Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I think that we are all going to be saying much the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) set out a comprehensive understanding of the situation at the moment.

My latest contact has been from a Border Force guard who was planning his retirement but cannot get the information and has had to delay retirement. Others have not had their pensions paid. They are in a really serious plight. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. Let us be absolutely clear: this is a failed privatisation. It came in during the obsession of the last Government with privatisation during the early 2010s. At that time the union warned that there would be problems of this sort. We also warned that what will happen with these privatisations is that they get sold on—the companies get taken over and contracts are re-awarded. I found it shocking that Capita was awarded the contract in the first place, having lost the teachers union pension contract. I find it extraordinary that that was not properly taken into account.

People are aware that the general secretary of the union has written to the Cabinet Office about this on behalf of the union. So that hon. Members are aware what has happened, all that the union is asking for is clarity about the disclosure of the resources that Capita and others are now putting into resolving this problem. What level of staffing will be devoted to this problem? What is the timetable for resolving this problem? As many Members have said, there needs to be a direct instruction to Capita about dealing with the hardship cases—the bereavements and so on: the priorities that the members of the pension scheme have set out though their union.

The union has said it needs an assurance that if there is a prioritisation taking place, the completion of the voluntary exit schemes should be delayed. The prioritisation should be focused on getting the money out to those people who need it. Angela MacDonald has been announced as setting up the recovery scheme in the current crisis. My worry is that we might be here in two, three or four years’ time—whenever it is—because this privatisation has demonstrated that it cannot work. That is why so many members are asking the Government to please not exclude the possibility of bringing the scheme back into public administration. I do not want to be here again, pleading for people who have not had their pensions. On that point, I would like the Minister to say whether there is a clause within the existing contract that allows for its termination if it has failed, as it is failing at the moment. That could give us the opportunity for a fresh look at bringing it back in-house.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

No. The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to hide from the fact that his party was part of the Government that awarded that contract in 2012 to the mutual joint venture. He may wish to look at his own party’s part in that if he thinks that it was a mistake. Sadly, the information provided by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the House last week fell well short of what is required. It failed to address the fundamental question of how the Government allowed Capita to take over the contract in December despite the repeated warnings and the signs that it had clearly failed in its key milestones.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I must continue, because I have only a short time; I have given way twice. We know that in November 2023, Capita was awarded the contract to administer the civil service pension scheme, but we also know that the previous administrator, MyCSP, had its contract extended until December 2025 specifically to allow for a two-year transition period that was meant to reduce risk, not create it. The National Audit Office investigation report published in June 2025 made it clear that MyCSP had failed to meet agreed service levels in the final year of its contract, with complaints more than doubling towards the end of that contract. That is a large part of the reason why the contract was awarded elsewhere.

If I may briefly refer to the tragic case of Philippa—not a constituent but someone who I had the pleasure of meeting because she was the long-term partner of a member of staff of one of our colleagues.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Member give way? He should not be allowed to get away with this.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. It is obvious that the Member does not want to give way.

[John McDonnell]

He is not giving way because he will not admit responsibility.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. It is up to the Member if he wishes to give way; he has made it clear that he does not wish to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

As I have said, I did not see the details of the bid. Obviously, with any bid, it is right to look at previous performance. There will be some causes for concern with any of the bidders for large Government contracts because of the complexity of those contracts.

[John McDonnell]

Maybe the Ministers at the time did not see Capita’s Army recruitment fiasco, its primary care fiasco that put patients at risk, the near-collapse of the teachers’ pension scheme or the cyber-attack in which Capita exposed the data of 6.5 million people and was fined millions. Does the hon. Member not think that Ministers might have taken those into account before awarding this contract?

[Mike Wood]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not always been an uncritical friend of the current Government, but he has to recognise that his party has been in government for more than a year and a half, during which there were opportunities to take action if they were unhappy with our contract.

As I said, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for problems and their consequences. Despite that, on 7 July last year—a full year into this Government—the permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that the Cabinet Office would decide in December whether Capita should take over administration. On 14 November 2025, the Cabinet Office wrote to trade unions confirming that Capita would indeed take over from 1 December, stating that it was satisfied—this Government, this permanent secretary and this Minister’s Department were satisfied—that Capita had taken on board the findings of those reports.

