Air Traffic Control Disruption

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I have noted the Minister’s proactive commitment to a ministerial statement.

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

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.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Resign!

[John McDonnell]

Can you control these people, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Gemmell!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, that was very well done, then.

[John McDonnell]

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.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

We have sought to prioritise work on airspace changes in the London region, given the benefits that it could bring to London and the south-east. I am aware that there has been agreement over the summer to resume work on airspace modernisation in Scotland, which will be important to my hon. Friend’s constituents. We have to get the balance right by bringing benefit quickly to the communities that are currently seeking changes, which will improve the quality of my hon. Friend’s life and those of her constituents.

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

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

I regularly produce a letter for the CAA setting out my priorities, and I would be happy to write to my right hon. Friend in detail about the timeline, as he requests.

The Bill is also about improving safety. The Government are determined that UK airspace should remain among the safest in the world. Our current safety framework is fragmented, and updating it is cumbersome. It holds back innovation, and it puts the UK at risk of falling behind on its international obligations. To fix that, the Bill will hand over responsibility for technical aviation safety and operational rule-making to the CAA. This is not a blank cheque; it follows a well-established model in which trusted regulators make rules within boundaries set by Parliament. Indeed, ministerial and parliamentary oversight was strengthened during scrutiny in the other place. The Bill also reinstates the Government’s ability to update or create aviation safety-related criminal offences in assimilated legislation, which was lost after our exit from the EU. That will allow safety rules to keep up with international standards while ensuring that they are enforced consistently, now and in the future. These steps will create a clearer, more workable system that maintains the UK’s strong safety record and sustains public confidence in air travel.

I know that some Members will be interested in what the Bill means for airport expansions. I should make clear that it does not determine whether any airport should expand, and neither does it change the processes involved in that. These measures are sector-wide reforms that will support a safe, efficient and resilient aviation industry. Questions about airport expansion will continue to be considered separately, outside the Bill process.

Despite a bad day yesterday, aviation has refused to stand still for over 100 years. The industry remains at the forefront of innovation and progress, taking every challenge and every opportunity in its stride. Quite simply, the type of country that we want to be—aspirational, outward-looking and full of opportunity—depends on giving the industry the tools that it needs to go from strength to strength. This Bill will do just that by bringing passenger protections into the 21st century, unlocking sustainable growth that works for our communities, and maintaining the UK’s safety record in an ever-changing world.

I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that this is not a Government who drag their feet. We have moved swiftly to address the concerns raised by the Lords, particularly on accessibility, accountability and passenger protections. The Government have not just listened but acted, and I believe that provides a strong foundation for the Bill to continue its passage. I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that particular reference should be given to the previous failures and to the 37 actions, I believe, that should have been completed to resolve the previous incident, as well as explaining quite how this was allowed to occur again? As he says, it is critical that we get to the bottom of what happened, but also that we are able to hold it to account.

[John McDonnell]

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.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I understand what my right hon. Friend and other colleagues across the House are saying about the need for independent oversight, particularly on the aviation side, but on the consumer side, does he agree that when the CAA works, it really does work, as in the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)? Therefore, does he agree that is absolutely right for the Government to bring forward those powers for consumer protection?

[John McDonnell]

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.

Railways Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call John McDonnell.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought that was coming.

I will speak to amendments 15 and 35, which stand in my name. Amendment 15 deals with the creation of an industry-wide travel scheme. One of the benefits of joining British Rail was that travel passes were extended to workers and their families. That was a real perk of the job, and I think it was protected under legislation on a cross-party basis for existing staff. However, that was only for existing staff, and as other companies took over, that benefit was lost. There was a range of different schemes.

All that amendment 15 would do is place a responsibility on GBR to bring together those schemes, so that there is one consistent scheme that will continue into the future for the benefit of the railways. We have written to the Secretary of State on this issue—in March, I think—and we are still seeking a meeting. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that will take place.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is really important that that scheme includes people who worked at British Rail Engineering Ltd, who were then privatised and lost their passes as a result. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that BREL is also included in that meeting?

[John McDonnell]

I think we can place it on the agenda. I hope the Government will have taken this amendment on board by the time we get to the other House, because it is such a simple mechanism to bring together.

My second point is about amendment 35, which seeks to promote the insourcing of workers into GBR. The Government have announced the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation, and the amendment could create benefits by ensuring that the Government implement that promise. As people know, cleaning, catering, security guards and revenue inspectors have all been contracted out, but the biggest example is workers working on the infrastructure. I will run through the figures, which are staggering. Network Rail now directly employs 14,000 workers to maintain its rails and signals, but it also engages tens of thousands of subcontracted workers. Its renewals programme, for example, has been contracted out to a number of construction companies, which engage people on zero-hours contracts. It is insecure work with low wages and without adequate working conditions, and as Members across the House have said, there is often bogus self-employment as well.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

Certainly, although I do not get an extra minute for this one.

