The comments made by John McDonnell, the MP for Hayes and Harlington, on social media on 4 July 2025.
I am dreadfully sorry to lose Zarah Sultana MP from the Labour Party. The people running Labour at the moment need to ask themselves why a young, articulate, talented, extremely dedicated socialist feels she now has no home in the Labour Party and has to leave.
The comments made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024.
I declare a non-pecuniary interest: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers’ Association.
In seeking to be fair, as she always is, my right hon. Friend is being too kind on the last Government. They brought about a staffing crisis in our prisons that has brought rehabilitation to an end and levels of violence that we have never seen before. Will she bring forward as soon as possible a workforce strategy for our prisons and probation? As a matter of urgency, will she look in particular at Feltham young offenders institution, which has become a violent emergency for staff and for prisoners themselves?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend is right. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the staff in our prisons, who do an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. He is right to acknowledge that the levels of violence in our prisons have been increasing, placing those staff at ever greater risk. This is similar to the question that I just answered on probation. When prisons are so badly overcrowded, it is incredibly difficult to run any kind of regime that can do good work on rehabilitation, or provide a safe atmosphere for the staff who work in them.
I will, of course, have conversations in the usual way when it comes to discussions about the spending review and other measures that the Chancellor will bring forward. I hope that I need not tell my right hon. Friend that I will bat hard for our Department and the people I represent. That will all happen in the usual way. We are committed to publishing our 10-year capacity strategy as quickly as possible so that we can begin the process of returning our system to some sort of health. I thank him for raising Feltham; I will look at that and write to him.
The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2024.
I add my commendations for the speeches that introduced this debate. I have only one anecdote about my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who was in my Treasury team: he is a fan of Shostakovich, and on one occasion, we went to the Royal Albert Hall to listen to a Shostakovich symphony. It was the symphony with which Dmitri Shostakovich upset Stalin, and it almost cost him his life. We thought the performance was superb, but there were two grumpy old men in front of us, and at the end of the symphony, one turned to the other and said, “Stalin may have had a point.” We enjoyed it. I thought the speeches today were superb.
I want to get to the business of the next few days: examining the King’s Speech. We all come to this House with a mandate from our constituents, so it important that we bring to the House their experience. When the exit poll landed on election night, in my community, there was almost a collective sigh of relief that we were ending 14 years of Conservative Government. My constituency, like many others—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has said this—could not take any more, to be frank.
In my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, one in three children are living in poverty; according to the statistics, some of them are living in destitution. I have got a housing crisis, even though 4,000 properties are being built in the centre of my constituency. Most of my constituents cannot afford them; those who have scraped the money together and have got leaseholder access to those properties are now being hit by massive increases in service charges, and some of them want to hand the keys back. I have got rents spiralling out of all control, and I have got slum housing reappearing. The back-to-back has been reinvented in my constituency, where one family will rent the front of a normal house and another family will rent another floor or the back.
Turning to employment for my constituents, wages have virtually been frozen for the past 14 years. I have Heathrow in my constituency; people would fight to get a job at Heathrow because the wages were so good, but not any more. We are running low pay campaigns, and insecure work is endemic in my constituency: it was Heathrow Ltd that started fire and rehire. The same could be said about public services—we will all say this. In my area, the NHS is on its knees. I just do not know how the staff have coped. In the teaching profession, the stress is such that we cannot retain teachers: no matter how committed they are, they do not survive under that sort of pressure. For many of our areas, social care is almost non-existent, and I meet family members who are caring for other family members and unpaid carers. It is now almost inevitable that if you are looking after someone in your family—someone who has a disability or whatever—you are living in poverty as a result of the lack of support.
Yes, people voted for change, but we on the Labour Benches have to be realistic and have some humility in our assessment of the election. Only one in five of the population voted for us, and what worries me in my constituency is that our turnout has gone from 70% when I was elected in the 1990s to 51% in this election. We need to be wary of that, and to understand the reasons for it. The More in Common poll that was published this week confirms the scale of disillusionment that there is with politics overall, which has been reflected in some of today’s debate. My fear is that we now have others on the political scene, in this country and elsewhere, who will feed on that disillusionment. We should guard against the far right mobilising again, as has happened in Germany, France and Italy.
We as a Labour Government have to deliver. As for all Governments, the honeymoon will inevitably be short-lived, but I welcome the King’s Speech because it does set out the elements of a programme for rebuilding our country. I must say that there are elements I have to smile over in that much has been drawn from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos—but maybe we should not mention that—such as on employment rights, the new deal, rail nationalisation, buses, Great British Energy and the national investment fund, which reflects the national investment bank that we put forward then. In fact, there are sections of the King’s Speech that could almost be the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald).