Serious questions have to be answered. What assurances were provided by Capita to Ministers before that final decision was taken at the end of last year? What scrutiny was applied to those assurances and by whom? Why, in his letter to colleagues, did the Minister for the Cabinet Office claim that these issues had only come to his attention “in recent weeks” when both the National Audit Office report in June and the Public Accounts Committee report in October warned of a “clear risk” that Capita would not be ready? The Public Accounts Committee was clear that Capita had missed seven out of its eight key transitional milestones to deliver its IT system and said:

“The Cabinet Office needs to fully develop contingency plans”.

If the Minister is right that he was only made aware of these problems in recent weeks, should the Government not have known far sooner and acted far sooner?

Although it is welcome that interest-free hardship loans are now available, this action has clearly come too late. Those loans should have been made available on an emergency basis from 1 December—the same day that Capita took over administration—so that people were not left in financial limbo. Instead, some pensioners have reported being forced to take out costly commercial loans or to borrow from friends and family simply to cover basic living costs. That is unacceptable. Can the Minister guarantee that no one affected will face further disruption beyond the end of this month? Can she guarantee that pension payments will be stabilised fully and permanently?

The warning signs were there for months, and the failure to act decisively after the publication of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports is stark. Although it is deeply disappointing that the Government failed to prevent this from happening, we can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest—

Lord Mandelson

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will end with two responses to that intervention. First, my right hon. Friend is obviously absolutely right. I say to Labour Members, who were shaking their heads, that every decision—every decision—the Government have made is brought into question by the lack of judgment the Prime Minister has shown. I stood at the Dispatch Box and repeatedly called for a national grooming inquiry. I am a British-Pakistani Muslim male. I have two sons. I want them to grow up without aspersions being cast on them. One day, I hope to have a daughter—apologies to my wife—and I want her to grow up in a safe environment. We have to be honest and we have to be strong in making those calls. I say to the Minister, as he answers those questions, that the question about the ISC is really important. We need to know that under the amendment, it will have the full authority to deal with what comes in front of it, so that we and the public can make a judgment.

Secondly, why did Gordon Brown’s calls fall on deaf ears? Why was he not given the respect, as a former Prime Minister, of his calls being dealt with? Was Mandelson so strong that, despite his toxicity, he was protected and enabled?

Finally—I have made this point repeatedly—the judgment of the Prime Minister surely has to be in question. We will now find out what else was known. The Minister has the opportunity to share anything else that he might want to share at the Dispatch Box.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to disturb the debate in this way. I have tried to follow it as much as possible while I have been in and out of the Chamber with other duties. A manuscript amendment has been agreed, with, I take it, cross-party agreement. People will be making up their minds on how to vote on that amendment, and we therefore need clarity—those on the Front Bench could intervene now to clarify this for me. I want to get this absolutely clear. We are all going to vote for the material to be released; there is consensus on that. The difference is with regard to who interprets what is released. The manuscript amendment excepts elements of information that are prejudicial to national security and international relations,

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

I agree with that, but I would like clarity on whether the Intelligence and Security Committee will make the decision about publication, or—[Interruption.] Please listen. Will it make the decision or will it simply advise the Government and the final decision will rest with the Government? It would be helpful to have that clarified before we vote.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asks in order to assist the House. If it is of assistance, the answer to his question is that when the material is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Committee, which is independent, will act independently: it will consider the material referred to it and then decide how to respond, what to refer to publicly and what not to refer to publicly. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee will act independently in this matter, as it does in all matters.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John McDonnell]

If I could follow that, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has very clearly brought into question the probity of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He might want to withdraw that. It is of course a matter for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to declare that, which he could now do by putting any interest on the record.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really grateful for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I just want the assurance that the Government will not be able to exercise a veto over the information that will be provided via the Committee.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

It is good to see the hon. Lady in her place. I am grateful for her comments today and for the contact that we have had recently. I hope she knows that this is a conversation that I want to continue to have with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches. We take very seriously the points she has made today and on countless other occasions.

Let me try to provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance; if I am not able to do so, I would be happy to meet her again in the very near future. As she will understand, there are sensitivities that mean it is more difficult to get into the detail of some things, but let me see what I can say to try to provide some assurances.

The package that we have announced today is, by any metric, comprehensive, although I have been clear about the Government’s willingness to go further when and where that is required. The measures we have announced today will help us to tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that we face from China and other state actors. The impact of the measures will be immediate, but, as I say, we will not hesitate to go further where necessary; when we say that national security is the first priority of this Government, we take that incredibly seriously.

The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face from China require actions not words, but I gently reiterate some of the announcements that we have confirmed today. The work that we are taking forward will be co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office and me as part of a new counter-political interference and espionage plan; that will be the fulcrum point for co-ordinating activity right across Government and across law enforcement. She will have heard what I have said about the new guidance briefings that will be issued to Members of this House, the devolved Assemblies and candidates standing for election next May.