[Cat Eccles]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—he is worth the extra minute. He has spoken about the rail perks that staff benefited from; does he agree that that has also been lost by those staff who have been outsourced? At West Midlands railway, the company wanted to offer those staff some discounted travel, but the Department for Transport actually refused. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes he has described would be welcome?

[John McDonnell]

I agree wholeheartedly. We just need one comprehensive scheme under which everyone is treated equally—it is a benefit, one that helps to attract staff, but also to retain staff because of the commitment it demonstrates.

Just to understand the scale of outsourcing that has gone on, we believe that at the moment in excess of 100,000 infrastructure workers are engaged through outsourcing and subcontracting. People will be familiar with the impacts of that, including precarious contracts for the workers, but a report has recently been published by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—an independent report produced by Nina Jorden and Joel Hoskins. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the convener of the RMT parliamentary group. The report identifies the scale of costs that contracting out involves, and the critical issue that the contractors have very short-term horizons, so they fail to invest in skills. Time and again we have seen those companies undertake cost-cutting exercises, and the churn of workers leads to the loss of valuable skills and experience.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Black, Asian and minority ethnic workers represent 25% of the directly employed workforce of train operating companies, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that outsourcing creates systemic racism?

[John McDonnell]

There is significance evidence of low pay and the way that people are discriminated against consistently throughout the outsourcing mechanism. Given all the research that has been done, that is unchallengeable.

I want to concentrate on the issue of loss of skills. Under British Rail, when someone joined the railway, they could have the vision that if they were committed and stuck with the organisation, they could secure additional training and rise up the ladder. All the way up, they would be gaining additional skills, but under outsourcing there has been a lack of investment in skills. The precarious work means that we are failing to invest in the next generation and, as a result, we may not have the skills to operate an effective system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the financial support that I received from rail trade unions at the time of the general election. I am pleased to support the Bill and the wider programme of rail reform, but I want to explain why I have tabled a number of amendments and why I support some of those tabled by others.

Alongside the Passenger Rail Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, this legislation represents the most significant reversal of rail privatisation in a generation. It creates Great British Railways as the new publicly owned body bringing track and train together under a single strategic direction. After decades of fragmentation, we have an opportunity to build a railway run in the public interest, with resources reinvested in services rather than being extracted from the industry.

But if the Bill is to succeed, it must improve conditions not only for passengers but for railway employees. The transition to GBR should be a just transition for railway workers, not simply an organisational restructuring exercise. I urge the Minister to consider a high-level industrial relations strategy alongside the high-level output specification.

I am concerned by reports of job losses at Network Rail ahead of GBR’s creation, and by evidence that some TUPE transfers have been accompanied by the erosion of collective bargaining arrangements. The move to GBR should strengthen industrial relations, not weaken them. In that context, the derecognition of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association for employees transferring from Network Rail to its wholly owned subsidiary Platform4 is deeply troubling. The removal of long-established recognition arrangements at the point of transfer sends the wrong signal about industrial relations under public ownership.

Ministers have been asked what preparations are being made to understand existing recognition agreements and to engage with trade unions during the transition, yet we have heard responses suggesting that recognition remains a matter for individual employers. That risks reproducing the fragmented industrial relations landscape created by privatisation, rather than overcoming it.

[John McDonnell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he did over the years to develop the policies that this legislation is largely based on. On the issue of trade union negotiations, we have advocated for sectoral collective bargaining in this sector, as in others, for quite a while. Why? Because it gives a voice to the workers themselves and brings about stability on issues such as employment and long-term investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one of the building blocks for the new system we are creating?

[Andy McDonald]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, and I fully acknowledge his point. That is exactly how we are going to build a sustainable railway that will serve our communities and be responsive to reasonable requests from its workforce.

I have tabled new clause 26 and amendment 64, on the transfer of employees to GBR. The original vision of reform was for a railway with a single directing mind, but there is a strong case for having a single employer too. The legislation should make it clear that employees transferring from Network Rail, DfT Operator operators and former franchises will move into a coherent organisation, with full TUPE protections and clear employment rights. I also encourage the Government to move towards a formal framework for sectoral collective bargaining across the rail industry. Public ownership should create the conditions for partnership, workforce voice and stable industrial relations.

I have also tabled new clause 27, on pension schemes. It is remarkable that legislation transferring the railway back into public ownership contains weaker statutory pension protections than the legislation used to privatise it. The Railways Act 1993 included detailed provisions protecting pension rights, and workers joining GBR deserve the same certainty. Every railway employee should have a statutory right to participate in the railway pension scheme on protected terms.

