John McDonnell

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (26 Sep 2025 – present); Independent (23 Jul 2024 – 26 Sep 2025); Labour (1 May 1997 – 23 Jul 2024).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 167

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Immigration: Earned Settlement

   Because of the nature of my constituency, I work with a large number of people who come here—often on the boats—and their families as well, and the years of waiting for <span id="595" class="column-number" data-column-number="595"></span>security have an impact on their mental health. I would like some clarity on the third paragraph of page 4 of the Home Secretary’s statement, where she says: “The standard qualifying period for all refugees who have not come by a safe and legal route will become 20 years. A further 10 years will be added for those who entered the country by an illegal method, such as by small boat.” I have not misread that. Does it meant that earned settlement could take 30 years for some people?

   Hansard source
2. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Civil Service Pensions

   I am the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. I think we all appreciate that my hon. Friend has inherited a scandal, and I thank her for the access that she has given to the unions and for working with them closely. In her statement, she mentioned the independent audit report. Will the Grant Thornton report be published and, if so, when? The trade unions are willing to work with the Minister on bringing this service in-house—first the front operations, then eventually the computer systems—in a gradual but, I hope, fast way. Let me ask her this. The Government went ahead and outsourced to Capita the payment of salaries in three Government Departments under the Synergy contact. If there is any delay in wage payments at all, will that contract be brought in-house immediately?

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Government’s policy on developing alternative energy sources, successfully undertaken by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), and now incredibly skilfully developed by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). We always knew that there were three key decisions that would have environmental implications, politically and physically: today’s decision on Jackdaw; the decision on Rosebank; and the decision on the third runway at Heathrow. Will the Minister take into discussions with colleagues my concern that approvals in the decision-making process for Rosebank and/or a third runway at Heathrow, could permanently damage our environmental credentials?

