. Similarly, an apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is so many empty words if the integrated care board later decides that it does not want to staff it. As budget pressures increase year on year, Government bodies will decide that it is cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, and more patients into existing clinics, than it is to add new ones.

Unfortunately, the Bill does little to fix those problems. Every time the Government mention supporting infrastructure, it turns out that they mean big national infrastructure. That is important too, but it does not solve local problems. The Government are viewing this problem through urban eyes. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham, settlements are literally doubling in size, but with the same level of services. As a former local councillor, I have experienced at first hand how hard it is to shape development to meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors. No wonder residents object to new housing, when all they see is more strain on services that are already at breaking point.

I hope the Minister will support my amendments. They are intended to improve this Bill, not to sabotage it. Local participation is not something to be feared; rather, it should be embraced.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I am sure that sounded a better question when it was being drafted this morning. I do not think anyone takes pride in the strike action and the waste that accumulated on the streets. This is a very serious issue. It is unacceptable that a major incident had to be declared and that public health concerns were so prevalent. That is why we took quick action. It is why the streets have been cleaned to the tune of 26,000 tonnes, and it is why there are more daily collections taking place now in terms of tonnage than there were in routine times—to make sure they catch up and do not slip back—but we recognise that, in the end, the only solution is to deal with the underlying strike action that is causing the disruption.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of Unite, and I am very proud of that; I think four generations of my family have been members. Not to rise to the provocations of Conservative Members, but there is a difference between having three military advisers and having troops on the streets. The latter would be seen as an act of provocation and a worsening of the situation. May I suggest that the Minister or the Secretary of State convenes the meetings between the council and the union to secure progress in the negotiations?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State is outlining the process by which essential infrastructure needs to be built, but she will forgive me for coming back to Heathrow expansion. I would be extremely grateful if she could set out for us—perhaps not today, but later or in writing—the exact process for considering the expansion of Heathrow under the new legislation. In addition, could she explain why those who will be affected by compulsory purchase will now be removed as consultees at the pre-application stage?

[Angela Rayner]

I will not get into the details of any particular planning process, but I will say that the Bill is about better and quality engagement. Of course, statutory consultees will continue to be engaged, but what we do not want is major infrastructure projects continually being blocked for years and years. People have been speaking about some of these projects for decades, and we still do not have the connectivity that we desperately need.

We are open to strengthening the Bill, and we will give serious consideration to proposals that further our objectives. We will continue to engage with colleagues across the House, as well as with business and communities, on what might be done about existing requirements that are not working as they should. We are clear that where once the answer was always no, to get Britain building, to drive growth and to deliver opportunity, the answer must now be yes.

The Bill is also geared towards another crucial pledge: building the new homes that we need. We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions.

Renters’ Rights Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I would like to echo the comments of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), and the references that she made to the housing problems in our area. Today marks a once-in-a-generation moment, with the biggest change to private renting since the Conservatives’ Housing Act 1988. The Thatcher reforms aimed to rejuvenate private renting by making it more attractive to landlords, but instead they helped to sow the seeds of the housing crisis we see today.

England’s 12 million private renters face some of the worst-quality housing in the developed world, with shocking levels of damp and mould and low rates of insulation resulting in health problems and unaffordable energy bills. Instead of producing competitive and affordable housing, decades of tipping the scale towards landlords has resulted in homes that are insecure, eye-wateringly expensive and often short term in nature. While renters in countries such as Germany enjoy secure, long-lasting tenancies with rights to redress when things go wrong, tenants in England can be put out on the street by a no-fault eviction if they complain about a leaky roof or a broken boiler.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 3, which would limit rent in advance of tenancy; new clause 7, which would limit proposed rent levels; and new clause 9, which covers the right to have home adaptations made to a property. We know that this legislation will end the exploitative bidding wars that drive up rental prices, stamp out discrimination on renting to families with children or those on benefits, and give renters the right to request pets in their home.

With section 21 finally consigned to history, tenants will also benefit from longer notice periods, giving them more security in their homes, and we will hold landlords accountable for health hazards in their properties. No longer should tenants and their families suffer damage to their health because a landlord refuses to act. However, to truly deliver a more secure future for renters in England, the Bill needs to close a loophole that would allow no-fault evictions to continue via rent hikes. Amendment 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), would cap in-tenancy rent rises. It would introduce a cap on the amount a landlord can raise the rent of a sitting tenant, so that no one has to face a rent hike higher than wage growth or inflation.