I also support amendments to preserve schedule 17. We all remember the overwhelming public opposition to the proposals to close ticket offices, and schedule 17 provides an important mechanism for consultation and accountability when significant service changes are proposed. Those protections should not be casually swept aside.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which would secure GBR in the public sector for the future. I also support amendment 35, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the wider principle of insourcing. He is absolutely right to say that the Bill creates an opportunity for the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation. The railway should not rely on fragmented contracting models that create insecurity and limit progression. Bringing contracted workers directly into GBR would strengthen workforce planning, improve standards and help to fulfil Labour’s commitment to treat railway staff as an asset rather than a cost.

This Bill is a historic opportunity. Public ownership can deliver a better railway for passengers, but it must also deliver a better railway for the people who run it every day. By strengthening protections for employment, trade union recognition, pensions and insourcing, we can ensure that Great British Railways is built on the foundations of fairness as well as efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is a tireless advocate for his part of the country, and we can continue our conversations. I merely reflected the point that having things about specific transport projects on the face of legislation is not the right way to address it, in the view of the Government, but I would be glad to meet him to take the conversation further.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend is dealing with things at breakneck speed, and incredibly competently, but I think he has missed the confirmation in his briefing that he is willing to meet the RMT parliamentary group to discuss travel facilities for staff and insourcing.

[Keir Mather]

I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that important matter, and I would be glad to facilitate a meeting either with me, if that is most appropriate, or with the Rail Minister to take that conversation forward.

High Speed 2 Reset

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very interesting point. One of the things that I am most keen to do is ensure that the huge investment that we are putting into HS2 between London and Birmingham results in an improved passenger experience for people across the rest of the country more broadly. That is one of the reasons why, when we made the announcement about Northern Powerhouse Rail earlier this year, we also announced a feasibility study on a new connection between Birmingham and Manchester. While it is slightly too soon to get into the specifics of what that would look like, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is thinking and planning under way in the Department on ensuring that this investment unlocks the maximum benefit across the country.

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

Given the huge sums that the Secretary of State is talking about, what I want to raise might appear relatively trivial, but for my community it is quite significant. We have a charity called Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, which used a lake where local young people in particular could learn to sail and canoe. That lake was taken over by HS2 as part of the route and has not been available for six years. An alternative was not identified until very recently—again, that is part of the decision making on HS2. All the charity’s reserves have now gone, and staff are being laid off. Will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting for me with her officials and HS2, so that I can talk through the opportunities that there might be to assist the charity in continuing to provide an excellent service to our community?

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be very happy to ask relevant officers from HS2 to meet my right hon. Friend and look at options for the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre. When I look at the scale of some of the structures being built on the outskirts of London—the 2.1-mile-long Colne valley viaduct, for example—it is evident what a huge and ambitious construction project this is. I am sorry that there have been some impacts on communities and community groups, and I would be happy to look at alternatives.

Transport Accessibility for Disabled People

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on her sterling work as Chair of the Transport Committee, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for us to debate what I think is a very important issue.

It is no secret that I have been a lifelong campaigner for the rights, inclusion and equality of disabled people, not least due to my own lived experience. I have been calling for and pushing for all modes of transport to be fully accessible and inclusive. It is essential that disabled people should have equal participation in society at all times. I genuinely believe that having access to transport is a human right, and we really should look at it in that context, yet all too often we hear stories of the many barriers disabled people face when they travel. We have all heard the stories of disabled people being left on planes for hours on end, or turning up at a train station and their assistance not being there for them. When I travel and have booked assistance, I worry about whether that assistance will be there. That should never be somebody’s experience in daily life.

We know the issues around pavement parking. I introduced my own Bill to ban pavement parking 18 months ago. Having obstacles on the road, especially those awful e-scooters—everyone knows my views on those—creates many problems, not just for disabled people but for families with young children pushing a buggy and so on. And then there are buses. We all know that buses are one of the best forms of inclusive transport for disabled people. However, there are times when the ramps are not working or the allocated space on the bus is not available. We must ensure that we tackle that issue. It would be wrong of me not to mention floating bus stops, because I hate them too. They are huge problem, so I might as well tie them into this transport debate. Floating bus stops should be banned from all new infrastructure, because they prevent disabled people from being able to travel freely.

I am really proud of the work we have done in my constituency, in the nearly nine years I have been campaigning, to ensure that all the modes of transport that go through Battersea are inclusive. Clapham Junction, one of the busiest interchange stations in Europe, is partially accessible. I was proud that we secured funding for Wandsworth Town railway station to be made step-free. It is a shame that it no longer sits in my constituency after the boundary review, but I will claim that win, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think I should.