We are also putting our money where our mouth is. We have announced £170 million specifically towards renewing our sovereign encrypted technical capability and another £130 million on projects such as building the capacity of counter-terrorism police, working with the NCSC and the NPSA to protect intellectual property.

I have also referenced, as the hon. Lady did, the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to China’s national intelligence law—work that I absolutely acknowledge began under the previous Government. I am pleased to confirm that we have completed that process today. I have issued a written ministerial statement with further detail on that. There is also an important legislative angle to all this, which is why we introduced the new Cyber Security and Resilience Bill just last week, and why I give an assurance that we will introduce the elections Bill at the earliest available opportunity.

All these measures are important in their own right, but they are more important when they are brought together. In the end, though—I think the hon. Lady will agree with this—what really matters is our mindset, and our mindset is born of an absolute desire to work collaboratively across this place to protect our country and all the people who live here. Will that involve making some tough choices? Yes; the truth of the matter is that it will involve making some tough choices. The previous Government made some tough choices, and this Government will have to make tough choices. Like all our G7 counterparts, we will engage with those choices in a clear-eyed way. I do not think any serious Member of this House thinks that we should not be engaging with China—the debate is around the nature of the engagement.

The hon. Lady made some important points, and if I am not able to address them adequately, I will come back to her. She raised the importance of education and academic freedoms; I completely agree with her on that. She referenced Sheffield Hallam University specifically. She will understand that because of ongoing active inquiries into the matter, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of what has allegedly happened at Sheffield Hallam. However, her points are well made, and I give her an absolute assurance that we take them incredibly seriously.

It did not come as a huge surprise to me that the hon. Lady also raised the issue of FIRS. She will remember that FIRS is a product of the National Security Act 2023. Some Members of this House said that we would not introduce FIRS at all; then, when we confirmed that we were going to introduce it, they said that we would not be able to do so by 1 July. I gave a categorical assurance that we would introduce it by 1 July, and we did. We are looking closely at whether it is necessary to make further additions to the enhanced tier, but I can say to the hon. Lady that no decision has yet been made with regard to China specifically.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the embassy. There has been much discussion about that matter in this place, and we are moving towards a point of decision. She will understand that that is not a decision for me; it will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in a quasi-judicial capacity. As a consequence of that, I am limited in what I can say. However, as I have said previously, I can say that national security has been the core priority throughout.

The hon. Lady spoke about visits to China. I would take a different view to her characterisation of those visits: I think it is important that members of this Government—Ministers and senior Ministers—engage with our counterparts in China, as it is only by engaging that we are provided with an opportunity to deliver tough and consistent messages. I can categorically assure her that any Minister or official who travels from this country to China will deliver a series of strong and coherent messages aligned with the messages that I have delivered to the House today.

The hon. Lady also asked about the audit. She will know that the previous Foreign Secretary gave a statement in this House about the China audit, but I will look carefully at the specific points she has made.

In concluding my response to the hon. Lady, I hope that she knows how seriously we take these matters, and I assure her categorically that I am very happy to work collaboratively with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches to ensure that we secure the right outcome for the country.

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

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 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.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least for his opening remarks, which I know will have been shared by the whole House. He raises an important point about transnational repression. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. We have relatively recently completed a very significant piece of work looking at the issue of transnational repression through the defending democracy taskforce. The Government are absolutely crystal clear that it is completely unacceptable for China—or any other country, for that matter—to target individuals resident in this country.

I recently met members of the Hong Kong community, who raised significant concerns about their being targeted. I was clear to them, as I am clear to my right hon. Friend, that none of that activity is remotely acceptable to the Government, and that we will do everything we can to ensure both that the individuals he refers to are kept safe and that they feel as though they are being kept safe.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to all the campaigners, but I want to pay special tribute to the Scouse MPs, who in the last few months put their foot down and said that they were having nothing but the Hillsborough Bill. I thank them on all our behalf.

I want to raise a point about the duty of candour, transparency and frankness, and the duty to operate in the public interest. I would like someone to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is a duty to co-operate with the complainants or the victims in the pursuit of truth. I say that not about a historical event, but about an event that is happening today: the Mitting inquiry into the undercover operations carried out on a number of our campaigns. In that inquiry, the authorities, the police and the intelligence services are belligerently fighting not to tell the truth. I will explain briefly.