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Heathrow Airport Expansion

   I almost feel like just republishing a <em>Hansard</em> of one of the dozen debates we have already had on this subject over the past number of years. We just need to get real. The reason we are having this debate is that the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds <span id="332WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="332WH"></span>West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), when developing a speech for growth, wanted an example, and she just went for the third runway. At the moment, however, I cannot find anyone in Government who privately thinks, seriously, that it will go ahead. That is where we are at. This is the “Monty Python” dead parrot sketch all over again. Given that we are having this debate, I will remind people, as I always do, what the third runway means in human terms for my constituents, because that is my job. This has been mentioned, but 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable by noise and air pollution. We think now that 17,000 people will be displaced to ensure the profits of a company owned by a whole range of foreign multinationals. A number of schools will be closed. I held my first third runway meeting and set up the third runway action group in 1983, in Harlington school. We had to demolish and rebuild that school elsewhere because the noise and air pollution had made it impossible to teach in. This expansion will push the runway near to the school that we built some distance away. We are going to lose our schools. We are going to lose our whole community. Before anyone votes on this issue, come down to Harmondsworth. Come and see the village. Members should not vote on this unless they have been there, because otherwise they will not know how this is devastating beautiful villages. Harmondsworth has just won London in Bloom. We have a church that is 1,000 years old; the barn of the medieval church, which we believe is the biggest in Europe, will be 50 yards from the airport runway. This is absolute devastation. Where are my constituents going to go? Where are school pupils going to be taught? On top of that, we have been breathing this poisoned air for more than a generation now. We have done survey after survey about the scale of respiratory problems and the cardiovascular impacts. Before anyone votes, come down there and talk to some of the people about what it means. People say, “Oh well, people will move.” We have generations of families who have lived there, and young families who have moved in. Why? Because Governments promised us that there will be no third runway. At one point in time, there was cross-party agreement. No wonder we feel betrayed. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has set out all the arguments. The fact that we are even considering this issue in this debate is a monument to Heathrow’s lobbying capacity and the corporate capture of different political parties over time. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is generous with his support on a whole range of issues—but every one of the points that he raised, which are basically from the Heathrow briefing material, has been shot through completely. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the economic benefit. In the Government’s own figures in the consultation, that has reduced 10 times, to 0.05% of GDP, and even that is now in doubt. On the number of jobs, when the fifth terminal was developed, we were promised, I think, 50,000 jobs. We did not get anything. What has happened in our area of west London is that as Heathrow has developed, our industrial base has moved out, gone to other, cheaper regions. What have they been replaced by? Warehousing. We have lost skilled jobs and got unskilled work and exploitation.<span id="333WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="333WH"></span> On the wider health implications, I warn hon. Members and the Government about ultrafine particles. When I was a youngster, I left school and went to the shop floor. I worked up north in a place near Hebden Bridge. Hebden Bridge is where they manufactured asbestos. We had suddenly discovered asbestos. At that point, people were campaigning to keep the factory there for the jobs and all the rest of it. The effects of ultrafine particles are the asbestosis of the future. Look at the research. The Government have now set up a committee of experts to look at this issue, and it will report in three months’ time, possibly after we have been asked to make a decision. What we know about ultrafine particles is, first, that they come from aviation fuel in particular and that they spread across not just the surroundings of the airport, but at least 10 km around where there are emissions from aviation in particular. That means that we now have evidence from the working group of ultrafine particles in central London. What do ultrafine particles do? They penetrate our bodies, get into the lungs, the heart and all the rest of it, and we are now discovering the cardiovascular disease and different cancers that are occurring. They also penetrate the brain. We are worried about what they are doing to our children, who are growing up breathing these ultrafine particles. I warn the Government: this is a bit like asbestosis. We have to recognise that once this impact has been pointed out to us, if we continue to inflict it on our population in London, we will be held responsible as a Government for enabling it to happen. We have already raised all the issues that have been brought forward today, including noise. We had a session a month ago with the noise experts, who now tell us that the Government’s level is too high. The threshold of damage to people’s health is so much lower than that, and we are well beyond the European limits. We need to shake people up, because we do not even know the flight paths yet. All we can do is look at what has been said in the past, and we know that at least another 900,000 people—nearly a million—will be affected by the consequences of noise and air pollution. When we debated this issue last time, we were told that there is an urgent need to deliver the project for the good of our economy, even though we now know that it will cost us 15,000 jobs. Where will those jobs be lost? From regional airports. Members should have a look at the New Economics Foundation analysis. On top of that, we are told that there is a sense of urgency, but what did we hear a fortnight ago? Heathrow has delayed expansion by another five years. I come to the cost escalation. Since we have had this debate over the last couple of years, the costs have doubled. It is expected that £15 billion is needed to pay for the transport infrastructure, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, Heathrow is not putting in a penny. Hon. Members know that Heathrow will come to two groups to pay for the infrastructure: taxpayers and passengers. This is such a con and we have to throw it out, once and for all. I do not want to be here in a couple of years’ time. There is now no rationale for proceeding with Heathrow expansion. We need to come back after the consultation, and I hope that the Government will say, “Enough is <span id="334WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="334WH"></span>enough.” We must kill off this project, once and for all. We cannot just keep coming back and wasting resources on all this. I think there is a responsibility on all our shoulders, particularly now, because we know so much more about the detriment not just to our individual constituencies, but to the economy overall and to the health of millions of people. The message to the Government should be to just kill off Heathrow expansion. Let us finish this ritual that we have purely because of the lobbying impact of Heathrow airport. We have to stand up and represent our constituents, not corporations that will rip off us in the future.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Heathrow Airport Expansion

   I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, and I have a lot of sympathy for him; I would not want to be associated with this thing either. There is one issue that I would like him to write to us on. The air quality working group will report in three months’ time, which could possibly be after a decision is made by the Government. One of the things that we will be asking for, if any framework is developed, is for the Government to set a limit that we should aim for on ultrafine particles. In Europe, they do that, and it is increasingly becoming a legal requirement to monitor them there. We have no monitoring and no limit. If he could write to me about the Government’s consideration of that, it would be really helpful.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Heathrow Airport Expansion

