John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend very eloquently makes the point for me. It is also about local radio, on which a lot of our constituents rely. They cannot rely on social media. If Members want to see the independence of social media, they should look at my Twitter account. The abuse levels are unbelievable—and that is just my constituents! If the issue is the level of independence, it therefore comes down to governance. I have always been opposed to Government appointments to the BBC trust or board; it should be done by an independent body. The argument then will be: “Who appoints the independent body?” My view is that even if the independent body is Government appointed, at least it is a bit arm’s length. I would like to see much more worker representation on the board. I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. We have been arguing for years that there should be at least 25% worker representation on the board, and that perhaps we should also introduce some form of election to some positions. Currently, there is not a view that the board is independent. There is the argument that different Governments have appointed different people at different times. I think that those individual appointees—certainly the one referred to in the Select Committee—have interfered in the BBC’s editorial decisions at different stages. That is unacceptable. Finally, if we want independence, we of course have to have a properly funded body, and the funding should be independent of Government. We cannot go through decisions like this time and time again. There also has to be a truly independent board. We cannot allow the BBC to be endangered in the future because, as people have said, we desperately need it in this dangerous political moment—not just for truth in our own country but, exactly as has been said, because truth is being denied in so many other countries across the globe. That is why we need the BBC.

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. I want to address the main points made by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale). First, the issue of funding is critical, but it is not just about the decline in the number of licence fee payees; some of the damage has been inflicted by recent agreements around the funding. Those of us who were around for the previous renewal of the charter and the related discussions should remind others that Government decisions have inflicted a 30% cut on the BBC. Year after year, decisions have led to below-inflation settlements. We had the imposition of the over-75s licence, and then the imposition of funding the World Service. A lot of the financial crisis has been generated by Government, although I agree that there needs to be a longer debate. I preferred the idea of the household levy, which was a good idea on which the Select Committee did good work, and I regret that the Government are not considering it. I understand that some would argue it is just another level of taxation, but the same argument is made about the licence fee anyway. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of governance. I have heard many Members introduce speeches on a whole range of different issues by saying that we are living in a politically dangerous moment. I agree with that. The danger is that we now have a politics in which some politicians—not just in this country, but elsewhere, in particular—cannot determine between truth and fiction, or truth and a lie, so we need an independent source of information, and it is certainly not social media.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has said that the role of the Government has been to uphold international law. Part of upholding international law is to call out crimes when they are witnessed. Article 2.4 of the United Nations charter is explicit about the illegality of entering into a foreign state with armed force. That is why I found it shameful, I have to say, that the Prime Minister and Ministers in the news rounds have refused to condemn this action. I think that Trump will interpret our not condemning this action as the green light to go in wherever to steal the national assets of those countries. As a result, we are all in a more dangerous place.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  I was one of those MPs who campaigned hard for the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, so it is important, when we consider the overall process, that there is an accurate narrative. The narrative is partly this: yes, there were vile social media interventions by this person, which we all condemn, but which he apologised for. More than that, he became a campaigner in his country of Egypt—he is a joint citizen—for civil rights, civil liberties and religious freedom, and against antisemitism. For that, he served 10 years in prison. Not many in this Chamber have gone anywhere near that record of campaigning for civil liberties, so maybe that narrative could be taken into account when this individual is considered.