People want and expect delivery sooner rather than later. I want to focus on four areas of policy on which I am desperate to see change. The first is poverty. Child poverty has to be our priority. There are 14 million people living in poverty, including 4.3 million children, with 1 million in destitution. I never thought that, in my lifetime, we would ever debate destitution again in this House, but destitution there is. I welcome the announcement today of the taskforce that will look at poverty overall, but I have to say that setting up a taskforce is one thing, and acting is another.
There is one simple act, and we all know it, that could lift 300,000 children out of poverty this month: scrapping the two-child limit. I was in this House when the Tories introduced it, and it was introduced as part of stigmatising all those on benefits. In my speech I said that
“I would swim through vomit to vote against the Bill”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1314.]
Given some of the speeches from the Tories at the time, I almost had to. It was an appalling form of attack on the poorest in our community. We need to lift that stigma—that impact—but we need to do it quickly.
Yes, let us set up a taskforce by all means, but we must produce a timetable that within weeks we will scrap the two-child limit. The argument is whether we can afford it and whether it will be within our fiscal rules. Many Members will know that, over the last few weeks, the OBR has lifted or revised its growth figures upwards. The International Monetary Fund has dramatically increased the growth figures upwards. That has nothing to do with the Tories building a new economy or anything like that; it is the natural business cycle, and it is also part and parcel of some companies recognising that a Labour Government were coming. Let us take the benefit of that. It is no longer an offence against the fiscal rule: the resources are there and we can lift those poor children out of poverty with this simple act. So I appeal to my own party—to the Labour Front Bench—to by all means get the taskforce working, but to now commit ourselves to scrapping the two-child limit and doing it rapidly.
On employment, the new deal for workers, which we developed when we were in opposition, is now going to be legislated on. I want no more watering down, and at the same time I do not want it delayed by endless consultations. We have consulted at length for five years nearly: it is there and it is ready. We want to scrap fire and rehire and we want to scrap zero-hours contracts, but one of the most important ingredients of that legislation should be the extension of sectoral collective pay bargaining. So far, we have committed to doing that in the social care sector, and I welcome it, because that is where poverty wages really are being paid. However, we now need to start, as we promised before, to extend that across the economy. We can build into the Bill the mechanisms for doing that stage by stage—yes, with discussions and so on, but it can be done effectively. In some areas, sectoral collective bargaining was scrapped only a few years ago, for example in agriculture. One area in which I would like to ensure that we have that is transport, and then we would have no more P&Os.
We need to be honest about the state of our public services, in terms not only of their delivery but of their finances. I did a report last September with Andrew Fischer on the incoming Labour Government’s in-tray. It is calculated that, between 2010 and now, the Conservatives cut £80 billion. No one expects that £80 billion to be discovered overnight, but we need a plan for reinvestment over the length of this Parliament. That means being honest about the debate that we must have about not just this Budget but future Budgets.
People recognise that we will need to find the money. Yes, we will get some from growth, but 1% of growth brings in about £12.5 billion. To achieve 1% of growth is hard work; it requires investment and it takes time. If we can get back up to 2%, fine, but that will take time. In the meantime, we need the resources for our public services, and that means that we have to have an honest debate about taxation and the distribution of wealth in our country. It means, for example, that we need to grasp the nettle of levelling capital gains tax with income tax, making sure that our tax reliefs and the corporate welfare that is going on is effective and not simply subsidising profits. In addition, I believe we must have a discussion at some stage about what we do about wealth distribution overall.
There has been a lot of discussion about reform of public services. I agree with that, but I want reform to be placed in the hands of the frontline staff themselves—the experts in delivering the service—and for them to then work with the recipients of those services, the patients and others, so that there is co-production. The disability movement has developed the theme of “Nothing about us without us”, and that should apply to every sector of public service, so that we work not just with those who deliver the service, but with those who receive it. I also agree with what has been said about unpaid carers and the way in which we treat disabled people who, I am afraid, now live in poverty and were stigmatised under the previous Government. We can come to those debates as we run to the next Budget. My conclusion is carpe diem—seize the moment. We have a large majority. We must beware the danger of the far right mobilising if we fail, but we must also recognise the potential that we now have.