We all remember the fight we all had to go through to ensure that we kept ticket offices open, when the previous Government wanted to close them. That was a battle worth fighting. I cannot use ticket machines, and there are many others who cannot use them either. They are vital pieces of infrastructure.

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

Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I am trying to represent my constituents in four debates today. There was a Spanish Catholic priest called Padre Pio, who was made a saint because of the miracle of appearing in two places at once. I have not mastered that yet.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my chairing of the RMT parliamentary group. One of the key issues my hon. Friend has campaigned on—we campaigned on it together—is ensuring adequate staffing levels, not just in ticket offices, where we succeeded, but on the platform and on the trains themselves, for safety and security reasons. Does she agree that, under GBR, we need a very strong plan for the workforce, so that we have adequate staffing at all levels in all facilities?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is absolutely spot on. We can have all the infrastructure in the world, but if we do not have the workforce to manage it then it will not work. We have to value the workforce, because I rely on that workforce when I travel and I know that many others do, too. We successfully kept our ticket offices open, which is a good thing.

I am really proud of the changes we have made in my constituency, but that brings me back to this point. Why is it that, in 2026, disabled people are still fighting for an inclusive and accessible transport network? That cannot be right. Many people cannot engage in travel. The Select Committee’s brilliant report a year ago highlighted that 67% of disabled people experience problems when they are travelling—that is just staggering—from not enough priority seating to the poor quality of pavements for active travel, a lack of step-free access and so on. Talking of step-free access, in my constituency—I am sorry to keep referring back to it—we have Battersea Power Station tube station, which is an underground station but is step-free. That is so important, because we should be able to use all modes of transport; we should not be restricted to taxis, private hire or just buses.

Inaccessible travel can be the factor that locks disabled people out of so many things: going to work or study, attending health appointments, or just participating in life. Those are the effects that an inaccessible infrastructure and travel network have on disabled people. We must do better to move things forward. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not want to hear “We are going to work towards” or “We are going to look into”. I genuinely believe that we need to see proper action on creating an inclusive and accessible transport network. Frankly, as I said earlier, it is a crying shame that in 2026 disabled people still cannot travel independently. We need a strategy, and we are going to have one.

[John McDonnell]

One minute.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Thank you. This place is not accessible either, because I need someone to tell me when my time is running out, but we will work on that, too.

We need solid infrastructure, backed up by the right investment, and the workforce to deliver it. We need to tighten up enforcement, because without enforcement, the onus is on disabled people, which it should not be. There must be enforcement. We should focus on the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, and having an inclusive transport network is a key pillar of that. As disabled people say, there should be nothing about us without us.

Railways Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

As a long-time supporter of our railways and rail workers, I am proud to speak on a key Labour Government manifesto commitment. The Bill is about putting passengers, workers and the national interest back at the heart of our railways. For too long, a fragmented model has left the public with a patchwork quilt of competing interests, with tracks separated from trains, timetables misaligned and confusing incentives. Great British Railways offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stitch the network back together, with a single, publicly owned guiding mind with a 30-year horizon, stability in planning and clarity in purpose.

In 2023 I organised the country’s biggest campaign of its type to save the ticket office at Stourbridge Junction, alongside local rail users and Stourbridge’s favourite feline: George, the station cat. I heard at first hand how much our communities value an accessible, staffed railway. Passengers are not abstractions; they are neighbours, carers, shift workers and pensioners. They expect and deserve service, safety and support.

The Bill’s promise will be realised only by the people who deliver it: our railway workers. Our drivers, guards, signallers, engineers, station teams and cleaners are not a cost to be cut; they are an asset to be invested in.

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

I declare an interest as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group. There is currently no reference at all in the Bill to staffing. Who will be the staff’s employer? What will happen with their pensions? Will TUPE apply on transfer? Will their existing benefits apply? Will there be a mandate on the levels of staffing on stations and elsewhere? That is an agenda for constructive engagement with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister commits to that when he responds to the debate?

Seafarers’ Welfare

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing the debate, which she introduced eloquently. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the convenor of the RMT parliamentary group.

I want to start by referring to the loss of life in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. A few weeks ago, we lost a crew member. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary has civilian crew; they are not Royal Navy, but they work alongside it. During a debate a few weeks ago, we were passed a note saying that one of our RMT members had lost his life overboard. I can now say that his name was James Elliott. On behalf of us all, I want to repeat our condolences to his family. I also pay tribute to the RFA for the essential role it plays alongside our Royal Navy and the work it does in protecting our shores. These are civilian crew. There was some confusion on the day, because the BBC reported that it was a member of the Royal Navy. It is important that we improve communication, because that caused some distress among a number of families who were trying to find out what had happened.