Everyone deserves to have basic security in their home, whether they rent or own. People with mortgages tend to have relatively predictable costs. Tenants have no such peace of mind. Today, there is nothing to protect tenants from extortionate, unjust rent hikes. The Renters’ Rights Bill does not do enough to change that. Last year, a Government survey of landlords found that rent increases of 15% or more when renewing or extending a contract are common. Despite the Bill’s passage, renters who cannot afford extortionate rent hikes will continue to have no alternative but to move, fall into debt or face eviction. There is a real danger that landlords will continue to evict tenants or threaten them with eviction at will, with unfair rent increases taking the place of section 21 evictions.

The Bill’s provisions to allow renters the right to appeal to a tribunal that can determine a market rate increase are insufficient. By definition, market rates are already unaffordable for many renters. Only capping rent increases will give renters genuine security in their home and stop landlords threatening vulnerable people with unaffordable rent hikes or homelessness.

Beyond security, the biggest issue most renters face is the fast-growing cost of having a home to live in. The amount of income that families in this country are losing to rent is rapidly becoming unsustainable. Nearly two thirds of working renters in England struggle to afford their rent, according to recent research by Shelter. Rent produces almost zero social benefit. It takes money away from working-class people who could otherwise spend it in their community, and it passes that money to property owners. What simpler, more effective way could there be to ease the cost of living crisis for millions of people and put money back in their pockets than by limiting their largest outgoing?

Rent stabilisation measures are common across Europe. In France, the annual increase is limited to 3.5%. Meanwhile, in England, rent has been rising faster than wages for well over a year, and the average annual increase reported in December was 9.3%. A cap on rent increases has the support of housing charities, renters’ organisations and major unions. It also has strong public support. When it comes to the housing crisis, we must keep all options on the table, and I hope the Government will back these changes to the Bill.

Ultimately, we need to increase the supply of council housing at affordable rents. In my constituency of Poole, we have some of the highest rents relative to wages in the country. Change, therefore, cannot come soon enough for those renters, and this Bill is a welcome first step.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I will address new clauses 5 to 7 and amendments 9, 5 and 6, which deal with rent controls.

Before I do so, I should say that I take a particular interest in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), which I have signed. I chair an unpaid carers group, and there is a real concern that even where renters have an assessment done for aids and adaptations, they cannot enforce it on their landlord, which leaves them vulnerable. They then have no choice but to move, with all the disruption that involves, particularly if they are caring for someone with significant disabilities.

I did not think that this was a contentious issue, and I hope the Minister will assure the hon. Member for Bristol Central that there can be further dialogue as the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If we have that dialogue, I think we can find something that will satisfy all concerned, to give strength to those with disabilities and those caring for them, while satisfying the Government about the ramifications of an amendment of this nature. If we can get that form of words, I would urge the hon. Member not to press her amendment to a vote. If it were voted down, it would send a message to the Lords that the Commons does not support it, whereas I think there is support in this House, but not necessarily for this form of words. Sometimes it is best not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I think we might have something here, but I will leave that to the hon. Member’s judgment.

Briefly, on rent controls, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned her constituency. Mine is next door, and I represent a working-class, multicultural community, where we have been going through a housing crisis for at least the last decade. I have lived there for 50 years and the crisis is on a scale that we have never seen before, caused, as others have said, by the selling off of our council houses. The irony here is that the same council houses that have been put into the hands of private landlords are now being rented back at very high rents to house the homeless people the council is placing in them.

With the Government’s policy of increasing housing supply and the 1.5 million new homes we are about to build, I hope that a large number of those homes will be social or council housing. As a result, we can start to tackle the housing crisis in my constituency. In the meantime, however, we will be dependent on the private rented sector.

The only reason I am speaking is the representations I have had from constituents, knowing that the Bill was coming up. I have also worked with Acorn, the Renters’ Reform Coalition and various other agencies. Those constituents have said, “Can you try to at least get across the plight we are facing at the moment?” That plight is dependent, to be honest, on landlords who are ripping them off. The concept of price gouging is emerging in all our discussions about the economy; well, here is an element of price gouging. With private rented landlords, particularly in London, we have seen profit ratios of anything between 5% and 20%. The argument is made that we can have a tribunal system. People can go to the tribunal, which will determine things on the basis of the market rent. In fact, the market rent is determined by what is almost an oligopoly of landlords in a particular area, who maintain high rents because they want to maximise profits.