   I just want to raise the issue of jobs again. In the Select Committee inquiry, one of the representatives who gave information about jobs said <span id="350WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="350WH"></span>that there was a real concern that if the company flounders on the financing for this project, as it almost certainly will, it will come to Government—and if the Government say no, that will have an impact on the existing operation and will put it in jeopardy. Those Members who have constituents who work at Heathrow, as I do, are worried about the existing operation of the airport being threatened by the overreach with respect to the third runway. That is why we have always argued not for a bigger Heathrow, but for a better Heathrow.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   I apologise to the Committee for having to leave the Chamber earlier to attend a debate in Westminster Hall. It was about Heathrow expansion yet again, and 17,000 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their homes, so that is why I attended. I have tabled amendments 106 and 107, and they relate to the part of the Bill on interim custody orders. I do not want to get involved in a debate about internment, its implications and the decisions that were taken at that stage. I tabled these amendments because I am anxious about the introduction of forms of retrospective legislation. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and it is contrary to article 7 of the European convention on human rights. I want to read the article into the record. It deals with “No punishment without law” and it states:<span id="1043" class="column-number" data-column-number="1043"></span> “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.” I find it difficult to understand how clauses 89 and 90 of the Bill comply with article 7. The reason I say that is that, once we start setting precedents like this, they can be used in other legislation and other matters. I refer Members to subsection (4) in clause 89, which is bizarre, to say the least. It states: “This section is to be treated as always having had effect.” We are inventing a historical precedent; we are creating a truth when there is actually an untruth within the legislation itself. We need to guard against retrospective legislation on all occasions. It flies in the face of the ECHR, and I will be interested to know how the Government square that argument and consider that it will not be open to challenge at a later date.

   Hansard source
8. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   I tabled a dozen amendments. There is not time to go through any of those now; in the few minutes I have, let me briefly explain what those amendments were all about.<span id="883" class="column-number" data-column-number="883"></span> I do not think anyone else in the Chamber was here in ’97 and ’98 when the Good Friday agreement discussions were taking place. It was an incredibly precarious and fragile time. People had to go out, convince different constituencies and give them confidence in the peace process. Mo Mowlam went and saw the prisoners, which was a huge breakthrough. They were prisoners on all sides—it was not sectarian. One of the constituencies we had to convince, as well as part of the Irish diaspora in this country, were the families of victims on all sides. We had to try to get them to have confidence that peace would deliver justice for them. To be frank, I do not believe that we can have peace without justice. I desperately want to support this legislation, but I am struggling. I am worried about the message that we are getting from victims. I do not know whether people have seen the letter from the Relatives for Justice that came in overnight. The debate has been dominated to a large extent by veterans. I understand that—we have veterans among us—but we need to take heed of the victims. Let me quote very briefly from the letter, which is from 200 families. It states: “We have listened with great concern and growing anger to the tone of recent discussions about how to resolve the legacy of the conflict. We have read government statements and press releases and followed debates in parliament and recent media interventions made on the legacy—our legacy. It is as if we don’t exist and the only ‘real victims’ are veterans.” I worry that, if we lose the confidence of the victims’ families, we lose the confidence in the overall process. The architecture that we designed was intended to give them confidence. One of the key elements of it was the independence of the legal system. In 2000, there was a report on the criminal justice processes and the recommendations that we installed in part of the agreement. It stated that “there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters.” It is also stated: “The functions of the Director” of Public Prosecutions “shall be exercised…independently of any other person”. The problem is that we are now undermining that architecture. We are giving power to the Attorney General to determine cases and, if necessary, even to introduce an element of immunity by refusing to allow cases to go forward; power to the Attorney General over the distribution of sensitive information; and power over appointments to the judicial panel. I welcome the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave with regard to the exercise of that power, but that exercise is then determined on the basis of a new expansion of the term “national security”. We are no longer talking about the threat to actual national security. We are talking about the “risk” to national security. That puts into people’s minds a concern that the breadth of the interpretation of national security can undermine the independence of decision making. We have even undermined our own legislation, which I believe we supported, in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, wherein decision making, for instance, about the issuing of warrants on national security grounds is at least determined by a test of whether it the warrants are necessary and proportionate. That test is not built into the Bill.<span id="884" class="column-number" data-column-number="884"></span> The debate has been dominated by the issue of veterans. As someone said, 300,000 veterans served. Between 2010 and 2024, there have been 25 prosecutions. Six of them were of veterans, and there was only one conviction. Let us get this in context. Victims are standing to one side, thinking that they are not even being heard or listened to. The independent structure that we thought we supported during the peace process is now being undermined. We are on a dangerous edge here, and I hope that, as the Bill moves to the House of Lords, we can get some assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that can restore confidence, not just for the victims and their families, but for some of us who were here during that very difficult and precarious period in which peace was secured.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Unpaid Carers