I met some RFA-RMT representatives today, who asked me to raise the fact that in the defence review there is a reference to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary that is causing some confusion about the role it will play and what investment there will be. I ask the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence the message that the RMT would welcome a meeting with the Secretary of State or a Minister as soon as possible to discuss the defence review.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, one of the issues is that seafarers’ welfare is directly related to the conditions of their employment, which are governed by the International Labour Organisation’s maritime labour convention. That is the primary legislation that sets out legal standards for seafarers. In this country, the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the competent authority for ensuring that every UK vessel, or vessel entering our ports, complies with that legislation. There are specific legal responsibilities under the convention on welfare standards.

As my hon. Friend said, we have 160,000 seafarers—unfortunately, fewer and fewer are British, but that is the overall number. They work on UK and internationally flagged ships in UK ports. At the moment, there are 120 Maritime and Coastguard Agency staff who undertake surveys and inspections. Last year, they undertook about 2,800 inspections and 3,000 surveys on UK-flagged ships, and 1,500 port state control inspections on international ships. There are 100,000 vessels calling into UK ports every year, and there is a real concern that, with so few staff, the ratio of inspections for the ships is insubstantial. For some time now, there have been calls for an increase in resources for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

My hon. Friend raised our concern that, for the last 40 years at least, there has been a tendency for shipowners to flag elsewhere, rather than the UK, with the aim of reducing labour costs. They do that, as my hon. Friend said, by putting pressure on the workforce. The number of ships registered elsewhere is startling. The practice of registering under a flag of convenience has begun to dominate the industry. Ships are registered in places such as Panama, the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Cyprus, the Bahamas and Malta, and that undermines the ability to maintain standards of basic welfare for seafarers. Huge numbers of ships are registered in the Philippines, Indonesia, China, India, Ukraine and Russia. Some of those countries undertake no inspection of their vessels whatsoever. They fail to manage welfare standards, which has resulted in a reduction in those standards and even, as my hon. Friend said, in tragedies, because of the pressure the workforce are under.

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact the Government are seeking to address a range of these issues. The mandatory seafarers’ charter that has been introduced in the Employment Rights Bill is a huge step forward for us, and I congratulate the Government on it. The charter arose, as my hon. Friend said, partly out of the P&O scandal, whereby P&O just sacked its entire workforce. That was a scandal recognised across the House, and it should not have happened. P&O sacked its entire workforce, introduced agency staff on lower wages with no holiday or sick pay, and paid the minimum amount that it could possibly get away with. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, that means that those agency staff are working under intense pressure, which inevitably has consequences for safety.

Safety is one of our main worries, which is why the mandatory seafarers’ charter is so important. It was introduced to protect seafarers in the short-sea ferries sector, regardless of their nationality or the flag of the vessel they work on. It will cover standards of pay, roster patterns and other employment conditions through collectively bargained standards in the industry. It will also set out maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, which is absolutely critical. There will be robust requirements to manage seafarer fatigue, which is an issue that my hon. Friend raised so forcefully. It will reinforce training requirements for operators, such as familiarisation with the vessel, to support safety and skills, so that the seafarers have the time to understand and appreciate what is needed on a particular vessel. There will also be strong standards of sick pay, holiday pay and pension rights, which is vital.

This charter is a major breakthrough, and the unions really welcomed it. Progress is being made and at the RMT union executive meeting this morning we discussed that. The RMT welcomes the detailed consultation that will take place in the coming months and the roll-out of the charter itself.

However, I will now raise the issue of discrimination within the sector. I have been involved in this campaign for nearly 30 years, but the issue has gone on for 50 years. It remains legal to practise nationality-based pay discrimination against non-EU nationals working as seafarers on UK-flagged ships. That is a discriminatory practice. It originates in part 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which explicitly permits racial discrimination against seafarers recruited overseas to work on UK-flagged ships for lower pay and longer periods than UK nationals.

Way back in 2009, I was involved in the fight against this discrimination. Gordon Brown’s Labour Government initiated the Carter review to make recommendations on ending discriminatory seafarer pay differentials. Susan Carter, who led the review, recommended in 2010 that nationality-based seafarer pay differentials should be prohibited on all UK ships. The proposal was supported by the union, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government who came into office in 2010.

The estimate emerging from surveys by the union is that tens of thousands of seafarers working today in the UK shipping industry are paid less than UK seafarers, simply because of their nationality and the flag of the ship that they work on. This situation impedes progress to improve seafarer welfare overall, both at the national level and the international level. The UK Government introduced secondary regulations in 2011 to do the bare minimum to avoid legal action by the European Commission over the continued practice of nationality-based pay discrimination among seafarers. I attended the Committee that agreed those regulations. They have been subject to two reviews that have never been concluded, which contravenes the post-implementation review regulations for a review to be carried out every five years.