The housing conditions in the private rented sector in my constituency are, in some instances, absolutely appalling. If a tenant complains, that is when the section 21 comes in. Indeed, tenants are terrified of complaining because if they get evicted, they probably face higher rent elsewhere. That is why we need a comprehensive system of rent controls. I do not see any other solution and I hope that, although the Government will not accept the amendments today, we can have a dialogue. That way, maybe between now and the Bill’s passage through the Lords or in future legislation, we can address the issue of rent controls.

The argument is very simple: we just want a system where rents are linked to wages or inflation. That way, people cannot be ripped off by higher rent increases. That is not rocket science. I am old enough to remember when we had rent controls, with a local rent officer who the local authority would send round. They would determine a fair rent and also what was fair in terms of wages and income for any future rental levels. Rent controls operate across Europe and it has not had an impact on the supply of private rented housing elsewhere. It is a system that could be readily introduced.

I worry that if we do not do that now, we will be back here in a couple of years’ time with the same problems. Although we want to build new homes at speed, we will still be dependent on the private rented sector and on some, but not all, landlords—we have good landlords as well—who are basically profiteering at the expense of homeless people.

Turning to my final point, the issue of developing a tribunal system was raised by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The tribunal system needs to ensure that people are properly represented and have time to take on the system. Most of us with a trade union background will have dealt with employment tribunals over the years. They can be effective, but the only reason for that is that we have the might and organisation of the trade union movement. We do not have that in the rental sector to represent tenants.

Although I welcome the idea that we will have a thorough tribunal system that is effective in dealing with hard cases, it is not realistic to expect tenants in my constituency to utilise that without the resources to do so, particularly as we have lost a lot of our advice agencies as a result of austerity. That is why we will need to come back and discuss again the solution of rent controls, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) brought forward.

[Amanda Martin]

Good-quality, secure and decent rentals should not be too much to ask, and I thank those landlords who do provide that in my city and beyond. I welcome the Government amendments to this detailed Bill, which will help residents in Portsmouth North to rent homes that are both secure and decent.

Employment Rights Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I remind the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) that across those European countries with the highest union density, people have the best wages and working conditions and the greatest productivity, which somewhat undermines his last argument. I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are calling this the Employment Rights Bill, but it is not about rights as such; it is about power. When trade unions first discovered the concept of solidarity in the early industrial revolution, they discovered that, through unity, they could exert power to influence, to improve working conditions and wages, and to secure a better overall quality of life. Since 1979—I started work a few years before then—successive Conservative Governments have understood the distribution of power, and as a result they have used legislation to undermine trade union rights, so as to reduce the power of workers to defend themselves at work and improve their working conditions. All that the Bill does—I welcome it wholeheartedly—is take a small step to rebalance that power. It will not just improve wages and working conditions, but lead to a better economic situation for all concerned—employers and employees—full stop. That is what it is about.

[Andy McDonald]

Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that the steps outlined in this Bill will help to address insecure work, and will allow people to enjoy decent, secure wages and dignified work, as well as to plan for their future and that of their family?

[John McDonnell]

Yes, and as a result, people will work better, increase their productivity and improve the profitability of companies, which is beneficial to us all. It is as simple as that. However—there is a “but”—there are a few points on which I would press the Government to go a bit further. The first is sectoral collective bargaining and fair pay agreements. In the early 1970s, 86% of our workforce was covered by collective agreements, but that is now down to 20%. Where collective agreements have operated, they improve productivity, wages and conditions, and increase industrial harmony in the economy. We as a Government are starting off by introducing them for adult social care, which I thoroughly welcome, because there is such low pay and exploitation in the sector. However, I would like to see an enabling clause in the Bill, so that we can move on swiftly to other sectors in which we can get agreement across the trade union movement and engage with employers.

The second point is on single worker status, to which my hon. Friend alluded. Consultation is taking place on that, and it is absolutely critical, because we have seen some of the most exploitative practices in parts of the economy where workers have been forced into bogus self-employed status.

The third point is on insourcing. The Government have promised the biggest reform of insourcing in a generation. There is no mention in the Bill of insourcing, but there is mention of reform to procurement, and it is important that through our reforms to procurement, we bring forward insourcing as rapidly as possible. Outsourcing has produced an insecure, low-paid form of employment that is already resulting in industrial strife. Over the next couple of weeks, we could see strikes in virtually every Government Department because of what is happening on outsourcing.