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Many Members have referred to the hunger strikes. The Secretary of State is refusing to meet representatives or lawyers of the hunger strikers. Will the Leader of the House put this proposition to the Secretary of State for Justice? According to the Government’s own guidelines for the Department, one possibility is to maintain discussions by appointing an independent mediator. If that could be done, we could avert a tragedy. Last week, I was on the picket line at Great Ormond Street hospital, where the National Education Union had brought about strike action because four of its teachers—teachers of long standing—had been sacked. It seems that there is a new and bullying management that has created a hostile environment. In fact, we have now lost a number of long-standing and dedicated teachers. Through the House, I ask the Great Ormond Street hospital governing board to intervene to resolve the dispute and recreate the environment that the hospital has always been famous for—one of caring, not just for the children it looks after but for its own staff. I come now to the staff of this House. Security guards have been taking industrial action for several months now as a result of an unfair grading structure, and they will come out on strike again in the new year if we cannot resolve it. They keep us safe here. During covid, they came on to the estate and three of their members died as a result of infection. A number of issues around grading have not been resolved since that time. I urge the management of the House to get around the table, recognise the injustices that those staff face, and show respect for the role that they play. I wish them in particular, on behalf of the House, a happy Christmas and, hopefully, a constructive new year in which their injustices will be addressed.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  May I return to the issue of the Russian assets? I talked to members of the Ukrainian community last night, and their anxiety is that if a deal is not done quickly— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, did the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) want to intervene?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I talked to members of the Ukrainian community last night, and they were extremely worried about the situation. They are concerned that unless a deal is done quickly, there will be further threats not just to Ukraine but to Poland, because the Russians are amassing on the Belarusian borders. The fear is that if Trump somehow tries to impose a peace deal that eventually becomes temporary, the frozen Russian assets will be used for the next invasion of Ukraine. That is why it is so important to seal the deal now. With regard to Abramovich, I welcome the measures taken by the Government, but there was a long period in which the City of London was used as the Russian laundromat for tax avoidance. It would be worth while the Government looking again at the Russian tax avoidance that located itself within the UK, to see whether some of those assets could be used to rebuild Ukraine.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  I have no time limit, Dr Huq, but I have only a limited number of questions. This debate is sparsely attended, but I do not think the Minister should interpret that as a lack of interest in the issue. It might well be because of where we are at in the parliamentary cycle—it is the day before our break, and there might not be the whipping on this penultimate day that there is on other days. In addition, people might not have understood the breadth of the potential of this debate when we talk about protected characteristics. I want to talk about the protected characteristic of age, which includes children and young people. We identified age as a protected characteristic and we have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. A group of 100 organisations, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, have come together to provide an excellent briefing—I will send to the Minister, if he has not received it. Their main objective is to protect the rights and safety of young migrants and refugee children. I do not think I can get across the depth of concern among those who have been engaged in dealing with refugee children in particular over the years. I have to say—I am trying to be as diplomatic as I can on this—that some of the language used by Ministers has been a disgrace. A Minister putting out tweets saying, “Deport. Deport. Deport.”, does not reflect what we are about across the House and all parties. That is not what we are intending to do. We are trying to uphold the British tradition of welcoming people here who seek sanctuary and to put in place a system that deals with their needs. Many of us have argued that the best way of doing that is safe routes, fast processing and more support for integration. I am not sure, and I think many people are anxious about this, that some of the statements made by Ministers reflect the view of the House overall—as I say, across all parties. I regret that. I was shocked even by some of the language used by the Secretary of State on the day that the statement on asylum policy was made. Maybe I have repeated this too often, but in my constituency, I have two detention centres, and I have been dealing with them now since when I was a councillor in the Greater London Council—40 years. There are 2,500 asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency, and I welcome them. My community has held together very well on that; we rub together pretty well. There have been some recent demonstrations in one small area of my constituency, but that has largely been provoked by outsiders pursuing their own political ambitions. Overall, we have welcomed asylum seekers. I congratulate my community on the work that they have put in. Various local community organisations and religious groups, across the whole field of religion, have provided support. From that experience, when we have discussed over the years those who have suffered the most, in many instances it has always been the children. I welcome Government Ministers to sit down with some of the professionals who are working with these children. I declare an interest: my wife is an educational psychologist and she works in the schools in our community that asylum children go to. Many of these