   We have this debate on a regular basis; on average we come back to it every six months. We have had a breakthrough with the action plan—I welcome that. For the first time we have a number of Departments working together coherently, and I think it will improve lives overall. There is a sense of urgency now. I have chaired an unpaid carers group for about three years—I am losing track of time. They are a representative group of young and old. They are mainly parents looking after their children, but some are siblings looking after one another and some of them are young as well. Exactly as the survey said, every one of them reflects the condition they are living in; it is poverty and hardship, sometimes in the extreme. Most of them find it difficult to work. They want to work; often they have given up their jobs as a result of their caring responsibilities and some of them have given up professional careers. Those carers also lack respite, and the common theme that comes through is the lack of a break. Another issue is that, where respite is offered, there are not the staff with the skills to cope with the individual they are caring for. Non-verbal individuals are very difficult to care for and staff need specialist training, but that is almost non-existent in many areas. I point to the report produced for the House by Siobhan O’Dwyer from the University of Birmingham, which we used in the debate about a year ago. That shocking survey—I do not like to raise this, but I have to—found that 40% of carers had thought about suicide as a result of the stress they are under. I welcome the action plan, but there is a sense of urgency. We cannot get away from the fact that the carer’s allowance is so low. Many of the carers I work with say, “We want a wage. We’re doing a job.” No one is doing 35 hours; they are all doing 40 or 50 hours, if not longer in some instances. They want a wage to lift them out of poverty, but also to reflect our respect for the work that they are undertaking. As my hon. Friend <span id="221WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="221WH"></span>the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said, we do not expect miracles overnight, but we want to see some progression to a form of living wage for carers. We also need a system through which the issue can be properly evaluated over a longer period. I am really pleased by the Prime Minister’s commitment to social care. We have known about it for over a decade, from when he was in Parliament previously. It is a pity that there was not cross-party support to implement it at that time. I am also involved in a campaign in honour of one of our colleagues, Iain Coleman, who was the Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Fulham. When he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, he introduced free personal care—free home care—at the local level, and it has proved incredibly successful. Some councils have tried to emulate it, but with the cuts to local government over the past 14 years, it has proved very difficult. The first step towards a national care service could be the introduction of personal care. We should not wait until after the next general election in 2029; we should work towards it over the next year. Local authorities can undertake that work; it just needs to be resourced. I hope the social care action plan group brings forward a proposal that takes into account what Casey says next year—I am glad that has been brought forward—and sets out a step-by-step approach to introducing home care. When my group met last week, most of the people on it had not heard of the care plan. They have now, and we are going to take people through it. What came back from them was very practical. The objectives of the care plan were set out clearly in July; we now want to see steps towards implementing the objectives, which must be costed and timetabled. Within that, we want a debate about carer’s allowance and home care.

   Hansard source
10. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

    Drumcree

    In 2010, Tom Bingham, who had been Lord Chief Justice, published his book “The Rule of Law”, which we often cite in this House. He said about Ministers’ decisions that “ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.” I believe that in making this decision, which I know was a difficult one, the Secretary of State has excellently upheld the principles set out by Tom Bingham all those years ago. As he knows, this summer at the Belfast Fleadh, all traditions of music came together—including many Unionist bands and singers—and were welcomed and enjoyed together. Is that not the spirit in which we want to go forward in building unity?

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Hayes and Harlington

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site