On fire and rehire, the question is what a company has to do to prove that there is financial stress because of the economy. I also have two final points. One is on the seafarers’ charter; it has been mentioned that the second stage of discussions are taking place. That charter is critical if we are to provide basic protections for seafarers. Finally, prison officers have been denied the right to strike since 1994, and even Tony Blair said that he would restore that. I want to see that in this Bill, and I shall table an amendment accordingly.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has endured the consequences of extremism himself and has been a very valuable voice for religious freedom for many years. He makes two important points. The first is about the need to be vigilant in dealing with anti-Muslim hatred. That is why my right hon. Friend the Security Minister announced more than £100 million of funding to better protect mosques, schools and other Muslim community centres—I commend that initiative. It is also why the Government continue to fund the excellent organisation Tell MAMA, whose founder I had the opportunity to meet again yesterday to discuss the approach that we are taking. My hon. Friend asks whether Ministers alone will make the judgment. Ministers will make that judgement, informed by impartial civil service advice and academic research.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

For a number of years, I have been meeting and working with an organisation that in 2018 published its report “Our Shared British Future: Muslims and Integration in the UK”. I supported that report because it called for “equal integration for all”, for us to “break down barriers” and work towards tackling the challenges that hinder integration, and for us to “celebrate British diversity” and the success of our model of integration. It also reported on the role of faith organisations in integration, recognising that faith can support integration efforts.

That organisation is the Muslim Council of Britain. The Secretary of State deprecated the leaks around this report, but the informal spin and briefings that have taken place have dragged the name of the Muslim Council of Britain through the mud in recent days. He has not answered the question as to what appeal process there will be, aside from judicial review. Will organisations and individuals have access to legal aid for judicial review in challenging decisions made by the Secretary of State on this?

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

If that were true, it would be a serious matter, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have huge respect, and who chairs the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee with much distinction—that I do not see it that way, and neither do the Government. However, he takes me from my explanation of what the statement is not, to explaining why we are approving it. That is the nub of this issue. We see—I see—the role of this Government and of any party that has the honour to be in government in the United Kingdom as that of a pro tem custodian of our democracy. That is why we have election law, and why I am the elections Minister. Democracy is, as we discussed last week in the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, a fragile flower under huge pressure.

We believe that the statement is timely, not least because of the raft of changes that have flown through and been delivered by statutory instrument from the recent Elections Act 2022. We are also hugely cognisant of the threats to the robustness and resilience of our democracy presented by overseas interference, fake news, deepfakes, and artificial intelligence. The solemn role of pro tem custodian, and holding the flame of democracy while we serve in government, are important.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

It is important to underpin, rather than undermine, the work of the commission by standing shoulder to shoulder with it in the important work that has been set before it, which I will come to when I have taken the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[John McDonnell]

I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we warned in our report about the threat to the independence of the commission from the Government’s legislation regarding the strategy statement. I can understand where the Minister is coming from when he says that we are not using the expression “must” because that would be a direction, but the Government are repeatedly using the expression “should”. The question in my mind is: if the commission ignores this “should”, what happens? There is an implied threat around the “should”.

[Simon Hoare]

The right hon. Gentleman helpfully takes me to the next part of my remarks about “should”, “would” and “must”. Let us just canter through, with some degree of attention and seriousness, the priorities set out in the statement. In all seriousness—I hope the House knows me well enough to know that when I use that phrase it is not just parroting a line; I am serious in what I am about to say, because it is important—I really would question whether any hon. or right hon. Member of this House, of any party, would take exception to anything in the statement.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister answer my question?

[Simon Hoare]

If the right hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, he will have his question answered. He asks his question in his way and, in the words of Frank Sinatra, I shall answer it in mine.

The first paragraph rehearses this key point:

“The Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for giving guidance and support to Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers in undertaking electoral registration and conducting elections and recall petitions effectively and in accordance with the law.”

Anybody disagree with that? No. Paragraph 2 states:

“The Chair of the Commission has the responsibility in law for acting as the Chief Counting Officer at national referendums in the UK…and the staff of the Commission support the Chair in that role, when it is required, to work through local electoral authorities to deliver such events.”

The delivery of smooth and seamless referenda is not, I would suggest, a revolutionary power grab by His Majesty’s Government.

Paragraph 3 states:

“The government believes the Electoral Commission has an important role to play in maintaining the integrity of our elections and public confidence in that integrity.”