children are deeply traumatised by their experience in their country of origin and by their journey here. Now they are being traumatised by some of the treatment they are receiving as a result of some of the political campaigns going on in our society. There can be nothing worse for a child or family than to look out of their hotel window and see baying crowds outside, demanding that they go or that they be evicted. A few weeks ago, we even had a group of masked men who turned up at one of these hotels and tried to break into it. The police valiantly addressed that situation, but some of them were injured as a result. Those children have gone through experiences that none of us would ever want our own children to go through. I am worried that we are in the process of introducing reforms that could retraumatise them in a way that some of them will never recover from. The Government are on the first steps of the path of the new system that they are proposing, but a lot more debate and discussion needs to take place. I think this debate is about trying to make it clear to the Government some of the issues that we need more information about and that need to be addressed in a much wider-ranging consultation, not only with MPs, but with those on the frontline who have to deal with them. Basically, I have five specific issues that I want to raise today. The first is indefinite leave. The second is family reunion and the third, linked to that, the review of article 8, which we have been told will happen. The fourth is financial support and the final one is appeals. I am sorry if some of what I am about to say repeats anything that has already been mentioned by other hon. Members. On indefinite leave, the Government are now introducing this core protection status. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. PCS includes the civil service workers who process these claims, and I have not yet met one of them who thinks we have the ability or resources in place to conduct a review of every case every two and a half years, because that is what we are talking about. We cannot process the cases as they are now. I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing to speed up the processing. The reason we are in such difficulty is that the previous Government had started to speed up the process—I actually went on to the Floor of the House and congratulated a Tory Minister on doing so—but then they introduced the Rwanda scheme and everything stopped. It is no wonder that we now have a backlog. This Government are speeding up the processing, which I welcome, but then to load on to that system a new review every two and a half years—it just cannot be done. No one believes that it can be done. The proposal has no credibility There is also the issue with regard to the individual country reviews. Exactly as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, it is about more than individual countries; we are talking about case-by-case reviews, which will be necessary. In addition, some of the Foreign Office assessments of individual countries are either out of date, or do not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground there now. As a result, the system will place people here in positions of immense vulnerability. We should try to walk in that child’s footsteps. What will it be like for that child to know that, every 30 months, they will not necessarily be going to the same school, living in the same place, or having the same friends, but will risk being shipped back to a country of origin that some of them barely know? We need to think. The hon. Member talked about working with those who are trauma-experienced. It is vital that the Government now do that, and sit down to discuss with professionals in this field the worries and fears that they have. Indeed, it is also worth the Government sitting down with some of the asylum seekers themselves, just to get an understanding of what they have gone through: the trauma that they have experienced is not only caused by what happened in their country of origin; the traumatising journey that they have had to make is also bad and, as I have said, when they get here they have been faced, under previous Governments in particular, with a “hostile environment”. That insecurity has led to deep psychological concerns. For us to revisit all that on children on a regular basis is cruel as well as unworkable. Regarding the process itself, I still have not got my head around the way people can qualify for reduced routes—the five-year route, or the 15-year route. There is real anxiety that, if anyone receives any form of public assistance by way of social security, benefits or even accommodation, they will somehow be debarred from the 20-year route. There was even an example reported in the press a few weeks ago where someone had been trying to borrow money to pay back the benefits that they thought they had received because that would disqualify them and force them into the 20-year route. There needs to be a great deal more clarity about how that works. As the hon. Member said, 92% to 93% of family reunion visas—I think about 1,200—in the last year were for wives and children. In my experience of dealing with asylum seekers over the years, the family has simply sat down and taken the decision that it will be the male who will seek refuge first because they are concerned that the female and the children will not survive the route. If we consider our own families, that is exactly what we would do: we would try to get at least someone to safety, and often it would be the one who has the best overall chance of surviving. Once that person is here, they want their family to join them. That is not exploiting the system; that is how the system should work. That is how refugee systems work across the world. By denying any element of family reunion—I look forward to the detail of the review on that—we are penalising the child by preventing them from being with their parents in the future.