Finally, I do not know what it was like in other constituencies, but overhanging our whole debate was the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, coming in night after night and seeing more children being slaughtered and war crimes being committed. I do not think we will solve this problem unless we seek an immediate ceasefire that will enable us to have the hostages released. However, I think we can take some immediate steps: stopping the arms sales to Israel, respecting the International Criminal Court and ensuring that we recognise that war crimes should be punished.
Since January, I tried to mobilise the previous Government to accept, as other Governments across the world have been doing, seriously injured children from Gaza so that they could come here for treatment, but not one visa has been issued to a Palestinian child for that purpose. I have written to the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, and I hope that our Government can welcome those children here so that they can receive the treatment they need, before hopefully they can be returned to a Palestinian state that we recognise and that lives in peace.
The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in Westminster Hall, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.
It is important in these debates that we try to get to the roots of what the cause of this food crisis is. We will be told that it is largely to do with the crisis in Ukraine. I believe that it is actually to do with supermarkets profiteering and world global speculation on the food markets.
With regards to supermarkets profiteering, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) said, Tesco has doubled its profits, while those of Associated British Foods have increased by 48% and those of Lidl by 319%. Now is the time for an excess profits tax to ensure that we prevent food speculation at the national level.
In addition, there is speculation at the global level. As I have said time and again on the Floor of the House, we saw this during the banking crash, when billions were moved from the sub-prime housing market into the food commodity market, creating a famine. As a result, we introduced regulation, MiFID II, which put position limits on how much of an individual food commodity could be held by speculators. However, the Government have now introduced the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and in Edinburgh last week the Chancellor announced further deregulation of the market system, meaning that that regulation will be lifted. Instead of regulation by Government or the Financial Conduct Authority, food commodity limits will be handed over to the traders themselves—the very people who are making profits out of this speculation.
Let us put in context the argument that somehow Ukraine has caused this crisis. Ukraine produces 3% of the world’s wheat and 2.6% of the world’s corn—the basic food stuffs. This is about speculation and profiteering. It is not just me saying this about deregulation. The Governor of the Bank of England today stated his anxieties about the Government going too far on deregulation overall, and not learning the lessons of the banking crash. People will starve as a result of profiteering and speculation. That is why we need an excess profits tax and regulation of the food commodity market along with our partners globally.
Finally, I know people do not want to talk about Brexit, but if we look at the London School of Economics analysis, we see that £6 billion has been put on our food bills over the last two years—that is 3% a year. We have got to sort out a new deal on Brexit.
The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate. I concur with all that has been said about his past work, both on the Work and Pensions Committee and more generally on this issue.
I have a simple question to ask the Minister. What is his understanding of the increase in this recent period? It is true that conditionality has always been an element of our social security system since the second world war, but there has been nothing on this scale. What worries me is the dramatic increase—comparing the figures now with the figures before the pandemic—and therefore the significant increase in the past year after the worst parts of the pandemic. Like others, my experience of conditionality and the use of sanctions has largely centred on the impact on constituents who live the most chaotic of lives. They have difficulty complying with the various requirements that are made of them and, in some instances, actually even understanding the conditions that are attached to them. Living those chaotic lives means that they become intensely vulnerable.
I will go through the figures again, so that I have this clear. The monthly universal credit sanctions reached a peak of 58,548 in March. They have now fallen back to an average of 45,100 in the last quarter—that is two and a half times the average in the three months before the pandemic, so there has been a 250% increase in that period. Sanctions as a percentage of UC claimants subject to conditionality are currently at 2.5% per month; in the three months before the pandemic it was 1.4% per month. The monthly sanction rate on unemployed UC claimants in July 2022 was higher, at approximately 2.8%—or one in 36 claimants—for those in the planning for work category. The number of UC claimants who were serving a sanction in August was 115,274, after a peak of 117,999 in July. That is more than three times the pre-pandemic peak of 36,771 in October 2019.
It just goes on like that. The figures on the scale of the sanctions being imposed at the moment are quite staggering. According to the report by Dr David Webster, which I believe was produced for the Work and Pensions Committee, the average sanction is about 11 weeks. For most of my constituents, surviving beyond 11 weeks becomes almost impossible—even just getting by.
Margaret Ferrier
In response to a written question, the Minister said that data on the average length of sanctions
“is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.”
The length of a sanction is directly associated with the level of hardship faced by claimants. Does the right hon. Member share my concern that the Department is seemingly not tracking essential data that should inform policy making?