I do not think that point will get the Division bells ringing. In answer to the question from the Chair of the Select Committee, paragraph 3 continues:

“The duty to have regard does not require the Commission to give lesser priority to, or to ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The Electoral Commissioners and the Commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the Commission’s strategy, priorities, how it should discharge its duties (including day-to-day operations) and the allocation of its resources, as agreed by the relevant parliaments. It will be for the Commission to determine how to factor the Statement into its decision-making processes and corporate documents such as the Five-Year Plan.”

Paragraph 4 states:

“One of the government’s policy priorities is ensuring our democracy is secure, fair, modern and transparent.”

One could easily transpose the word “government” for “Parliament” there. Who will argue with ensuring that our democracy is secure? Who will argue that our democracy should not be fair, modern, or transparent? Paragraph 4 goes on to say that it is a priority to ensure

“that those who are entitled to vote should always be able to exercise that right freely, securely and in an informed way;…that fraud, intimidation and interference have no place in our democracy;…that we are the stewards of our shared democratic heritage which we keep up to date for our age.”

That is my custodian point again.

Paragraph 5 states:

“One of the leading government objectives is tackling electoral fraud”.

Anyone in this House in favour of electoral fraud? I did not think so—and rightly so. Paragraph 5 goes on to state that the commission should

“support continued effective delivery of voter identification by raising public awareness about the requirement to show an approved form of photographic identification before taking part in UK parliamentary elections, local elections in England and elections in Northern Ireland”.

It has done that in Northern Ireland for the last 20 years or so. This issue was raised in close questioning from the Lords Constitution Committee just the other month. The important role of the Government, the commission and other agencies in raising the profile and public awareness of voter identification was a matter that we discussed at some length.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman was obviously so busy trying to find his rebuttal point that he did not listen to my answer to the first question. I set out clearly that the duty to “have regard” does not require the commission to give lesser priority to, or ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The electoral commissioners and the commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the commission’s strategy and priorities, and how it should discharge its duties. The statement in no way undermines, countermands or double-guesses any work of the commission.

The paper goes on to talk about tackling electoral fraud, which I know we would all wish to do. Crucially, it also talks about the role of the commission in working with returning officers and others to ensure the maximum opportunity for those with disabilities to take part in the ballot on the day and in polling stations. Nobody in this place, or the other place, would think that was not a noble aim.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

And at the very mention of noble aims, I give way to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

[John McDonnell]

I come back to the fact that this statement in effect sets priorities for the commission, and that has not only operational consequences but budgetary consequences. What are the consequences for the commission if, like me, it thinks the Government’s statement is daft and completely ignores it?

[Simon Hoare]

I just do not see that happening, because the commission understands the importance of the statement. It is not a directional document; it is an augmenting document. It says—because there are difficult things facing our democracy, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—that the Government, not a party Government but Government as an entity, are in lockstep with the commission, in full support of the work that it does to preserve, protect and enhance our democracy. We felt that it was timely for the Secretary of State to provide a statement to augment and clarify matters that flow from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Act and subsequent statutory instruments.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is right to say that the commission is, in any case, doing the things set out in the statement, in whole or in part. It will be entirely up to the commission to set its priorities from the list, and to give greater or lesser attention to matters as needed. For example, it could say, “Well, that has already been done, and this is all in hand, but we really need to augment this matter here.” The voter authority certificate is a prime example. There are things that we would all expect the commission to spend a certain amount of time on, in order to raise awareness of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am speaking today as Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I also declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

When the Minister was given responsibility for local government finance, he no doubt thought that he had got the hospital pass, which some Ministers get from time to time when they have a very challenging brief and a very difficult situation to face. Then he realised that that hospital pass was coming down the road straight away, and that he was going to have to try to justify this statement today. He did a good job of telling us what the current responsibilities are of the Electoral Commission; what he did not do was give us one example of something that the commission is not doing right at present which they will be made to do right and better by this statement. What are the problems that need addressing, and if the motion passes in this House, what will be different tomorrow from today? He did not give one example of that. That is why in the end both the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and the Speaker’s Committee said that, at worst, this statement process compromises the independence of the Electoral Commission—the commission believes that as well—and at best, it is simply unnecessary and will contribute nothing whatsoever.

I say to the Minister—and he has made this point—that democracy is of course very precious and it is the responsibility of all of us to protect it. The Electoral Commission is a very important part of that process in its oversight of elections and the electoral processes in this country, so it must be seen to be independent—not just independent in practice but perceived to be independent. Despite what the Minister said in the very detailed way he addressed the statement, the perception is that the Government are trying to do something to influence the Electoral Commission. If they are not, what is the point of this? If they have no intention of influencing the Electoral Commission, we should just let it get on with the current situation and be accountable to Mr Speaker’s Committee—that is surely where we ought to be.