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady and I will have to disagree on that. In my experience, the decision for the male to come here is often made on the basis of the family itself asking, “Who can get here? Who can survive that journey? Who can get through?”. That provides some hope that the family can join them. There is a difference with those that move into the next country in close proximity—but, again, we have to fulfil our responsibility to the whole family. I am concerned that if we start in any way undermining that right to family reunion, the people who will be penalised most will be the children deprived of being brought up with their parents. We are told that the article 8 review will take place in 2026. It would be invaluable to have the earliest and broadest consultation possible. Exactly as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, we need early impact assessments on all the decisions being made so that we have the detail of what the impact could be. We can consult the wider public. A lot of false information goes out into communities about the whole asylum process and causes resentment. If we are going to review article 8, we need to explain how it operates now, what its intentions are, what changes could be made when it is reviewed and what impact that would have. I am hoping that the review is about beneficial impact, rather than being a prejudicial attempt to prevent family reunion from taking place overall. Let me explain very crudely my anxieties about financial support. The Government are going to revoke the legal duty to provide housing and financial support and make it discretionary for some bodies. I have a Conservative council. Its housing policy at the moment has changed the length of time that someone has to be within the area. It was five years; it is now 10 years to be able to even get on the housing waiting list. As a result, I have families who wait 10 years and, by the time a property is allocated to them some of their children have grown up and they no longer qualify as a family. We go through that process. If we make it discretionary, we need to know from the Government what happens to the organisations, such as my council, that are not willing to fulfil some basic duties and responsibilities. I have one final point—I can see, Dr Huq, that you are getting anxious about time. On the replacement of judges with adjudicators in appeals, we need to see the detail, such as adjudicators’ qualification and training, and how they will be selected and monitored. The adjudicator is only one process, however. Unless there is proper representation and resourcing, particularly of legal aid access, the system will grind to a halt, there will be bad decisions and we will be back to appeals. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the bulk of victories will be on appeal because the system is not working effectively. I hope for a response from the Government and for detailed consultation, as rapidly as possible, on all these matters.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  It is nice to be buttered up, but that usually means that the Minister is ignoring me. On safer routes, the Government have put forward sponsored routes. Those are different from some of the proposals put forward by the PCS and others for specific visa routes, but we can debate the detail of that. One issue that I did not raise, because I got an answer from the Secretary of State, was the detention of children. I gave the example of how I used to visit Harmondsworth to see children there, which was distressing, and the Secretary of State gave an assurance that there would be no detention of children. There needs to be more clarity on the removal of families in particular and on how that process will be dealt with. That was happening under the previous Government, and at one point it drifted into the detention of children for long periods.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my best, Sir Alec. I want to relate my remarks to the Minister’s introductory statement on the quite significant extension to the definition of premises as national infrastructure. She said that in doing this the Government are upholding the right to protest. To be frank, all the evidence so far points the other way. I will give an example from my own constituency. Once something is defined as national infrastructure, it has an almost unlimited reach in its vicinity. In my constituency, we have been campaigning against the third runway for nearly 40 years now, and our tradition is sitting down in the road. Now that Heathrow is defined, in an undefined way, as national infrastructure, even roads that lead some distance from the airport are within the remit of this legislation. Let me put it this way: those wonderful blue-rinse ladies from Harmondsworth village who regularly sit in the road, and who almost certainly vote Conservative, are now at risk of serving 12 months inside as a result of the way in which they protest. What worries me is that it then becomes a slippery slope. To use the most recent example of protests, people were arrested and interviewed under terrorist powers. Someone then had the brilliant idea that an organisation would be proscribed as terrorist, and we now have six people on hunger strike in Bronzefield prison near me. This is a slippery slope that we should not be going down in any way whatever. With a change this important, I would at least have