John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I think that goes to the heart of the debate that we are having, which is about levels of accountability within our structures themselves. NATS is accountable to the CAA, but who is the CAA accountable to? I have raised with the Secretary of State proposed new section 61G of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, on the priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State in relation to aviation, which sets out that they must issue a document that is a directive to the CAA. The reason I asked about the proposed new clause is that, given the way it is drafted, I thought we were eventually going to move towards a more expansive document that would set out in detail some of the issues, particularly on the environment, for my interest, but also service delivery and so on. In fact, the document is currently simply a letter, a couple of pages long, that will be sent on a regular basis, usually annually, and laid before Parliament. I thought that this legislation would be useful in giving us something more substantial; something that would be consulted on in more detail; and something that would set out a more detailed direction to the CAA as to how it should implement its responsibilities and role, as a result of which the CAA would then become more accountable to the Secretary of State and therefore to this House. The point is that when things go wrong, actions are agreed, but we never really get the substance of the follow-up on those actions. That is the problem. I will just raise another example that people might remember taking place at Heathrow, which is when the substation went up in flames, and we then discovered that the fall-back operations were not working effectively either. There is a real vulnerability for the future. I think we need a bit more of an authoritative role for this House, in terms of how the Secretary of State can influence the CAA and make it more accountable. That is the main point I wanted to make. I do not think that people realise the massive power that the CAA has and the implications that has for the lives and health of literally millions of people when it determines flight paths and standards of performance. The legislation needs further debate on other aspects as well, but I do not think we have got much further in establishing an effective structure for airspace decision making. There is very little independent monitoring in the decision making, and it becomes impossible to challenge, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, because local communities do not have the resources for judicial review—they are just on their own. There does not seem to be the basic accountability mechanism that we would expect of other bodies performing similar public duties.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Four years ago, we welcomed many new residents into a number of new homes in my constituency. Despite saving up, getting themselves on the property ladder and paying anything between £300,000 and £500,000 for brand-new leasehold properties, those living at the Bluenote apartments have found themselves living in a nightmare. Bellway Homes was the developer, and Bellway-appointed directors control the residents’ management company. When the residents moved in, they found that the boiler was not fit for purpose and they regularly went without any hot water or heating for days. The car park gates were constantly breaking down and trapping vehicles inside the car park. The patio slabs were uneven and dangerous, leading to injury, and there were leaks from the roof into individual apartments. Very quickly, service charge bills far exceeded the estimates provided by Bellway, and Bellway and its directors refused to engage. Four years on, the scale of the problems has grown. Over £100,000 of residents’ funds remain unaccounted for, including money from the heat supply and reserve funds. Service charge demands have doubled in four years, and residents have been charged for fixing defects for which the developer is responsible. Residents have been refused basic financial information, including the end-of-year accounts, receipts and invoices that they are entitled to see under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, even though they have gone through every appropriate route. The dangerous patio slabs remain. Bellway has refused to transfer the freehold to leasehold, even though it is contractually obliged to do so. It has allowed the property management companies— Premier Block Management and Gateway Property Management —to act with impunity in sending out grossly inflated and incorrect service demands, and it has put my constituents under intense pressure to take over the property management companies and expose themselves to significant personal liabilities. Bellway has been able to get away with this because it controls the management, has control of the freehold and has the resources to bully my constituents, including by instructing top law firms to send them threatening letters. All I am doing is calling on Bellway to be transparent about the building’s finances, to resolve the outstanding issues and the physical problems that the residents are facing, and to transfer the freehold, as it is contractually and morally obliged to do. I welcome the Government’s draft leasehold reform Bill. However, this case exemplifies the fact that the Bill needs to be much more robust, particularly in relation to service charges and the management transfer process. I do not want to experience this again with other constituents. As I have said, the residents have gone through a living nightmare because of the unaccountability of this development and the management company.