John McDonnell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Air Traffic Control Disruption · Hansard source

  More

  It is not a laughing matter—I am sorry for interrupting the flow of the discussion. It would be useful if the review looked at NATS’s long-term investment plans, particularly since its partial privatisation in 2001, which I opposed. I thank the Minister for meeting Unite this morning and thanking the workers, who have worked so hard. From my experience, when things go wrong at NATS, the Public and Commercial Services Union members—the technical members—scramble and work incredibly hard to put them right. I hope that we can thank them as well. The Opposition spokesperson never made any reference to the workers themselves. They have worked incredibly hard and, as the Minister said, some of them have experienced horrendous abuse. We should congratulate them and support them in their work.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Air Traffic Control Disruption · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. NATS used to be in my constituency and then moved down to Swanwick. Of course, with Heathrow in my constituency, I receive—as I mentioned yesterday—a large amount of correspondence from a whole range of other MPs’ constituents, who think I am responsible for Heathrow airport.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Air Traffic Control Disruption · Hansard source

  More

  Can you control these people, Madam Deputy Speaker?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, as I will need to speak and then leave as I have a Bill to present in the Chamber—I am keeping my eye on the business. I declare my interests as well; I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to raise one of the RMT’s concerns. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to see this all through—it is an excellent piece of work—and to have a review very shortly afterwards. I want to put something on the agenda for that review, if that is possible. Let me go through some of the details. The union itself, and the seafarers’ unions overall, welcome the new regulations but they do not improve the situation for access for seafarers. In fact, they simply repeat the restrictions we already have in section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was introduced at the height of the Conservative Government’s introduction of anti-trade union legislation and attack on trade union rights. The regulations now mean that trade unions will only be able to improve access on UK-flagged ships, whereas in the recent period we have seen a large number of companies flagging in other countries. That means, for example, that the RMT will not, as a result of the access regulations, be able to organises seafarers on P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries, Cobelfret and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they call at UK ports on a daily basis. When this issue was raised in the House of Lords, in an amendment tabled by our friend Lord John Hendy back in 2025, Baroness Jones gave the commitment that the Government would “explore how they could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 69.] At that point, John Hendy’s amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to Great Britain. That link, as the Minister will know, was 120 calls at an individual port. Ideally, that is where we want to go. It is just a matter of wanting to get in the review, as rapidly as possible, the right form of words to give the protection that the Government intend for all workers. We do not want to be in a situation where seafarers remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, at P&O.

• 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.

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

  More

  I apologise to my right hon. Friend; I should have checked this before the debate. The proposed new section 61G refers to priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State, which include a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out those priorities and objectives for the CAA. That is to be the guiding light from the Government to the CAA. The provision specifies, for instance, how the Government and the CAA are to consult and how it will take on board environmental principles. Is that new document to be published after the passing of the legislation, or have I missed something and a document has already been produced? If so, I apologise, but this seems quite fundamental to me. If there is to be a revised document, can my right hon. Friend give us a timetable for its publication?