expected it not to be made through a simple piece of delegated legislation. I do not think that even the super-affirmative procedure has been engaged, after which there is much wider-ranging consultation. I reiterate the concerns that have been raised across the Committee: this warrants a debate on the Floor of the House. It is very rare that this number of Back Benchers turn up, so there is obviously interest across the House in having it properly debated. I ask the Minister not to put the draft regulations to the House tomorrow. If that happens, I will stick around and shout “Object!”, or whatever. It will be much better, in the interests of the standing of the House, if the Government withdraw them now and came back in the new year for a proper debate. I am sure that many more Members have constituents writing to them in large numbers to express their concerns. This needs more discretion and debate. Otherwise, it will be another step on the slippery slope that undermines the Government’s credentials of upholding the traditional right to protest.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, but I am slightly bewildered. If the Minister is saying that the Government are undertaking a review of existing powers, I welcome that. That will not be published for a number of months, but this is how the police are exercising their powers at the moment. To be frank, many people who have been involved in protests and negotiations with police are critical about how the police have interpreted those powers, and we believe they have sometimes gone well beyond the legislation. The Minister is saying that the Government share some of those concerns and are reviewing the use of those powers, but at the same time, in advance of the publication of that review, we are extending powers to the police in other areas. I find that baffling. All that I think hon. Members are asking for is for this to be properly debated before we rush ahead with giving police powers that could result in people being imprisoned for 12 months and having a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the condolences to the Jewish community in Australia that were eloquently expressed by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary. In the representations on Jimmy Lai, can I ask again that the case of Lee Cheuk-yan be raised? Lee, who is a trade union colleague of mine, was the general secretary of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Hong Kong. He has been in prison since April 2021. His trial was postponed twice this year, and we have now been given the date of 22 January. We are fearful that the trial may be delayed again, but also that he will receive a long sentence. All he did was to participate in the campaign for democracy in Hong Kong and for trade union rights. The whole campaign would be grateful for any representations that can be made.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Bank Closure in Penzance · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not having given notice of my point of order. Earlier today, I raised a point of order with regard to correspondence that I had submitted to the Secretary of State for Justice. I said that I had written to the Secretary of State a week ago with regard to the Palestine Action prisoners who are on hunger strike at the moment, some of whom have been hospitalised, but received no response. This evening—I have just picked it up—a Ministry of Justice spokesperson has said in a press release: “The Deputy Prime Minister has responded to and will continue to respond to correspondence on this issue”. I have received no correspondence or any reply whatsoever. I have checked all my emails and consulted colleagues. May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, urge those on the Treasury Bench to take back the message that that is an inaccurate statement? We need an urgent response on behalf of the several Members who put their names to that letter.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  One of the areas that is worth exploring is the Cabinet papers and the discussions that took place. These Cammell Laird workers are the innocent victims of a political strategy that was devised in Cabinet to suppress all opposition to the introduction of monetary policies—monetarism—under the Thatcher Government during that period. The Minister may not have been born at the time, but I was. In any areas where there was resistance to the Government, the resistance was suppressed. I was a Greater London Council councillor, and the GLC was abolished. In Lambeth and in Liverpool, councillors were surcharged and removed from office. Individual trade unionists were suppressed in a way that was more brutal than we ever thought possible. The Government inflicted damage, having forced trade union action, and there was also the imprisonment. This is about the Cabinet discussions that took place at the time, and Nicholas Ridley and so on. As we saw in the Shrewsbury campaign, there is also the matter of the influence they had on the courts.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not like doing this, but I have to. On behalf of several Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice last Wednesday in relation to the hunger strike taking place in our prisons by Palestine Action prisoners, some of whom have now been hospitalised. We wrote simply asking for a meeting with the Secretary of State, but we have not received any response. I informed his office yesterday that I would be raising a point of order. We gave it another day, but we still have not had a response to that letter. This is a matter of urgency, and I expect at least the courtesy of some response, even if the Secretary of State is not willing to meet us.