Twenty-eight years ago almost to the day, my constituent, a young Asian lad named Ricky Reel, went on a night out with his mates in Kingston upon Thames. He went missing and never came home. We now know that he was racially abused. A week later, we found his body in the river. The police inquiry was appalling, and we begged for police resources to be applied. They were applied, but we discovered later that they were applied to surveil our campaign. We had undercover police officers surveilling our campaign, not investigating the case. We were told, “Don’t worry, we weren’t really surveilling you. You were collateral damage.” It was a collateral invasion of privacy, we were told.

Then we met workers who were being blacklisted, so we set up the Blacklist Support Group. We discovered that the police and the intelligence services were surveilling those workers and providing information to employers. Some of those workers never worked again in their life.

Then, of course, we worked with the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We discovered a hero: a police officer called Peter Francis, who was part of the unit that undertook the surveillance. He said what actually went on, and he blew the whistle. He is now giving evidence to the Mitting inquiry. My constituent Mrs Reel is also giving evidence, as are the Lawrences and other campaigners, but the police are refusing to attend. They claim to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They claim that they are so unwell that they cannot provide the evidence. As a result, we will not get to the truth unless there is an overpowering duty in this legislation that forces them to co-operate.

People have said that this is about class, but it is also about race. The Lawrence family were surveilled. Why? So that information could be provided to the media to discredit them. In the Ricky Reel campaign, it became farcical. We went to visit the Metropolitan police and said, “You’ve now admitted that you were surveilling us. We would like to see the documents about that surveillance.” We were each given our own copy, but it was redacted to such an extent that there was maybe only a sentence or a word visible. To be frank, we fell about laughing. We got up to take the copies out, but we were told that we could not, and the reason why was that we might have put them all together and made sentences. That is how bad the situation was. We have still not got to the truth—to the full files—and we are still calling for another investigation, so this Bill is highly relevant. We want a duty that is not just about telling the truth, but about co-operating with those who are complaining and the victims. Until we get that spirit of co-operation, I do not think that we will ever get to the point at which we can hold officials and others to account.

I am worried about the different way that the intelligence services will be treated. Surveilling the blacklisted workers involved a rare mixture of police, special branch and others. I would like to see the intelligence services held to account under this legislation. It almost gives them a private guarantee that even whistleblowers will never be heard in public in a way that allows us to expose what goes on. There will be a lot more to say about this legislation, and we will need to amend it.

My final point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). I remain angry about The Sun. I remain bitterly angry about its role and what it did. We were promised Leveson part 2, but we have dropped it, and I do not think there is any justification for that. If anything good comes out of today’s debate, maybe it will be the Government reconsidering introducing Leveson part 2 and legislation that prevents newspapers acting as The Sun did. I have to say, if social media had existed back then, can you imagine how horrendous it would have been?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Speaker’s Statement

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Conservative party, I would like to add my voice to the tributes paid today to Lord Campbell. I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Ming Campbell, as he was then, just once—backstage before “Any Questions?”—and he was very courteous, very curious and very earnest. We all know how well respected he was across this House, not least because of the efforts he made to work cross-party, especially on international matters. He was a man with a clear sense of right and wrong, committed to doing the right thing even when it was difficult or unpopular, so I very much hope that his legacy of careful thought, integrity and public service endures. On behalf of myself and my party, I extend heartfelt condolences to Sir Ming’s family, his party and all those who knew him and loved him.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For those of us on all sides who were here during the debate on the Iraq war, I want to thank Ming for the legal advice that he provided and the way that he addressed that debate, because he did so without seeking any party advantage. He simply set out the legal principles on which he was making his decision, and he did so with compassion and with the recognition of the moral duty that we all had. Many of us agreed with him and voted with him, and many did not, but everybody respected his judgment as a result. I believe he was a model MP, always speaking and voting on the basis of his conscience and the interests of his constituency and the country overall. He will be greatly missed, but I think his lesson will remain with many of us throughout our own parliamentary careers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

Middle East

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the content and tone of his response. On his questions, we are working with others on getting aid into Gaza. Until recently that had been mainly airdrops, but what we really need is trucks going in. That is what we focused on in the practical work we were doing yesterday in Egypt, and we will continue to do so. I will take up the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to update the House on that. Personally, I think that in these early days it is probably one of the single most important things that we need to absolutely focus on. Yes, it was an historic day, but implementing the plan is really important. Any misstep—any step backwards—would have the potential to undermine what happened yesterday.

