Phone Theft

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. That is the thing: until we ensure that our streets are safe, we must ensure that people are acutely aware of what is happening. I find myself sometimes tapping people on the shoulder and saying, “Excuse me, can you move your phone from your back pocket? You might get pickpocketed.”

I feel that the manufacturers use this as part of their business model. They know that once a phone gets stolen, its owner will go and buy another phone, and phones currently operate on a monopoly. I do not know if anybody has ever tried to switch from an iPhone to a Samsung as I did—oh my goodness; it is like they do not want you to switch over. Even from Android to Android, it is difficult to move over the data. Mobile phone companies know exactly what they are doing. Thank God for USB-Cs, because iPhone chargers used to change with every upgrade, so people ended up forking out more and more money.

We need to hold the manufacturers to account because they make enough money and enough profit. We have to get to a stage where we are putting people and the safety of our citizens first.

London is one of the greatest cities on earth and we want Tories to come—not Tories, but tourists. [Laughter.] Tories are obviously welcome too, even though they are not here today. We want tourists to come to London to sample the art, the culture and the inclusion. We do not want to go around warning them about their mobile phones. Over 700 phones were also stolen from Departments, so the Government should have a vested interest in this because it will cost taxpayers money to replace those phones.

We can redesign mobile phones so that nobody wants to steal them. I do not know if people are old enough to remember—although there are a few in the Chamber today—when car radios used to be stolen out of cars. We combated and stopped that crime by building the radios into the cars so they could not easily be snatched out.

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

I just want to throw something else at the debate around the insurance issue. Many say, “You should be covered by insurance.” My phone was stolen last November. It was classic: I got bumped into in a big crowd and did not realise. I then recognised the theft and did “find my phone”. It was in north London, so I contacted the police, but they do not investigate after an hour because they say it is gone. I said, “I have the personal numbers of the whole of the Cabinet there, so that might cause a bit of a problem.” I then claimed on the household insurance and was covered, but then the insurance company would not renew my cover. That just adds to the problems all the way through. Everyone seems to be making a profit out of it, apart from us.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate. The proscription of these three organisations affirms the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism. To be clear, these proscriptions will not affect anyone’s legitimate and lawful right to protest, whether it is about Palestine, Gaza or anything else.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

The Government have to take action when Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will not give way.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think it is clear that at this point the Minister does not wish to give way. He has until 5.27 pm, so let us see how this progresses.

[Dan Jarvis]

These attacks have resulted in serious damage to property and crossed the legal threshold from direct criminal action into terrorism. Members have used violence against people responding at the scenes of attacks, and have been charged with a series of serious offences, including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent and aggravated burglary, which is an offence involving a weapon. This order would degrade their harmful activity. It will also reduce the threat—particularly to vulnerable individuals—from MMC’s violent content, and it will reinforce our support for Ukraine and our commitment to countering extreme right-wing terrorism in Europe.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr McDonnell—[Interruption.] I am on my feet. This is a very tight debate that has to conclude at 5.27 pm. The Minister has time; he may wish to take your intervention shortly. Is your point of order really relevant right now?

[John McDonnell]

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker—let me explain. I want to know whether, if this order goes through and I go out to the demonstration that is mobilising at the moment to say that I am opposed to this, I will be prosecuted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was not a point of order. The Minister may wish to respond—he has a few minutes in which to do so—but that was not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[John McDonnell]

What if I oppose it tomorrow? What if I suggest it is wrong?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, continue.

Crime and Policing Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

That was obviously an appalling crime —I remember it very well—but I do not think it has anything to do with what I am saying in this debate.

In a free and pluralistic society, we have to be free to criticise ideas. There are laws to protect people, but we cannot have laws that protect ideas from scrutiny or criticism. However, the Government are pressing on with their work on Islamophobia. Only this week, on the very day that Baroness Casey said that the rape gangs were often not prosecuted because of the ethnicity of the perpetrators, Ministers launched a consultation on the new Islamophobia definition. That consultation is open only to carefully selected, invited organisations; it will last for only four weeks; and it allows contributors to remain anonymous. In other words, as lots of people have put it to me, it is rigged, and that is completely unacceptable. Parliament repealed blasphemy laws years ago, and trials for blasphemy had stopped many decades back in any case, but they are with us once more. Parliament must act to restore our freedom of expression.