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group. There is currently no reference at all in the Bill to staffing. Who will be the staff’s employer? What will happen with their pensions? Will TUPE apply on transfer? Will their existing benefits apply? Will there be a mandate on the levels of staffing on stations and elsewhere? That is an agenda for constructive engagement with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister commits to that when he responds to the debate?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have worked on this legislation for more than 20 years. I just want to put it on the record for my constituents that I wish to abide by the manifesto commitment of day one rights, and I believe it is breaking a promise not to do so. However, other matters will be consulted on now. Some in the House of Lords may take confidence from the Government’s acceptance of this; can we send them the message that we will not in any way compromise any further on this legislation, that we will dig in, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) has said, we will sit for as long as possible, if necessary, to see it through?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing the debate, which she introduced eloquently. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the convenor of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to start by referring to the loss of life in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. A few weeks ago, we lost a crew member. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary has civilian crew; they are not Royal Navy, but they work alongside it. During a debate a few weeks ago, we were passed a note saying that one of our RMT members had lost his life overboard. I can now say that his name was James Elliott. On behalf of us all, I want to repeat our condolences to his family. I also pay tribute to the RFA for the essential role it plays alongside our Royal Navy and the work it does in protecting our shores. These are civilian crew. There was some confusion on the day, because the BBC reported that it was a member of the Royal Navy. It is important that we improve communication, because that caused some distress among a number of families who were trying to find out what had happened. I met some RFA-RMT representatives today, who asked me to raise the fact that in the defence review there is a reference to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary that is causing some confusion about the role it will play and what investment there will be. I ask the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence the message that the RMT would welcome a meeting with the Secretary of State or a Minister as soon as possible to discuss the defence review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, one of the issues is that seafarers’ welfare is directly related to the conditions of their employment, which are governed by the International Labour Organisation’s maritime labour convention. That is the primary legislation that sets out legal standards for seafarers. In this country, the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the competent authority for ensuring that every UK vessel, or vessel entering our ports, complies with that legislation. There are specific legal responsibilities under the convention on welfare standards. As my hon. Friend said, we have 160,000 seafarers—unfortunately, fewer and fewer are British, but that is the overall number. They work on UK and internationally flagged ships in UK ports. At the moment, there are 120 Maritime and Coastguard Agency staff who undertake surveys and inspections. Last year, they undertook about 2,800 inspections and 3,000 surveys on UK-flagged ships, and 1,500 port state control inspections on international ships. There are 100,000 vessels calling into UK ports every year, and there is a real concern that, with so few staff, the ratio of inspections for the ships is insubstantial. For some time now, there have been calls for an increase in resources for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. My hon. Friend raised our concern that, for the last 40 years at least, there has been a tendency for shipowners to flag elsewhere, rather than the UK, with the aim of reducing labour costs. They do that, as my hon. Friend said, by putting pressure on the workforce. The number of ships registered elsewhere is startling. The practice of registering under a flag of convenience has begun to dominate the industry. Ships are registered in places such as Panama, the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Cyprus, the Bahamas and Malta, and that undermines the ability to maintain standards of basic welfare for seafarers. Huge numbers of ships are registered in the Philippines, Indonesia, China, India, Ukraine and Russia. Some of those countries undertake no inspection of their vessels whatsoever. They fail to manage welfare standards, which has resulted in a reduction in those standards and even, as my hon. Friend said, in tragedies, because of the pressure the workforce are under. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact the Government are seeking to address a range of these issues. The mandatory seafarers’ charter that has been introduced in the Employment Rights Bill is a huge step forward for us, and I congratulate the Government on it. The charter arose, as my hon. Friend said, partly out of the P&O scandal, whereby P&O just sacked its entire workforce. That was a scandal recognised across the House, and it should not have happened. P&O sacked its entire workforce, introduced agency staff on lower wages with no holiday or sick pay, and paid the minimum amount that it could possibly get away with. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, that means that those agency staff are working under intense pressure, which inevitably has consequences for safety. Safety is one of our main worries, which is why the mandatory seafarers’ charter is so important. It was introduced to protect seafarers in the short-sea ferries sector, regardless of their nationality or the flag of the vessel they work on. It will cover standards of pay, roster patterns and other employment conditions through collectively bargained standards in the industry. It will also set out maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, which is absolutely critical. There will be robust requirements to manage seafarer fatigue, which is an issue that my hon. Friend raised so forcefully. It will reinforce training requirements for operators, such as familiarisation with the vessel, to support safety and skills, so that the seafarers have the time to understand and appreciate what is needed on a particular vessel. There will also be strong standards of sick pay, holiday pay and pension rights, which is vital. This charter is a major breakthrough, and the unions really welcomed it. Progress is being made and at the RMT union executive meeting this morning we discussed that. The RMT welcomes the detailed consultation that will take place in the coming months and the roll-out of the charter itself. However, I will now raise the issue of discrimination within the sector. I have been involved in this campaign for nearly 30 years, but the issue has gone on for 50 years. It remains legal to practise nationality-based pay discrimination against non-EU nationals working as seafarers on UK-flagged ships. That is a discriminatory practice. It originates in part 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which explicitly permits racial discrimination against seafarers recruited overseas to work on UK-flagged ships for lower pay and longer periods than UK nationals. Way back in 2009, I was involved in the fight against this discrimination. Gordon Brown’s Labour Government initiated the Carter review to make recommendations on ending discriminatory seafarer pay differentials. Susan Carter, who led the review, recommended in 2010 that nationality-based seafarer pay differentials should be prohibited on all UK ships. The proposal was supported by the union, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government who came into office in 2010. The estimate emerging from surveys by the union is that tens of thousands of seafarers working today in the UK shipping industry are paid less than UK seafarers, simply because of their nationality and the flag of the ship that they work on. This situation impedes progress to improve seafarer welfare overall, both at the national level and the international level. The UK Government introduced secondary regulations in 2011 to do the bare minimum to avoid legal action by the European Commission over the continued practice of nationality-based pay discrimination among seafarers. I attended the Committee that agreed those regulations. They have been subject to two reviews that have never been concluded, which contravenes the post-implementation review regulations for a review to be carried out every five years. Another consultation was held just before the 2024 general election, and the current Government are now seeking to reconsult. With one action—one effective piece of regulation—we as a Government could end nationality-based pay discrimination on UK-flagged ships. It would raise welfare standards in shipping and reinforce our country’s reputation as the gold standard in seafarer welfare and maritime safety provision. I urge the Government to act on this swiftly. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned support for charitable organisations and others in supporting seafarer welfare and the potential of a levy. Levies operate very successfully in many other countries. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Merchant Navy Welfare Board have recommitted themselves to joint working on seafarer welfare and met last month to do that, which we welcome. However, without the resources, effective action will be very limited. We have looked at what has happened elsewhere. Levy systems, including mandatory payments, are used by other maritime nations. They fund seafarer port facilities. We have heard some fantastic examples of those today. In New Zealand, the then Labour Government introduced a mandatory levy to fund shore-side facilities in 2022, which influenced the thinking in Australia as well. In Europe, France has operated a mandatory seafarer welfare levy system since 2016, and there are levy systems in Germany, Spain and Romania. It is critical that we introduce such a system. One example of the issues that we are increasingly dealing with at the moment is the abandonment of seafarers. They are recruited in one country, reach our country and then abandoned by the ship owners. That is happening more frequently across the globe. Yes, we can legislate for protections as best we can, but we need the wherewithal—the resources going into the charities and agencies that can help those seafarers, who are lost in a foreign country and bereft of support. Overall, a real programme of reform is needed. Raising the issue of mental health has been one of the strong concerns within the seafaring unions. There has been report after report across the movement about mental health issues and the stress placed upon people, and the increased number of suicides taking place as a result, and it does relate to the person’s employment. If we get the seafarers’ charter operating effectively, it could transform people’s lives and take that pressure off them, as well as save people from harm and save people’s lives.