I absolutely agree that the bodies must be released. Those poor families need to be able to grieve properly and they cannot do so. It is cruel that the bodies have been held for so long and they must be immediately released.

The two-state solution is necessarily and rightly the long-term objective. I do not believe there will be lasting peace without a two-state solution—a safe and secure Israel, which we do not have; and a viable Palestinian state, which we do not have—so that must be the end goal, and we are working with others to ensure that remains the goal. Along the way there has to be the work on the governance, security and reconstruction in Gaza. I have to say that once the media are fully into Gaza, I think we will be having quite some debate in this House, when the full horror of what has happened there and the devastation is finally seen.

On illegal settlements, yes, I absolutely have made it clear, in relation to the west bank, what must happen—or not happen, I should say—in relation to the illegal settlements. It is important that we ensure that this process leads to a lasting peace for Israel, for Gaza and, of course, for the west bank as well.

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

The Prime Minister mentioned his conversations with President Sisi, so may I take this opportunity to thank him for his conversations and interventions with President Sisi and his team to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah from an Egyptian prison?

We are all elated at the release of the hostages and the detainees and prisoners, but there is some confusion about whether two prominent Gazan Palestinian doctors have been released. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya and Dr Marwan al-Hams were both detained and unfortunately ill-treated in Israeli prisons. It would be really helpful if the Prime Minister could confirm whether they have been released and, if they have not been, make further representations to the Israeli authorities.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his words in relation to Alaa Abd el-Fattah and for his long campaign to raise that important issue. On the two doctors, what I can say is that the cases have been raised. I do not yet know what the status is, but I will do my best to find out and get a better answer to him as quickly as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am not across the details of the right hon. Member’s case, as she will understand, but I am in favour of making sure that we can have the infrastructure and the houses we need to grow our economy. One of the problems we had over the past 14 years was an assertion or rhetoric that we wanted homes and infrastructure, but when the decision for all that came up, the answer was always no. The answer cannot always be no.

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

I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their efforts to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British human rights campaigner who has been imprisoned in Egypt for over 10 years. The Prime Minister will know—he has met the family—that his mother is on the 150th day of her hunger strike and her health is failing rapidly. May I ask the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to President Sisi and seek the release of Alaa to save his life and that of his mother?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he says, I met the mother and the family just a few days ago. It is an incredibly difficult situation for them. I can assure him that I will do everything I can to ensure the release in this case. That includes phone calls as necessary. I have raised it before and I will raise it again. We raise it and will continue to do so. I gave my word to the family that that is what I will do, and I will.

Outsourcing: Government Departments

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I have come to this debate because of our recent experiences of visiting picket lines, with regard both to Government Departments and, in particular, the railway sector. I have been a trade union rep in the public sector, but I have also been a manager in the public sector: I was chief executive of the Association of London Government and I also was in a London borough, managing large numbers of staff.

When you have the scale of disputes that we have, I think we have to recognise that there is an underlying industrial relations problem that has to be addressed. I would invite the Minister to join us on some of those picket lines over the coming weeks, because the disputes in the Government Departments are starting again next week and we will have picket lines for several Government Departments around Whitehall.

I have tried to identify the underlying problem causing these disputes, and when we talk to the workers themselves on the picket lines, it is strikingly obvious. Some of them—well, all the ones I have met—are on, I think, shocking levels of low pay. When you talk to them, particularly those based in London, you wonder how they are surviving on the pay that they are receiving. Also, they have conditions of work that I thought we had eradicated years ago. I am talking about lack of access to sick pay, some of them being paid below legal minimums at the moment, and many of them being without any pension rights whatever apart from the statutory pension. So we have a group of people who are on low pay, in insecure work, and feeling extremely exploited, so they have no other resort but to take industrial action. I want to point out what is interesting. I invite everyone to come on those picket lines and look around them, because the vast majority of those workers are from the BAME community; so there is also an issue with inequality in our employment practices as well.

Various unions have provided us with briefings for the debate today, and most of them have done surveys of their members to identify what is the issue facing their members that they should be putting to management. Some of the survey results are stark. The RMT did a survey, and I want to talk about the response that it had from its members. It has about 10,000 members who have been outsourced on trains; Transport for London, for cleaning, has 2,000; and Network Rail has 2,500. What happened then? In the survey results that came back, 80% of the workforce who had been outsourced were saying that they were struggling to meet their basic needs: to pay the rent, pay for food, and so on; 90% were worried about bills coming in. What was interesting was that more than 80% of them were saying, “We come to work when we’re sick, because we can’t take the time off—we can’t even afford to be sick.”