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

Briefly, I would like to express my support for new clause 11. I declare my interest, as I am chair of the RMT parliamentary group and this issue is part of our campaigning, particularly given the rising number of assaults on bus drivers at the moment. I also express my support for new clause 13, and congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on her determined campaign on the joint enterprise initiative. Of course, I also support new clause 50, which deals with the right to protest, and who could not support new clause 122 after the speeches we have heard from Labour Members today?

I want to raise an anomaly that has arisen in debates about terrorism legislation since 2020. I do not want to go into too much technical detail, but basically, section 69(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020 gave the Crown Prosecution Service the power to allege a terrorist connection

“if the offence…(a) is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism, or (b) is committed for the purposes of terrorism.”

The implementation of that legislation meant that if an offence was determined to have a terrorist connection, the sentences became aggravated and harsher restrictions were imposed, both within prison and on release. I believe that had cross-party support—there was no problem with it.

However, in 2021, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act came along. The powers in the Sentencing Act related to schedule 1 offences such as murder, kidnapping and hijacking—things that we would naturally consider to be terrorism. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act extended the use of that definition to an offence that is

“punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years”.

By moving away from a schedule of offences, almost any offence before the Crown court meeting that definition was brought into consideration. For example, protest cases involving damages of more than £5,000 became interpreted as terrorist-connected cases.

When we have had discussions about terrorism, we have always had problems with definition. Lord Carlile did a report for us way back in 2007, and he said that jury trial is one of the guards that can assist in protecting us from the misinterpretation of the range of definition. He said that

“jury trial provides an important protection against prosecutions the public find unreasonable or arbitrary.”

The problem is that the use of this section of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 does not involve juries. Such things are not brought before a jury; it is applied only by the judge at sentencing.

As a result, we have found that since late 2024, the provisions in the 2021 Act have been deployed for the first time against protesters. Someone who has possibly committed criminal damage, aggravated burglary or, yes, violent disorder in a protest activity now finds themselves with a terrorist connection allegation. That will never be brought before a jury, because it will be applied only at sentencing. Amnesty International has expressed its concern about direct action protests being subject to the UK’s overly broad definition of terrorism laws, which are

“open to misuse and abuse”.

Four UN rapporteurs have expressed their concerns to the Government about the misuse of the terrorism legislation in this instance. They have said that the legislation is being used against political prisoners, which is raising concerns about the potential infringement of their fundamental rights.

I raise that issue here because an increasing number of cases are being trapped by a misinterpretation of the legislation that we brought forward in 2020 and 2021. That is resulting, I think, in injustices and miscarriages of justice, an anomaly which we will have to address at some point if we do not address in this Bill, to correct a crucial misinterpretation of what this House intended back in 2021.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Crime and Policing Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend. I was on the Bill Committee, where a similar amendment was tabled, so I can reference the Minister’s response at that time. I have also had a brief word with the Minister outside this place. The Government’s position seems to be that the type of activity I am describing is covered in the intent to annoy, but I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that all reckless acts are plainly not covered by an intention to annoy.

I do not for one minute suggest that the Government wilfully do not want the law to work and to cover all scenarios, but I am left with the impression that they have not sufficiently addressed their mind to the gaping loophole that is staring them in the face. If they do not like my amendment, I urge them to draft an amendment of their own to deal with the issue. If just one person walks free following this law because they were able to convince a jury that their actions were not annoying—but they would have been deemed reckless—that will be a terrible failure of what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. I urge the Minister to think again, and I urge all across the House to vote for the amendment to force the Government’s hand.

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

I tabled amendment 161 on public order issues and the policing of demonstrations. Before I get to that, I welcome the proposals in the Bill on fly-tipping, and I look forward to the guidance that will be issued to the various authorities to deal with it. I am attracted by the Opposition’s amendments on what is included in that guidance, largely because, like other Members, my constituency is plagued with fly-tipping. I seem to be followed by a mattress throughout my constituency in virtually every area I visit.