Another consultation was held just before the 2024 general election, and the current Government are now seeking to reconsult. With one action—one effective piece of regulation—we as a Government could end nationality-based pay discrimination on UK-flagged ships. It would raise welfare standards in shipping and reinforce our country’s reputation as the gold standard in seafarer welfare and maritime safety provision. I urge the Government to act on this swiftly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned support for charitable organisations and others in supporting seafarer welfare and the potential of a levy. Levies operate very successfully in many other countries. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Merchant Navy Welfare Board have recommitted themselves to joint working on seafarer welfare and met last month to do that, which we welcome. However, without the resources, effective action will be very limited.

We have looked at what has happened elsewhere. Levy systems, including mandatory payments, are used by other maritime nations. They fund seafarer port facilities. We have heard some fantastic examples of those today. In New Zealand, the then Labour Government introduced a mandatory levy to fund shore-side facilities in 2022, which influenced the thinking in Australia as well. In Europe, France has operated a mandatory seafarer welfare levy system since 2016, and there are levy systems in Germany, Spain and Romania. It is critical that we introduce such a system.

One example of the issues that we are increasingly dealing with at the moment is the abandonment of seafarers. They are recruited in one country, reach our country and then abandoned by the ship owners. That is happening more frequently across the globe. Yes, we can legislate for protections as best we can, but we need the wherewithal—the resources going into the charities and agencies that can help those seafarers, who are lost in a foreign country and bereft of support. Overall, a real programme of reform is needed.

Raising the issue of mental health has been one of the strong concerns within the seafaring unions. There has been report after report across the movement about mental health issues and the stress placed upon people, and the increased number of suicides taking place as a result, and it does relate to the person’s employment. If we get the seafarers’ charter operating effectively, it could transform people’s lives and take that pressure off them, as well as save people from harm and save people’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate, and for setting out why this issue matters.

Three years ago, the country watched in disbelief as P&O Ferries carried out one of the most disgraceful attacks on workers’ rights in recent memory: 800 loyal seafarers, men and women who had given years of dedicated service, were summarily dismissed over video call—no consultation, no notice and no dignity. It was a scandal that shocked the maritime sector. It shocked people across the country and it shocked people in Sussex communities, given that at Newhaven we have our much-treasured ferry service to Dieppe—thankfully not operated by P&O.

From the moment that outrage unfolded, the Liberal Democrats were clear and principled. We demanded urgent answers from the Conservatives’ then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps; we demanded justice for the workers and families whose lives had been thrown into turmoil; and we demanded a fundamental change to ensure that nothing like that could ever be allowed to happen again. Hard-working seafarers and their families should never suffer because of corporate neglect or corporate greed.

In the months that followed, we pressed the Government to tighten the rules around how ships that are registered to operate in the UK treat their workers. We supported the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 as a necessary first step. It requires ships that make frequent calls at UK ports to pay at least the UK national minimum wage for time spent in our waters, but we also made it clear that the Act did not go far enough.

We have championed the calls of maritime unions and the UK Chamber of Shipping for stronger safeguards: measures to stop companies engaging in port-hopping to dodge basic obligations; collectively agreed standards on roster patterns, pensions, crewing levels and training; and tougher enforcement so that operators cannot simply ignore the law with impunity. After all, laws mean very little if bad employers know that they can bend or dodge them entirely, and we now know exactly how determined some operators have been to do just that.

In 2024, it was revealed that P&O’s replacement agency workers were being paid just £4.87 an hour—a shocking, exploitative wage that made a mockery of the protections that Parliament had tried to strengthen. Later, when the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), rightly described P&O Ferries as a “rogue operator”, the Prime Minister dismissed her concerns to protect a £1 billion investment by P&O Ferries’ Dubai-based parent company. Once again, workers’ rights were treated as secondary.

Of course, public outrage did have consequences. In August 2025, Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive officer, who admitted to breaking consultation law, finally resigned. But accountability for one individual is not enough; we need systemic change. No worker, whether on land or at sea, should be discarded at the convenience of their employer.

That brings me to the Employment Rights Bill, and in particular the provisions on fire and rehire. The Liberal Democrats welcome the parts of the Bill that strengthen protections for workers and curb the disgraceful practice of firing staff, only to rehire them on worse terms. Under the Bill’s provisions, dismissals will be deemed automatically unfair unless an employer can provide clear evidence of financial difficulty and show that changes were truly unavoidable.

The Bill represents progress and it moves us in the right direction, but large parts of it are unfinished and critical details have been left to secondary legislation or promised consultations, including a long-awaited seafarers’ charter. That does not give workers or responsible employers the stability and certainty that they deserve. People whose livelihoods depend on those reforms should not have to cross their fingers and hope that the details are sorted out later.