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  It was like pulling teeth.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement on this matter and the list of issues. Those issues will be subject to consultation, which will be part of the negotiation. I want to reassure her that the RMT strategy is usually not just crossing its fingers.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  I was elated at first to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with these matters, until I discovered that the Government had redefined the nature of British waters. Restricting the measure to UK waters was even less effective.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Birmingham bin dispute has gone on for many months. The city has declared a major incident and many of the workers are facing severe hardship. Will the Leader of the House urge a ministerial colleague to come to the House to make a statement on the role that the Government could play in resolving the dispute after all these months, which has caused such harm to the city and to the workers?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. I declare an interest as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) is the chair. This will be like a Metropolitan police interview between us, and I am not sure which element I am doing. These debates have gone on for at least the 20 years that I have attended. What usually happens is that there is a large attendance, and hon. Members get up and list the names of local journalists to ingratiate themselves as much as possible. From the NUJ’s point of view, however, that never works. I will briefly run through the stats because what we are facing at the moment is pretty stark: 300 local papers have gone out of publication since 2005, which is when we had one of our earliest debates. An estimated 5.4 million people now live in deserts where there is no local paper. In my local area, like that of the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), we had five but we are now down to one that is not really local. I take pleasure in the local journalism students at Brunel University doing their best to revive a paper, but it is a real struggle. We are almost in a monopoly situation now. Nationally, Newsquest, NationalWorld and Reach cover 51% of local papers. The situation is even worse for DAB radio, which is two thirds controlled by Bauer and Global; they have 60% of analogue radio as well. The first issue for the agenda is that there is just a lack of regulation. We should not allow that sort of monopoly development to take place, so we urgently need to look again at regulation. We have just had another round of redundancies at Reach, as some Members will know because they signed the early-day motion on the issue. We have had 300 redundancies, and on top of that 50 sports journalists went during the summer as well. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill mentioned the issue with AI. The problem now is that the use of AI is very clever, because it looks as though news is almost localised when it is not—it is just a different use of language. It is a betrayal of local people that AI has been distorted in this way. We have stood back and watched this happen while the tech companies have exploited the whole industry and made fortunes. One calculation in our briefing was that the US tech firms have made about £15 billion of profits, a lot of it from us in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and I will both dwell on something fairly obvious to us: regulation definitely needs to be looked at again. The NUJ has always suggested that there should be a 25% limit or cap on how much is owned by any particular corporation. We also want to look at new models of ownership. We have had this debate before and stimulated some development, but it was not consistently resourced. One argument we have put to the Government is that we need a journalism foundation that looks at new ideas to bring together people from all sides of the industry. We are also calling on the Government to look at a tax on techs that can be reinvested in local journalism. We suggest 6%, but even limited taxation on the techs would mean we could provide a lot more support at local level. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it was a bit of a knock-back recently that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will not require local authorities to advertise in their local press. That is a valuable source of money. I am talking about information on alcohol licences and other local notices. We think that is a real step backwards and might, in itself, be make or break for some local newspapers. We would also like newspapers to be defined in the Bill as community assets, so that they have the same protection as other local community assets when they come up for sale. The BBC charter renewal has been mentioned, and we think there is a real opportunity there. I should also mention the local reporter scheme via the BBC, which we negotiated under a Conservative Government. It was an advance, but it is now being exploited by some local papers that are exploiting the individual journalist to do other work, rather than local reporting. We need to review that, but we think the scheme is good in itself. I have outlined a programme of reforms that we think the Government could readily work on. As we can see today, there is a lot of cross-party agreement on how we can go forward. As I repeat time and again, there is not a person here who does not value their local paper for holding him or her to account.