I come to public order and my amendment, which I tabled to try to get on the record the reality of what is happening with the public order issue and demonstrations. In the explanatory notes, the Government have set out this argument:

“The regular protests following the events in Israel and Gaza on 7 October 2023 highlighted gaps in public order legislation, principally the Public Order Acts 1986 and 2023.”

They have therefore brought forward proposals in response to the policing challenges of such protests.

Since 7 October, I have been on virtually every national demonstration in central London organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups. I understand the pressure on the police service; in fact, I have police constituents who have had their leave cancelled and all the rest because of the frequency of the protests, but that has largely been a response to the depth of concern about what is happening in Gaza. People have wanted to express their view, and one of the ways of doing that through our democratic system is to demonstrate and march and protest. All the demonstrations I have been on have been peaceful, good natured and—up until a few recent incidents—extremely well policed.

In the explanatory notes, the Government set out that legislation is being brought forward in relation to three things, which I think we can all agree on. There is:

“A new criminal offence of climbing on war memorials.”

Secondly, there is

“possession of a pyrotechnic article at a protest”,

which is dangerous, anyway. The other is about concealing identity, although issues with that are referred to in other amendments, because that might well have an impact on the exercise of religious freedoms, particularly with regard to the veil and being able to dress.

The Government do not cite in the explanatory notes the issue in clause 114 of restriction on protests at places of worship. In all the national demonstrations in London that have taken place, there has never been an incident outside a place of worship. Concerns have been expressed by some groups, but largely, I think, they have been by groups who have motivations other than concerns about public order.

In the negotiations with the Metropolitan police on each demonstration that has taken place, there has been a long discussion in which the route is identified, and usually there is overall agreement to avoid any areas that could be seen as contentious and could provoke a reaction. Even when a place of worship, such as a synagogue, has been some distance from the demonstration, the organisers have tried to ensure not just proper stewarding, so that the demonstration does not go anywhere near it—usually, it has to be 10 or 15 minutes’ walking distance away—but that the times of services are avoided as well.

Interestingly, until recently there had never been a problem, but the police seem to have hardened their attitude, I think as a result of coming under pressure from organisations that might simply not want the protest to go ahead in any form because they take a different attitude to what is happening in Gaza and Pakistan. [Interruption.] If the water the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is carrying is for me, I thank him.

Immigration System

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

On training, this Government are already going considerably further than the previous Government, who allowed training to be cut, including in adult education and adult skills, at the same time as net migration figures were substantially increasing. Already we are funding training for 60,000 more construction workers as part of our growth plans and workforce strategies, and the White Paper—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will love the chance to read it and see all the substance in it—sets out proposals for a 32% increase in the immigration skills charge that will go into skills and training in the UK.

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

When serious legislation that could be contentious is being introduced, it is critically important that Ministers use language carefully. The Prime Minister referred to “an island of strangers”, reflecting the language of Enoch Powell. Does the Home Secretary realise how shockingly divisive that could be?

[Yvette Cooper]

The point that the Prime Minister has repeatedly made is that people need to be able to integrate, to become part of our communities and to share with our neighbours, and that means being able to speak English. That is very important, and it is why we are increasing the English language standards, not just for main visa applicants but for partners, spouses and adult dependants, because too often people unable to speak English have been isolated in communities, and that can also lead to greater exploitation.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I think I still have the largest number of asylum seekers in hotels in the country, with more than 2,000, and I have experience of Clearsprings and Stay Belvedere. It would be really helpful if the new contractual arrangements involved full consultation with some of the organisations working at the frontline of supporting asylum seekers, so that some of the lessons can be learned about past performance to improve future performance.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am more than happy to meet with the right hon. Gentleman to talk about his experience on the ground with respect to both Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd and Clearsprings Ready Homes.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I simply wish to make one request and propose one amendment to the Bill. I have listened to the whole debate. There are more asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency than in any other constituency in the country. I have two detention centres, one of which was the last to imprison children, so I understand. I tour the hotels, and every time there is a debate like this in this place and it is reported outside, I worry because it creates insecurity, worry and fear among the asylum seekers in my constituency.

To answer a point made earlier, most of the asylum seekers in hotels at the moment did come in the boats, but they came in the boats because there is no other route. It is as simple as that. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, and the PCS and the frontline Border Force staff it represents say that the way to stop the boats is to introduce a safe-passage visa system, accessible through our European centres or online. That would undercut the criminal gangs’ money earning potential.