Unions are rightly concerned about carve-outs that may allow companies on the verge of collapse to bypass protections. We accept that businesses face genuine existential threats, and sometimes they need flexibility, but we must ensure that exceptions are not exploited by those who simply want to trim costs at the expense of their staff. Workers must not be treated as disposable.

As the Bill gives Ministers new powers to implement international maritime conventions and a seafarers’ charter through secondary legislation, we must insist on ambitious and enforceable standards, including on maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, as well as measures to manage fatigue, strong training requirements and protections that cover every seafarer who works in our waters. We need not just vague promises but real rules with real enforcement and consequences for those who break them.

[John McDonnell]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement on this matter and the list of issues. Those issues will be subject to consultation, which will be part of the negotiation. I want to reassure her that the RMT strategy is usually not just crossing its fingers.

[Alison Bennett]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.

An issue too often overlooked while talking about seafarers is their mental health, as the right hon. Gentleman drew to our attention in his contribution. We know that life at sea can be tough, isolating, demanding and physically and psychologically draining: long stretches away from family, stress, exhaustion and the unique pressure of maritime work all take a heavy toll. Seafarers rely on the NHS for mental health support, just like anyone else, but our NHS is in crisis after years of Conservative neglect. Mental health waiting lists have spiralled, and thousands of people are waiting months, and sometimes years, for the care they urgently need. That includes the people who keep our essential maritime supply chain moving.

Liberal Democrats believe that mental health must be treated with the same seriousness and urgency as physical health. That is why we are campaigning for regular mental health check-ups at key life points, just like blood pressure or eyesight checks. We are also calling for prescriptions for people with chronic mental health conditions to be free on the NHS, because we believe that no one should have to choose between treatment and financial strain. We will also create a statutory, independent mental health commissioner to advocate for patients and their families and carers. Those reforms matter for everyone, but are especially vital for communities such as seafarers, who often face some of the toughest working conditions.

The P&O Ferries scandal was a turning point. It exposed deep flaws in our system—in employment law, in enforcement, and in the way that successive Governments have allowed bad employers to exploit loopholes at the expense of ordinary workers. It also presented us with a choice: to accept this broken system or to build something better. The Liberal Democrats would choose to build something better. We choose fair pay, safe working conditions and dignity at work. We choose an NHS that supports people’s mental health properly, not one that is forced to ration treatment. We choose an economy where responsibility, fairness and respect guide the way businesses operate. Britain can be better than P&O Ferries’ behaviour—and Britain must be better. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government aim to chart a course towards that destination.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As an island nation, Britain has always been reliant on our sailors, as other Members have said. For centuries, we have depended on them to protect our nation, to transport goods around the world and to deliver the products of our national endeavours across the seas to other countries.

The continued significance of maritime trade to our economy cannot be overstated. Of all international freight traded with the United Kingdom, around 85% by weight and 55% by value is moved by sea. Our seafarers also play a vital role in connecting communities across the United Kingdom, whether that is in our Scottish islands or the Isle of Wight, where my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) has introduced proposals around fares on ferries, demonstrating that those services remain essential to our national fabric.

Even for those of us representing constituencies that could not be further away from the sea—Mid Buckinghamshire proudly holds the title of the second-most landlocked constituency in the country—the importance of the maritime sector to the UK’s past, present and future prosperity is abundantly clear. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is right that we recognise the work of the estimated 23,700 UK seafarers active at sea, according to data from 2024, whose skill and dedication power this indispensable industry.

Understandably, the debate has referenced the actions of P&O Ferries in 2022. For all who observed that situation, the conclusion was unmistakeable: P&O’s decision was wrong. That is why the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, during my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, we heard very detailed evidence—often difficult to listen to—about the scandalous and wholly inappropriate behaviour of P&O. As the Minister will know from his briefings, the last Government acted swiftly in response. It is worth briefly reflecting on those steps, as they represented meaningful progress in protecting seafarers’ rights and, therefore, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, their welfare.

First, the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 ensures that those working on ships that provide a regular international service from the United Kingdom are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while operating in UK waters. This reduces the incentive for operators to employ overseas labour on worse terms and conditions—although I heard the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the discrimination that he highlighted, which is still a wrong to be righted.

[John McDonnell]

I was elated at first to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with these matters, until I discovered that the Government had redefined the nature of British waters. Restricting the measure to UK waters was even less effective.

[Greg Smith]

The point of my comments on the actions of the previous Government is not to say that they were wholly conclusive and the end of the matter. But I believe the steps that were taken by the previous Government did demonstrate a step forward, as I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the debate—perhaps not the entire length of step that he would have preferred.

[John McDonnell]

It was like pulling teeth.

[Greg Smith]

I heard the reference that the right hon. Gentleman just made.