John McDonnell
I fully concur and agree. That is the main question that I will come on to. I will add that, although there was an increase in sanctions in the recent period, a lot of this concerns people being sanctioned for not seeking or being unable to increase their hours. We are now going into a recession—well, we are in a recession at the moment. Based on the Government’s figures, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the number of unemployed people will increase by half a million, and the Bank of England suggests that it will most probably go above 2 million. It becomes much more difficult to find or secure work overall or to increase hours. That will increase the pressure on those who are already on the edge of being sanctioned.
My fear, which has consistently been identified as a problem, is that the system is not working; it is not dealing effectively with people who have chaotic lives. There are some conditions attached and criteria that work coaches take into account, but in no way do they embrace fully the nature of the individuals they are dealing with. The decision maker never actually gets to see the individual either to do a proper assessment. When the individual comes to me in my constituency surgery and I get a fuller understanding of their life, I can understand why they have slipped up at some stage and why the system is not working to give them the support they need to get back into work and earn a decent income.
Debbie Abrahams
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I will just pick up on what he said at the start of his speech about conditionality. There is currently no evidence that supports the efficacy—let alone the humanity—of sanctions at all. A University of York study, which was published in 2018, showed absolutely that they had no effect on out-of-work conditionality or on in-work conditionality. What is the purpose of this programme?
John McDonnell
I was going to come on to that. My question to the Minister is: what is his understanding of how this increase has taken place? What are the factors behind it, because it does then lead on to questions about the efficacy of the whole process? Looking at the excellent House of Commons Library briefing, we can see that there was a Work and Pensions Committee report in 2015, a National Audit Office report in 2016, a Public Accounts Committee report in 2017, the welfare conditionality project in 2018 and another Work and Pensions Committee report in 2018. All of them reached the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams): there is no connection between this programme and effectiveness in supporting people getting into work. There is a bizarre situation: the raison d’être of this whole process has been challenged consistently—almost annually—by independent and objective reports, yet the Government have not moved. What does the Minister believe are the reasons for this increase?
I would also like to ask another question. If the Minister cannot answer it today, I would like him to write to us with an answer. I am really worried about the impact that the sanctions and the whole process of conditionality has on the mental health of the constituents I deal with. I am anxious that the Government should at least assure us that they have in process a mechanism for monitoring that, learning lessons from that monitoring, then coming back to the House to explain what improvements will be made. I am worried about the mental health consequences because, as we go into recession and we have a cost of living crisis, people have a fear of sanctions being levelled against them, which pushes some over the edge. To be frank, we have seen too many people lose their lives, unfortunately sometimes as a result of suicide because of the pressures that they have been under as a result of these types of measures that have been introduced over this period. I would welcome the Government’s reassurance that there is monitoring of the mental health consequences and that there will be a report to the House about how that is being addressed and any lessons that can be learned.
The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.
The debate so far has been superb and I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the expert way in which she completely took apart the Government’s arguments. I was 20 years in local government before I came here, and the last exercise in voter suppression was the poll tax. I was in local government at the time—I was chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, which represented both Conservative and Labour councils—and we explained to the then Government what the effect of introducing the poll tax legislation would be. It might well have been advertised as a fairer way of funding local government and collecting resources, but we argued that the Government needed to be careful because it could also possibly result in voter suppression. Naively, we did not think that that was an exercise being deliberately undertaken by the Government.
Although the poll tax brought down Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister, it ensured that a Tory Government were elected in 1992 because of what happened in many constituencies. Take my own constituency as an example, where 5,000 mainly working-class people dropped off the register. As a result, there were four recounts and I lost by 54 votes. I know every one of them and I visit them every so often, but there we are. That was an exercise that was done for one reason but actually had a sub-reason, which was voter suppression, and unfortunately I think that is what is happening today.
My second point is that, because of my local government background, I know that there is a long tradition that we listen to our electoral administrators. They are the one group of people in an authority whose professionalism we do not contest, because they serve all political parties, and they do so independently and to the best of their abilities. Most of them have limited staff and limited resources, and they are not particularly well paid either. Survey after survey shows the majority have no confidence that they can deliver this change in time for the local elections. First, they do not have the staff in place because of cutbacks. Secondly, they do not have time to have their computer systems properly tested and operating effectively. Thirdly, they do not have time to launch campaigns informing people of what they need to do to register. Even if they launch a campaign and it is sufficiently successful, the prediction is that anything up to 16% of the electorate might apply but there will not be the staff to administer it.
We should listen to the constitution unit’s report: this is an accident waiting to happen. Just in administrative terms, whatever the political motivations, this policy is not supportable and is not needed, as has been demonstrated by speech after speech. Unfortunately, not only is it a policy that will ensure some people do not get the right to vote and will cause conflict and contests at individual polling stations, but it is a policy that people will come to regret. It smacks of the dangerous dogs legislation, on which we cannot find anyone who supported it or promoted it.