When I meet asylum seekers and listen to their individual stories of the suffering both in their home country and during their passage here, I rarely come away without tears in my eyes. It is also rare that I do not come away impressed by the scale of their talent, and by just how much they can contribute to our economy and our society. I want the message to go out that I welcome asylum seekers—it is as simple as that.

There has been a failure to address the age assessment of individual applicants. The previous Government introduced the national age assessment board, which uses supposedly scientific measures to assess an applicant’s age. As Members involved in that debate will know, experts both in this place and elsewhere—Lord Winston has been mentioned—have contested the idea that it is a scientific approach and said it is inaccurate. It has been proven to be a failure, and where it has been used in other countries, it has never been solely relied upon. What has been successful is a comprehensive evidence-taking process, through a social work-type assessment of individuals.

Since the new system was introduced, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) mentioned, there have been 1,300 incorrect assessments. What does that mean? I will give one example. Under the new law, 450 people have been convicted of arriving on the boats. Of those 450 convictions, 14 people who were imprisoned were later determined to be children. If a child is incorrectly assessed, they are classified as an adult and are put into an adult institution, and some of those classified as adults have therefore been imprisoned alongside adult offenders. That is not fulfilling our duty to safeguard children, is it?

That is why this system needs to be changed. We need to reinvest the £1.7 million that has been wasted on these “scientific” assessments and go back to the social assessments made by professional social work experts. At least we will then be able to live up to the expectation of safeguarding young people.

Criminal Justice Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

Ultimately, this is about trying to ensure that everyone is clear that spiking is explicitly in the law as a criminal offence, whether the substance is harmful, whether the spiking was successful and whether it was a joke or intended to be a joke. It is an offence that causes mental distress as much as physical harm. If the Minister can convince me on those points, we will have the tool to get to grips with spiking and to support parents, the nightlife scene, the police, the NHS, university students and wider society. That would be a fantastic legacy of this Parliament, in line with the Prime Minister’s commitment to reduce violence against women and girls, who predominantly are the victims of spiking, and the unstinting work of the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the safeguarding Minister to support us to get spiking into law.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said that it was uncertain whether this legislation would ever reach the statute book, because of the time available to us in the run-up to the general election. I hope that some of the measures to be dealt with on day 2 of consideration of the Bill do not get on to the statute book. However, across the House today, there has been an interesting setting of the agenda for the next stage of the debate on the Bill in the Lords and perhaps for the period after the general election. Perhaps an incoming Labour Government will have to deal with those issues as well. They reflect a number of concerns that we deal with as constituency MPs.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on tabling his amendments on spiking. It is an issue that affects many of our constituents. I hope that the Government will respond positively and work through the detail. Perhaps we can have something in the Lords that overcomes some of the Government’s concerns about it. I agree that using the expression “spiking” is important, so that people know that we are dealing with it.

[Peter Dowd]

I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It is important to indicate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) was also involved in supporting amendments on this matter. I welcome the cross-party agreement on this issue.

[John McDonnell]

The Bill Committee itself also worked hard to try to reach consensus on some of the issues.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is not in his place, but cuckooing has become a critical issue in some of our constituencies, where the most vulnerable people have their accommodation taken over by drug dealers and feel intimidated. Often, they are the most vulnerable, with special educational needs or mental health problems. It is a relatively new issue that has come to light in some of our constituencies, and it needs to be addressed.

On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), in a dignified way he did not go into the detail of individual incidents, but there have been cases in my constituency. We had three youngsters—one aged 17 and two aged 16—killed by a hit-and-run driver. The drunk driver was eventually caught. The issue was not just that they broke the law but that they did not stick around to help in any way, or even report the incident so that emergency vehicles could get there more quickly to assist those who had been harmed.

