Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

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

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.

Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.

To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere

“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.

That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.

[John McDonnell]

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.

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.

Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.

There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.

Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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.

[Carla Lockhart]

I have to disagree with the right hon. Member. I believe that if he were fleeing a war-torn country, he would want to see his wife and family—particularly his family—brought to safety first. Sadly, we do not see that. We see young males making that trip. That is not right and they should be sent back.

[John McDonnell]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate, which has been very interesting. Colleagues have spoken with real passion and purpose, which reflects how strongly they and their constituents feel about the UK being a nation that is able to provide people with sanctuary, treating them with dignity and ensuring a fair balance so that we can sustain our obligations in the long term. That has been a theme throughout the debate. She and colleagues raised many points, which I will seek to cover shortly. I just want to set out where we are starting from today and perhaps demonstrate the objectives of the reforms that we are pushing.

I think it is a point of consensus that the system we inherited in 2024 was a broken one. Reflecting on that any further in the time available is probably undesirable, but it is understood. It is an expensive system and, for the individuals in it, not a good one. It helped and pleased nobody, so fixing it is a top priority for us. That is why we have doubled the rate of decision making, which has resulted in a record high number of decisions. We have already reduced the number of people awaiting initial decision by 39% in the last year alone.

Hotels are a very visible sign of failure. We have reduced the cost of those by some £500 million, and £1 billion overall has been taken out of the system in the process of improving it. That is really crucial for public confidence. Parliament recently passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which will give us more tools to make sure our border is strengthened, improving our asylum and immigration system. In the last 12 months alone we have removed 37,000 people who have no right to be here, including 5,000 foreign offenders. That degree of pace shows our intent, but this is a big piece of work. We still live with the signs of failure, which is why last month we published “Restoring Order and Control”, our blueprint for the asylum system.

I will talk about that in due course, but in simple terms, the heart of the plan is to do what the public expect, which is to reduce the number of those coming here illegally and increase the removal of those who have no right to be here. That is vital for public confidence and the only way to have a fair, effective and functioning system that maintains our long and proud tradition of helping those fleeing peril.

A theme of the hon. Member’s contribution was a fear that in our plans the Government are insufficiently reflecting on protected characteristics. I know that she will need to see in concrete terms that our policies pass her test, but I think she will find that they do. There is no system of Government more concerned, at its root, with protected characteristics than this one; it is the whole point of assessing someone’s claim for asylum.

The hon. Member said that I might not be able to give her the assurances she sought on safe countries. I can, actually, in the sense that an individual’s case will always be assessed on its individual merits. Syria, which colleagues have mentioned, is a good example: the grant rate in relation to Syria has gone from about 90% to about 10% because of significant and profound changes there. Nevertheless, a country changing from unsafe to safe will not mean that a blanket decision is made about a collective group of people and their claims. Every claim, and any reassessment of a claim, will be based on the individual’s circumstances. I am aware, as a white and probably now middle-aged cisgender heterosexual man, that parts of the world might be safe for me but would not be safe for a colleague who might look, sound and be like me in every way except for, say, their sexuality. The system will always have that at its heart.

The hon. Member is right to remind us that the Home Office is very much within the scope of the public sector equality duty. We are very mindful of that, and it is considered throughout the policymaking process. We will always comply with that duty; similarly, we will always comply with our responsibilities with regard to equality impact assessments. As we bring forward the concrete policies that sit within the frame of “Restoring Order and Control”, colleagues will have access to that information so that they can be part of Parliament’s crucial role of scrutinising the plans of the Government of the day.

The point about appeals is really important. Many colleagues have talked about effective and swift decision making, of which appeals are a big part. At the moment, the average wait is about 54 weeks. As is to be expected, as we have rapidly increased the initial decision making, more stress is being created in the appeals system because there are more cases in which decisions are being appealed. Our intent, in the policy package that we set out, is to have the most streamlined system possible.

As a trade unionist who has sat countless times with members and helped them with their issues at work, I know that the fullest statement of case as early as possible is always in their interests, because that is the best way to get the treatment that they are afforded under the law. I accept the hon. Member’s point that that is sometimes hard for an individual; if the basis of a claim relates to sexuality, say, that is a very individual journey in respect of what someone is or is not comfortable saying.

The challenge, which I hope the hon. Member accepts, is that we can only make assessments based on the information in front of us. We cannot foresee future disclosures. As a result, we have a system in which a lot of extra information appears later in the process. I accept that there can be good reasons for that, but there is a danger that the system may be gamed with the constant addition of new material. It is about trying to find the balance whereby we get the fullest information as early as possible, but an individual has opportunities to disclose later in the process.

I cannot agree with the point that the hon. Member and other colleagues have made about work. We know—not least because we see it in the marketing materials of the traffickers—that the sense that people can work illegally in Britain is already a significant factor in people finding it an attractive country to come to illegally. Simply allowing that would only turbocharge it, so that is not something that we plan to do.

The hon. Member and others also made an important point about core protection status. I will return to that point once I have dealt with some other issues raised.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. I always listen to what he says about the issue, because I know that he and his community are at the sharp end of it. He speaks with a lot of experience, informed by the experience both of the individuals who come to this country and of the communities who live with the impact, so I listened very carefully. He said that he wants a system with safer routes, faster processing and better integration. Actually, we can have that system. The ability to have that system, with safe and legal routes and community sponsorship, is there in the policy document—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made thoughtful remarks about that, to which I will return shortly—but I say gently to my right hon. Friend that we cannot have one without the other.

We have to be intolerant on dangerous journeys across continents and across channels for children. The right number for that is nil. The right number of children in hotels is nil. The one thing missing from this debate—

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Alex Norris]

I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend before I go off on a tangent.

[John McDonnell]

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.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Minister that Kirsty Blackman needs time to conclude the debate.

Asylum Policy

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will always abide by our obligations under the refugee convention and we do believe in offering sanctuary, but we make no apology for the fact that those who enter illegally by crossing the channel will have a longer path to settlement. We are deliberately incentivising other safe and legal routes into the country to show that that is the proper way to seek sanctuary in this country—rather than paying criminals a lot of money and put lives at risk.

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

When we introduce new legislation and new procedures, it is important that we calculate the implications and where they could lead us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have worked—for decades, to be frank—with asylum families, and in particular children. What I find is that the children are extremely traumatised. What we try to do is give them security and peace of mind for the family. Now what will happen is that every 30 months that security could be undermined and they could face removal. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has consulted the Children’s Commissioner, education psychologists or others about the implications of what she is saying today?

The other issue is that in the past, she has mentioned the forced removal of families. I just remind my colleagues that in the past that was happening and families were often detained in Harmsworth detention centre. I used to visit the children. It was one of the most distressing experiences I have had as an MP. Can she give me the assurance that no child will be placed in detention as a result of this policy change?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me tell my right hon. Friend first that there will, in the usual way, be a full equality impact assessment for all these measures. As the consultations take place and as the legislation is drafted and then debated in this House, I am sure all the individuals he mentions will have their say—I would expect them to, as well. I gently remind him that when we are talking about the asylum system today, we are not just talking about those who arrive illegally on small boats; we are also talking about people who arrive on visitor visas, student visas and work visas who, the minute those visas come to an end, immediately claim asylum. We know that the relative generosity of that route—the effective automatic permanent settlement after five years—is one of the things that attracts that behaviour. It is right that we clamp down on that and disincentivise people trying to stay in this country in that way, and instead incentivise people who will come through safe and legal routes. As we get order and control in the system, the safe and legal routes will start relatively modest, but I anticipate them growing more generous over time because this country is fundamentally open, tolerant and generous. [Interruption.]

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.