My only reason for speaking in this debate, apart from my local government experience, is so that when people examine this legislation in six, 12 or 18 months’ time, or in the years ahead, I will be on the record as speaking out against it. I think this is a disaster waiting to happen.
The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 8 December 2022.
I speak not only in my capacity as secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, but to represent my constituents. The NUJ has circulated a briefing to all Members of Parliament who have expressed an interest in local radio. I will refer to elements of it because it sets what the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said in context.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It is interesting that on this particular subject we have come together over the years on a cross-party basis to exert an influence on the BBC as best we can. Our debates in this House have exerted an influence: hon. Members who have been around for a while will remember previous debates in which we have fended off onslaughts on BBC radio.
Let me put our concerns on the record—I hope the BBC is listening. The current plans mean that most of the afternoon and evening output will be shared. Overall, BBC local staffing is expected to reduce by 48 posts. After 2 pm on weekdays, the BBC will produce 18 afternoon programmes across England. Local stations will be forced to share information. What will that do? Exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says, it will seriously diminish a service that is highly valued by listeners and plays a role for all in underpinning local democracy by holding us to account and reporting on what is happening— not just with MPs, but with local councils and local agencies.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, there is example after example of local BBC stations providing a conduit of information during crisis after crisis. From weather crises and covid to accidents and other unfortunate incidents, they provide the information people rely on. Why are they important, as against other stations? Because they are seen as a reliable source of information and they provide a vital service on which all our communities depend. The cuts mean that there will now be just 40 hours a week of guaranteed local programming.
Let me reiterate the role that constituents have told us BBC local radio does. It connects communities. It provides local news. It provides reportage of sport, entertainment and religious services. It has been the bedrock of the BBC’s role as a public service. Interestingly, it is not just us saying that, but the BBC itself. In its latest annual report, the BBC boasts about how local radio
“delivered real value by keeping people safe and informed through challenging times such as Storm Arwen, where audiences in the North East were left without power for weeks.”
The BBC itself gives examples from the pandemic, when many people were isolated in their homes. The BBC itself says “it makes a difference.” That is why we are bewildered when 5.7 million people listen to local radio and it comes under attack once again.
There is quotation after quotation from people who may not be working in the service at the moment and may therefore be more independent. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that people do not want to put their jobs at risk at this stage. The former voice of BBC Radio Suffolk’s afternoons, Lesley Dolphin—who was very well known to a lot of people—wrote this to the director-general of the BBC:
“BBC managers are proud that they have journalists on the ground in every county, but local radio is so much more than a news service—it is embedded in local communities and gives people a sense of place, a chance to celebrate heritage and art. It will be impossible to do that if programmes are shared across a wider area.”
When we debated this issue recently, early in November, there was huge cross-party support for local radio. One Member said that local stations
“provide a lifeline for news and education, mitigate against rural isolation and support people’s rural mental health.”
Another said that it was
“a great incubator for new talent”
in his area, and a third described it as
“one of the crown jewels of our public sector broadcaster.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 774-778.]
The importance of local broadcasting becomes even clearer when all of us are reporting the decline in local newspaper circulation in our areas. The BBC local radio service has stepped into that gap to an even greater extent to ensure that there is local reportage, holding us all—at every level of representative democracy—to account. Press Gazette has reported that 265 local newspaper titles have gone. The BBC says that it is pursuing a digital-first policy, chasing younger viewers, but the NUJ and others have put forward alternatives so that broadcasters can improve the whole system more effectively by working differently and using technological solutions. Unfortunately, the BBC has not engaged in that discussion constructively enough.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about staffing. All BBC local radio staff have now been told that their jobs are at risk. They have been told that the managers will “roll out” the plans, which means that some of those staff will not know their futures for up to a year. We can imagine the sense of insecurity that that creates.
During the November debate, the Media Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), said the Government were
“disappointed that the BBC is reportedly planning to make such extensive cuts to its local radio output.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 764.]
The view that we can express to the BBC is that this is a cross-party issue. It is certainly of concern to the Opposition parties, but it is also of deep concern within the Government. I will not let the Government off the hook, because I want to put on record my opposition to the freezing of the BBC licence fee, but in the context of the resources that the BBC now has, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there must be some element of prioritisation for the valuable role played by BBC local radio.