The two issues I want to draw attention to are the ones whose campaigns I have been involved in. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) tabled new clause 28 on joint enterprise. I think we are all getting long in the tooth on this one. We have been campaigning for years—for decades—for some clarity in the law, so that it does not operate as a dragnet that draws people in. In some instances, we have had cases where the individual drawn in was not at the scene of the crime or was distant from the scene of the crime, yet they have been prosecuted for serious crimes, often murder. For that reason, the significant contribution of new clause 28 reflects discussions and debates within legal circles but also in the courts themselves. It is a simple amendment that would bring some justice to many cases where people have, unfortunately, experienced what I believe is a miscarriage of justice.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who is not in his place at the moment, raised the more effective use of the law to tackle hate crime. I convened a meeting of disability groups a few weeks ago. There is a wave of hate crime against disabled people at the moment, on a scale that we have not seen for a number of years. We have had incidents not just of abuse in the streets, but even people being pulled out of their wheelchairs. I do not want to be party political here, but I have to say that statements by some individual Ministers about lifestyle choices and benefits and so on have not helped. In fact, it has directed some hate crime towards people with disabilities. We need to recognise that that happens—we should not sweep it under the carpet—so we should have an effective legal response to it. New clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member, is an effective way of ensuring the message goes out there to people that hate crime is a serious offence and that if they commit it they will be prosecuted and the sanction will be effective and serious. I hope that the Government will accede to new clause 32, but if he does put it to a vote I shall certainly be voting for it.

I want to raise another issue, prisons overseas, that I just find preposterous, to be frank. The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, referred to it and I agree with him. I tend to think it is a stunt. I do not see it as a practical way of dealing with the overcrowding problems in our prisons. We should deal with them in exactly the way the Justice Committee has been saying for a number of years: send fewer people to prison, in particular those for whom prison is inappropriate—those with mental health problems, drug problems and so on. If we do send people to prison, build appropriate prisons so that we can maintain them but, more important, rehabilitate them.

This flies in the face of all we know about rehabilitation and everything we have learnt over the years. I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. Everything we know from the professionals involved—probation officers, prison officers and others working within the system—is that to rehabilitate people one of the best things we can do is, first, make sure they have access to their families. It is their families who urge them to behave, rehabilitate and come out as quickly as possible. Secondly, we can ensure they have full access to training and education to rehabilitate. Thirdly, we can ensure that they have proper legal advice, so they know the situation they are in and come to terms with it, and understand the law as it applies to them.

My fear is that, if we depend on prisons in foreign countries, access to family will be limited—that is inevitable. There is no assurance that I can see that prisoners would receive appropriate training or rehabilitation. Access to legal advice within the UK system would inevitably be restricted. This therefore flies in the face of everything we know about how prisons should work, and it flies in the face of many of the things that the Government themselves say about how the system should operate to maintain safety but, at the same time, rehabilitation.

A number of amendments and new clauses have been tabled on the basis of professional advice from others. I urge the Government to accept that we should not send abroad prisoners who, within a limited period, will face potential release. I also think that prisoners who have been imprisoned for public protection should not be doubly harmed by being sent abroad, and that proper consideration should be given to inspection arrangements. I believe that it will be almost impossible to maintain an appropriate inspection arrangement for both prisons and escort services when they are located abroad, and that if it is maintained, it will be extremely expensive.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

As I was watching Aston Villa smash Arsenal on Sunday, my thoughts turned to today’s debate because, as Aston Villa fans will know, the Emirates stadium is of course sponsored by the Visit Rwanda scheme, and Arsenal play with those words emblazoned on their shirts.

I strongly support the Government’s position as set out by the reasons articulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the excellent Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. More than that, though, behind all these amendments, this ping-pong, the Reasons Room, and this process, which is quite baffling to my constituents, lies a simple question: is this Parliament sovereign or not? I believe I was sent to this Parliament to make laws in the interests of my constituents in Redditch. They are a generous people—we have accepted refugees from around the world and given them a warm Redditch welcome—but in the interests of stability and security, and protecting those British values and the culture that we all care about, they also ask that we enact measures to enable our country to control our borders. This whole debate is really summed up by the question of whether or not we in the west are able to control our borders, because we all know that this is going to get much worse. Some 100 million people are on the move.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), talked about having more grown-ups in the room and talking more nicely. Perhaps the people smugglers will listen to that and stop putting people in small boats, but somehow I doubt it—it is complete and utter nonsense. We are sent to this place to make hard choices, not emote and do things that make us feel good in the moment. We have to stand on one side, with the sovereignty of this Parliament and the people of Redditch, and this Bill is the way to do so. Let us get Rwanda done. We will stop these boats and make our country safer.