The Speaker’s Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee had very helpful advice from senior and authoritative officers in this House who concluded in reporting to our Committees that the statement would constitute interference with the commission’s operational independence. That is what we were advised; we were advised that no cogent explanation had been put forward for why the statement was needed. We have not heard one today either; the Minister did the best job he could, but it was not a coherent and cogent explanation. Further, we were told that it was hard to see how this statement would help the commission in its work.

The statement says that the commission should have regard to the way in which it operates, and gives it certain priorities. If among the commission’s many responsibilities some have to be a priority, others must be of a lower priority—that is pretty self-evident as a conclusion.

Those other things are less important. Either that directs the commission to concentrate its resources on the things that the Government think are important, or the commission will just ignore it and walk away; either way, we do not know what we are here for. Either we are here to interfere with the work of the commission, direct it and give it priorities, or we are simply here to say to the commission, “There are some things that the Government think are rather nice, but go away and ignore them because they don’t really matter. That’s not your statutory responsibility.”

Ultimately, the commission has statutory responsibilities. We were advised on the Committee that some of the wording in the statement differs from the wording in law, so the commission could be caught between following the law and following the guidance. It would end up in court, with lawyers making a lot of money from the conflicts—lawyers always make money where there is confusion in wording. The Government ought to be careful about what they are asking us to do.

Reference was made to other regulators. Other regulators are essentially agents of Government: for example, Ofwat exists to carry out Government policy about how our water should be kept clean. The Electoral Commission is not an agent of Government. It is therefore very different from the other regulators—the agents—that the right hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and Ministers have referred to.

[John McDonnell]

It goes back to the question that I put to the Minister. If other regulators fail to abide by the direction given by Government, they are removed. We have not heard what the consequences will be from the Government of not abiding by the range of “shoulds” within the statement.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. No consequences are laid out for what will happen if the statement is not followed by the Electoral Commission.

Teesworks Joint Venture

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman appears to be questioning whether the site is complex. These are not my words, but the words of the review, which many of his colleagues have used, often out of context in the past half an hour, to throw accusations around the place. He stood up once before, on 7 June 2023, to indicate that he thought the project was “a scam”. He was not choosing his words carefully then and he is not choosing his words carefully now. He should consider whether he wants to withdraw any of them.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am choosing my words carefully. For past similar projects we have had NAO investigations after the event. Many of us have been disappointed by our own decision-making process of not producing reports soon enough. The issue here is that there are potential allegations of excess profits, so would it not be better to have the NAO vet the project with regard to excess profits at this stage, rather than run the risk of trying to learn lessons after the event?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. I repeat that we have just had an independent inquiry—an independent inquiry which went through a process that the Labour party, when last in government, set up. If the Labour party is so desperate to have an independent inquiry into the Tees Valley after one has already been completed, I would love to hear from them where their calls are for independent inquiries into Birmingham, Croydon, Slough and Liverpool, all areas where mistakes have been made by Labour administrations but which they do not want to talk about.

Inter Faith Network for the UK

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch]

I welcome the intervention. As part of preparations for this debate, I have certainly looked into any concerns about and any criticisms made of the Inter Faith Network. I do not think it comes as a surprise that there are those who are uncomfortable about inter-faith work; that is actually where such a partnership approach very much needs allies in this place.

I have looked carefully at the way the network is organised and run, and it appears to me to be incredibly diligent. I have touched on its broad membership, to which the hon. Gentleman also alluded. It is in demonstrating the critical mass of those different organisations being brought together that says to me that nobody is doing this work as successfully as the network is. It is as effective as it is because so many people trust the work it is doing and have bought into its aims and the way it conducts its business. I have been able to thoroughly satisfy myself as part of this process that it is doing very good work, is run very diligent way and is effective at what it does. I hope that, in the rest of my speech, I can satisfy any further points to that effect.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

What has restored my faith and confidence in the network is how it has responded to some of the criticisms in a very open way and by inviting people into explain their views, rather than getting drawn into what could be sectarian rows or internecine strife on religious and other grounds. How it has reacted has in many ways demonstrated the strength of the organisation.

[Holly Lynch]

Again, I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. Some of the IFN’s publications, such as the letter from the co-chairs to the editor of The Telegraph only this week, have been very candid and transparent. It has been incredibly accountable in the work it does and the way it goes about it, so I entirely agree with him on that point.