That is why the disputes are taking place, and they involve the same old companies: G4S, ISS, OCS and Mitie. These are companies that have made extensive profits out of the outsourcing, and the bulk of their profits is obviously made from the low pay that they are forcing upon their members of staff. It causes real anger among the workforce when they are seeing these companies paying out high dividends to shareholders, while at the same time they will not pay the staff a decent wage.

There needs to be an understanding in Government that if we are to have decent public services, there has to be a re-examination of how we provide those public services. I agree with what has been said by the deputy leader of our party, and by the Chancellor, which is that we need

“the biggest wave of insourcing…for a generation”,

because I think that is the way to tackle insecure work, low pay, and so on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) raised the other issue about outsourcing, which is that it has an impact on productivity. If a worker is exploited, if they are not paid properly, if they are worried at work about how they are going to survive, it does impact on how they deliver the service. That is inevitable; it would have an impact on all of us. As a result we have found that productivity issues are a real problem in some of these sectors. Unfortunately, because of the old Treasury Green Book model, that is resulting in even more outsourcing being justified: it becomes a vicious circle.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman said that he fully agreed with the deputy leader of his party. I wonder whether there was an undue emphasis on the word “deputy” rather than “leader”.

[John McDonnell]

I am lost on that one—completely. There are conspiracy theories here that I have never even heard of or even thought of, so I will pass on that one.

What we are asking the Minister for today is a strategy. The first step in that strategy must be to meet the unions themselves. A number of unions have asked whether they can they have a meeting whereby, Department by Department, they can work with the Government, looking at what contracts there are, seeing how those contracts can be brought in in this biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and how the legislation, particularly the Employment Rights Bill that is progressing through Parliament at the moment, can include the initiative and rights and responsibilities to bring that insourcing about. There is a strategy that can be developed alongside the Government’s procurement policy, that can address all these issues and will be cost-effective for the Government in the long term.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes and yes. It is a very important point. Journalists and those working in the media are risking their lives to ensure that the rest of us have information about what is happening on the ground. Too many have lost their lives, and we must respect that and pay tribute to the really important work that they do. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising a really important issue.

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

Today is a day for sombre remembrance of the suffering on all sides, but if the threatened war against Iran takes place, we will need to revisit that discussion in this Chamber. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly demonstrated our concern about the suffering on all sides, and particularly mentioned the suffering of children. When the Ukraine war started, we set up the scheme to evacuate children who were seriously injured to come here for treatment. In January I raised the prospect of that scheme being introduced for Palestinian children and others. I raised it again in May. In July I wrote to my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I wrote again in August, and again in September. There does not seem to be any progress on developing such a scheme, despite the willingness of clinicians here. Could the Prime Minister look at how we can achieve progress?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is right to emphasise the impact that this has on children in particular. We have special responsibilities to children in any conflict. The first step to protecting children is to create the conditions for a ceasefire and de-escalate, which is why, working with our allies, we are spending so much time on that de-escalation and finding a route to a ceasefire.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We must look at this question of external cladding. Some measures have been taken in the past seven years, as I referenced in my statement, but we need to look at this again. The description that I was given when I was at Grenfell Tower of how the fire spread, and the role played by the cladding, was chilling.

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

Having read the summary of the report, may I say how difficult it has been to contain one’s anger? Like many west London MPs here, I visited the site soon after the fire. In the following months, we met the victims, the families of the victims, the firefighters, the local representatives, and the traumatised call centre operators, some of whom have never recovered. I was castigated then for using the expression “social murder”. This report defines; it was social murder. Exactly as the Prime Minister said, we need urgent action. We have been promised a debate. For that debate, may we have the definitive report for each of our constituencies on what action has been taken, what action will be taken, and what the deadline will be?

May I return to recommendation 113.7 in the report? In the building regulations, we defined higher buildings as above seven storeys or 18 metres. That takes no account of those other properties in which there are vulnerable residents in particular who are now at risk. The recommendation is to urgently review those regulations. May we have a timetable for that review, as it has consequences for many of our constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. On the debate, it is important that as much information as possible is made available and that we are able to deal with the questions that Members of this House have raised. That is why we are looking at the date of that debate. I wanted it to be as soon as possible, but I do not want it to be so quick that Members will be frustrated because they will rightly want information or assurances that need a little bit of working through. I will try to make sure that that happens. The safety of buildings that are not at the specific height is among the issues that we have to consider here. We are all well aware of these very troubling cases, and they have to be part of the debate.