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

We are at that stage in the legislative process where Government obstinacy sometimes overcomes rationality. There is no way that these can be described as wrecking amendments—I wish they were, but they are not. Lords amendment 3E simply uses the Government’s own mechanism to ensure, as Conservative Members have said, that Parliament has the opportunity to change its judgment when the facts change. Anyone who has any experience of the history of this region of Africa realises that there is built-in instability, and therefore we may well need to come back to this matter, although I hope we do not.

My Northern Ireland colleague the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked about Lords amendment 10D, and the ministerial response was that we should not worry because the fact that a number of veterans sit in Cabinet means that the system will work for those who served in Afghanistan. I am sorry, but so far, the veterans sitting around the Cabinet table have not ensured that. Many of us have dealt with individual cases, and all Lords amendment 10D would do is ensure that we live up to our commitment that those who served alongside us, putting their lives and those of their families at risk, will be secure. The existing scheme has not worked in that way, but Lords amendment 10D would ensure that it did in the future.

My final point is that I came to this place on the basis that Parliament was all about protecting its citizens and ensuring that they have safety but also access to law. Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment 6D simply ensures that Parliament fulfils that role—it certainly is not a wrecking amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Minister.

Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 General Committees

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

I am a member of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, and have been since its inception. I have been involved in every major fire dispute in the last 20 or 30 years, including the two national strikes that have been emphasised. For the life of me, I cannot understand the justification for the minimum service legislation and for this delegated legislation in particular, because in those disputes we have always established agreements whereby firefighters have come off picket lines—and they have—whenever necessary to save life and yes, actually, to save houses as well in many instances.

I have never previously heard about this issue of the loss of life, because every time that was used in the media, each one of those incidents was contested and proven to be inaccurate, even in coroners’ reports. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley said, it is an issue of mistaking correlation for causation in many instances, which confuses people.

This is the first time I have heard the argument about the lack of military resources used as justification for this particular piece of the legislation. It is the first time that argument has been used. I am amazed: if the Government are saying that the reason why they have brought forward this legislation is because they have not invested in our military, that is a problem for the Government that we may have to solve when we go into government.

Let me pick up a couple of particular points, to follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. It is clear from paragraph 6.8 of the explanatory memorandum that there is a strike ban on call staff. It is fairly obvious that if the call staff are to be required to operate as they would if a strike were not taking place, that means, in effect, that they will not be able to strike. If we turn over the page, we see that exactly the same provisions are there with regard to the resilience staff. They will need to operate and provide the service

“as if a strike were not taking place.”

Both those provisions are a ban on the right to strike, despite the assurances that Ministers have consistently given us.

I looked at the assessment of the financial costings and the risks themselves. On page 29 of the impact assessment, on the risks, it says:

“The monetised benefits…assume that strike hours will be prevented as a result of this policy. Any displacement of strike hours (for example, through action short of strike, or an increase in the volume of strikes) will reduce the”

savings from

“this policy, and have not been monetised.”

That is exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. There need to be wiser heads in Government to approach this issue.

Before they introduce legislation, a Government should consider what they are doing in terms of the industrial relations climate generally. I refer back even to the early 1970s and the Industrial Relations Act 1971 under the Heath Government, because when Conservative Governments have introduced industrial relations legislation that in any way impedes the right of trade unions to exercise their civil liberty to withdraw their labour, it has always resulted in an almost catastrophic demoralisation of the workforce, which has then undermined the industrial relations climate in particular sectors—and in that instance nationally—and just produced more industrial action. What will happen in respect of this legislation is that other forms of action will be taken, short of strike action, and in the long run that will undermine the delivery of professional services, if we are not careful. I therefore caution the Government to be careful what they wish for on things like this.

In respect of the costings, the Government need to take into account the decisions taken at recent TUC congresses and the TUC general council, because it is quite clear that if there is any action against any individual trade union or any individual trade unionists under this legislation, the whole trade union movement will react, and I do not think it will react in a way the Government will want. I believe this legislation will provoke more strikes and more industrial action and, unfortunately, in the long run have the consequence of undermining the services that we are desperately trying to protect.