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

  More

  I fully agree, and let me also say that wheelchair compensation is significant in this legislation. Most of us have dealt with cases like that. Going back to accountability in the process, a number of different organisations have provided us with notes on the legislation. The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which I have worked with for over 20 years now, provided us with a helpful note. HACAN reminds us that when the CAA sets out airspace changes, the CAA oversees the progress of the stages and approves whether the consultation—its own consultation—has been adequate or not. In addition, it decides whether the proposals may proceed. It operates its own complaints route, and complaints on issues around airspace are almost impenetrable. The CAA has immense power, and it seems to be a law unto itself in many instances. It has been said in the House today that the lack of consultation is one of its main vulnerabilities. New flight paths are already being prepared, discussed and considered. In the Heathrow expansion, when Heathrow puts forward its plan for a third runway, it will not be Heathrow that says what the flight paths will be. It cannot be; it is now the airport service that has been set up under NATS. In all my experience with Heathrow, I have never known a thorough and adequate consultation process to take place with regard to the development of airport routes. I was hoping that we might get more detail in the legislation. That is why I come back to the issue of the Secretary of State’s document, which could be a really powerful mechanism. We could determine, through debates here—therefore, instructions to the Secretary of State—how the CAA will operate in the future. On the environment, I feel that there is a real lack of firm duties and responsibilities set out in the legislation and guidance procedure that takes into account the health and wellbeing of people and communities. Reference has been made to noise. I cannot believe that we are still in the same situation where we have different noise criteria used in different mechanisms when it comes to decisions being taken. The Gatwick and Luton developments are using two different criteria—two different levels—from which they place the restrictions. I have gone through the debates and discussions we have had over time and, as some hon. Members will know, we have gone from 57 dB to 53 dB, and then to 43 dB, which is the World Health Organisation’s figure—for the life of me, I do not understand why we do not respect its expertise in all this—and we apply different measures for different decisions, which are driven largely by factors other than the health consequences for people and the impact of noise. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) mentioned the all-party parliamentary group meeting we had on Monday, when we received the latest research. May I put on record my thanks to Dr Charlotte Clark, professor of environmental epidemiology and population health? She has done research on all of this over the years and is the expert. She looked at some of the health implications at the lowest levels of noise that we have been debating, and there was an element of shock for some of us: we knew about the cardiovascular impact, but we now know much more about the impact on mental health in particular. One of the issues that has come out of our discussions—this includes the Heathrow expansion consultation—is that the latest research on noise and health impacts has not been sufficiently monetised in the discussions and consultations that have taken place. So decision making—particularly on the latest Heathrow expansion proposals—could be on the basis of health impact monetisation as a result of increased noise whose level should be perhaps four times what the Government have put forward so far. Our constituents are becoming increasingly aware of the health impacts of noise in particular and are demanding greater protections However, from the legislation we are debating, I cannot see how those greater protections will be translated unless we have a stronger capacity in this House to determine the guidance given to the CAA and the parameters set for it in the decision-making process. I will give hon. Members this example of the debates that have taken place. For the aviation policy framework, we dealt with 57 dB. For the survey of noise attitudes, we looked at 54 dB. We then went to 51 dB and, as I said, 43 dB in the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night-time noise effects study analyses, which relate to the World Health Organisation. We cannot keep going on without a proper noise standard applicable across our whole decision-making process that reflects the latest research on health impacts. I do not think we are there at the moment. I am pleased with the legislation, because there are some meritorious proposals that will no doubt improve the passenger experience, but it really does not take into account the community experience and the impact it will have. That is why the running theme is that somehow— I will table amendments with others—we have got to get a greater level of accountability, a greater level of transparency and a greater level of empowerment of those communities who are impacted. The proposal by the hon. Member for Horsham for an ombudsman is one mechanism that could be used and could be helpful as a longstop. At the moment, when people in my constituency are faced with these problems, they do not know where to go; it is as simple as that. Finally, the debate that we will have on Heathrow expansion and the new policy statement will be interesting, given that we do not know what the flight paths will be. If I was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), I would be extremely worried. In my constituency, because the flights are largely east-west and west-east, we have the bizarre situation that they affect Longford where, when the aircraft fly over you feel like throwing yourself to the floor, and they affect a number of the Heathrow villages, but they do not as yet impact on the centre of my constituency. We now have the risk that the flight paths might well do that. So, again, we are talking about maybe another 1 million or so people being impacted by the development of Heathrow, yet in our debate in this House about the policy statement we will not have certainty about those flight paths. That cannot be right when making such a major decision. That is why I am hoping that when the Committee meets and when we come back on Report we can have a sensible debate about the sort of amendments that can be brought forward on that theme of accountability, because if we can increase accountability, we can increase confidence in Government decision making on this issue in the long term. I agree with hon. Members who have raised the importance of aviation to our economy. Of course it is important; it employs a large number of my constituents, and we are trying to make sure that we create aviation capacity that is economically beneficial to the country while protecting our constituents’ health and wellbeing overall.

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

  More

  First, I want to mention the events of yesterday. I will usually get letters from constituents all over the country about such experiences, because Heathrow is located in my constituency and they therefore think I am responsible for it—I usually send apologetic replies back. Behind the suffering that people went through will be a large number of staff who were working incredibly hard at all levels of the organisation to put it right. This happens on every occasion. Nevertheless, NATS management needs to be held to account. The Secretary of State has said that she will expect a report within six months, so it would be helpful to have statements during that period to reassure people about exactly what did happen, as well as covering the actions that need to be taken.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, as I will need to speak and then leave as I have a Bill to present in the Chamber—I am keeping my eye on the business. I declare my interests as well; I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to raise one of the RMT’s concerns. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to see this all through—it is an excellent piece of work—and to have a review very shortly afterwards. I want to put something on the agenda for that review, if that is possible. Let me go through some of the details. The union itself, and the seafarers’ unions overall, welcome the new regulations but they do not improve the situation for access for seafarers. In fact, they simply repeat the restrictions we already have in section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was introduced at the height of the Conservative Government’s introduction of anti-trade union legislation and attack on trade union rights. The regulations now mean that trade unions will only be able to improve access on UK-flagged ships, whereas in the recent period we have seen a large number of companies flagging in other countries. That means, for example, that the RMT will not, as a result of the access regulations, be able to organises seafarers on P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries, Cobelfret and a whole range of other merchant ships registered overseas, even though they call at UK ports on a daily basis. When this issue was raised in the House of Lords, in an amendment tabled by our friend Lord John Hendy back in 2025, Baroness Jones gave the commitment that the Government would “explore how they could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 2025; Vol. 848, c. 69.] At that point, John Hendy’s amendment sought to apply the provisions of the access arrangements to seafarers working on ships with a sufficient link to Great Britain. That link, as the Minister will know, was 120 calls at an individual port. Ideally, that is where we want to go. It is just a matter of wanting to get in the review, as rapidly as possible, the right form of words to give the protection that the Government intend for all workers. We do not want to be in a situation where seafarers remain vulnerable, as they have been, for example, at P&O.

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises the principal point that this money will go from aid to defence. The reduction will be £4.8 billion in 2026-27, and then £6.5 billion. We obviously appreciate the need for defence investment, but that money is being transferred to the most profligate and incompetent spending Department in Government: the Ministry of Defence. Those of us who have been here for a number of years can remember Nimrod, which cost £4 billion and was scrapped. The Bowman radio system cost £2.5 billion and was scrapped. The Daring-class destroyer went £1.5 billion over projected expenditure. The Ajax armoured fighting vehicle has cost £4 billion and probably cannot be used. The sale of married quarters lost £4 billion. We are taking money that is desperately needed to save lives and giving it to a Department that has wasted money time and again.