Let me quote from another broadcaster most people will recognise, Fi Glover, who has been a prominent broadcaster over the years. When she was interviewed recently on “The Media Show”, she said:
“There has never been a more important time in the dissemination of information to have a strong local news network. If you can’t tell the story of the people around you, who you know and see every day then into that void can fall really unpleasant things. Once that part of the forest has been cut down, it won’t ever grow again.”
So what did she think of these plans? She said,
“it is bonkers.”
I agree with her completely. I hope that the BBC is listening, and I hope it will think again.
Let me say this on behalf the of NUJ: it stands ready to be involved in any consultations or negotiations to find an alternative way forward, which I think the majority of Members would also seek.
The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 5 December 2022.
The debate so far has been serious, and it has respected the views that have been expressed not only by Members from across the House, on a whole range of issues, but by the families joining us today who have suffered such a sad loss.
I wish to address one detailed element of the Bill, and I do so in my role as secretary of the National Union of Journalists’ cross-party parliamentary group. It is an issue to which we have returned time and again when we have been debating legislation of this sort. I just want to bring it to the attention of the House; I do not intend to divide the House on this matter. I hope that the Government will take up the issue, and then, perhaps, when it goes to the other place, it will be resolved more effectively than it has been in this place. I am happy to offer the NUJ’s services in seeking to provide a way forward on this matter.
Many investigative journalists base their stories on confidential information, disclosed often by whistleblowers. There has always been an historic commitment—in this House as well—to protect journalists’ right to protect their sources. It has been at the core of the journalists’ code of practice, promoted by the NUJ. As Members know, in some instances, journalists have even gone to prison to protect their sources, because they believe that it is a fundamental principle of journalism, and also a fundamental principle of the role of journalism in protecting our democracy.
The growth in the use of digital technology in journalism has raised real challenges in protecting sources. In the case of traditional material, a journalist has possession of it, whereas with digital technology a journalist does not own or control the data in the same way. Whenever legislation of this nature is discussed, there has been a long-standing, cross-party campaign in the House to seek to protect this code of practice of the NUJ and to provide protection for journalists to protect their sources and their information. It goes back as far as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If Members can remember the operation of that Act, they will know that it requires the police or the investigatory bodies to produce a production order, and requires notice to be given to journalists of any attempt to access information. We then looked at it again in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Again, what we secured there were arrangements by which there should be prior approval by a judicial commissioner before an investigatory power can seek communications data likely to compromise a journalists’ sources. There has been a consistent pattern.
To comply with Madam Deputy Speaker’s attempt to constrain the length of our speeches, let me briefly explain to Members what amendment 204 would do. It is a moderate probing amendment, which seeks to ask the Government to look again at this matter. When Ofcom is determining whether to issue a notice to intervene or when it is issuing a notice to that tech platform to monitor user-to-user content, the amendment asks it to consider the level of risk of the specified technology accessing, retaining or disclosing the identity of any confidential journalistic source or confidential journalistic material. The amendment stands in the tradition of the other amendments that have been tabled in this House and that successive Government have agreed to. It puts the onus on Ofcom to consider how to ensure that technologies can be limited to the purpose that was intended. It should not result in massive data harvesting operations, which was referred to earlier, or become a back door way for investigating authorities to obtain journalistic data, or material, without official judicial approval.
Mr Davis
I rise in support of the right hon. Gentleman. The production order structure, as it stands, is already being abused: I know of a case in place today. The measure should be stronger and clearer—the Bill contains almost nothing on this—on the protection of journalists, whistleblowers and all people for public interest reasons.
John McDonnell
The right hon. Gentleman and I have some form on this matter going back a number of years. The amendment is in the tradition that this House has followed of passing legislation to protect journalists, their sources and their material. I make this offer again to the Minister: the NUJ is happy to meet and discuss how the matter can be resolved effectively through the tabling of an amendment in the other place or discussions around codes of practice. However, I emphasise to the Minister that, as we have found previously, the stronger protection is through a measure in the Bill itself.
The comments made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, on Twitter on 5 November 2022.
Great turnout for Peoples Assembly march showing the determination & solidarity of the trade union and progressive movement to resist the Tories plans for another round of austerity and attack on trade union rights. Privilege to address the marchers in Trafalgar Square.
The comments made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, on Twitter on 3 November 2022.
Though we no longer have the Bank of England and Government working against each other, what’s as bad is they are now pressing on down same path to a deeper recession than external economic factors threaten. Planned redistribution through fair taxation and quantitative easing could prevent austerity, protect wages and investment.