Secondly, the last Government introduced a statutory code of practice on fire and rehire that was intended to ensure that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. Importantly, it included powers for employment tribunals to increase compensation by 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply. Thirdly, the start of the seafarers’ charter was launched, with operators including Brittany Ferries, Condor Ferries, DFDS, Stena Line and, at the time, even P&O was committing to work towards meeting the requirements of that charter. The charter placed seafarers at its heart, from ensuring they are paid equivalent to the national minimum wage throughout their engagement, to establishing two weeks on, two weeks off tour of duty baselines on high-intensity routes, and providing appropriate training and development opportunities.

Crucially, the charter also committed to providing social security benefits, such as sickness benefits, family benefits and medical care, and adopting roster patterns that properly account for fatigue, mental health and safety. That demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that seafarers’ welfare is not an afterthought but a priority. The framework further made it clear that, where provisions differed from those mandated in the maritime labour convention 2006 or any other standard, the higher standard would apply. I acknowledge that progress. Many Members rightly believe that more remains to be done. It is therefore appropriate to turn to the measures set out in the Employment Rights Bill that returns to the House of Commons next Monday.

Some hon. Members will know that I had the good fortune to sit through the 21 Committee sittings on that Bill as a shadow Business and Trade Minister, speaking for the Opposition on its many and varied proposals. During that process, we saw the ever-expanding scope of Government intervention illustrated vividly, with the Bill growing from an initial 149 pages when first introduced to 320 pages the last time it left the House of Lords.

Some Members may ask why that matters. As I said on Report, although the Bill contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have struggled to get the balance right between the rights of employees and the needs of the employers who create the jobs in the first place. When it came to provisions relating specifically to seafarers, such as changing collective redundancy notification requirements for ship crews, the Opposition did not oppose them. Indeed, I explicitly recognised their relevance in preventing the sort of unacceptable conduct we have seen in the past. However, we also flagged concerns. For example, the Bill grants the Secretary of State broad powers to detain a ship without clearly defining how long the detention could last. That is a perfect illustration of the need for balance. We must uphold the highest standards of seafarer protection while avoiding measures that may deter responsible businesses from operating in the United Kingdom.

That links to a broader point recently emphasised by my party. One of the most important ways to protect workers’ rights is to ensure that people remain in work. We can and should tackle fire-and-rehire practices, but if we overburden the economy with excessive taxation and growth-suppressing regulation, the outcome will be the worst of all worlds—fewer jobs and weaker protections.

With UK unemployment having risen by 0.9 percentage points since the election and reached an estimated 5% by September 2025, we cannot ignore the reality that the welfare of workers, including seafarers, depends on the Government restoring economic stability. We owe it to seafarers to create an economy in which their livelihoods are secure and not vulnerable to the Chancellor’s mismanagement. Ultimately, I welcome all sensible and proportionate measures that prevent scandalous behaviour and advance the welfare of seafarers, because our maritime workers deserve nothing less.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He referred to New Economics Foundation research. I should be clear with him that the Government are absolutely committed to reaching net zero for the whole economy by 2050, and that we will meet our climate change obligations as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We have also been clear repeatedly that any airport expansion proposals will need to demonstrate that they will contribute to economic growth and can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitment. We will engage with the CCC in the ANPS review.

Heathrow is only one part of the process; the expansion of Heathrow, Luton, Gatwick and Bristol airports was factored into carbon budget 7, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government will publish our updated delivery plan for carbon budgets 4 to 6 in the coming weeks. We should not see economic growth and our climate change commitments as being inconsistent with each another. I believe we can go further, faster, on cleaner fuels and technological developments, but people want to fly, and I do not think that this Government should get on the wrong side of public aspiration.

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

I first of all express my sympathy for the Secretary of State: she knows from past experience that this is like watching a car crash in action, and it has been thrust upon her by the Chancellor. She knows that Heathrow has made the clear commitment that it will not pay for the infrastructure; that landing charges will go up, and passengers will pay for it; and that there is no way that we can meet our climate change targets if the expansion goes ahead. That is why I express my sympathy; she has been given an impossible task.

I have a constituency interest, as the Secretary of State will know, because Heathrow is in my constituency. She mentioned that the stakeholder engagement process will be published shortly. Could she be a bit more precise on the timescale, and on what measures will be included in that? The House needs to know that in my constituency, 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable; 15,000 people will lose their homes; we will lose three schools; and whole communities will go. My constituents want to ask: where are they going to live? Where will their children be educated, and what will their happen to their community? We just need some certainty now—and from my point of view, it is certain that this is a white elephant. It is almost like watching High Speed 2 all over again.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am sure it will not come as a surprise to my right hon. Friend to hear that I reject his characterisation of the work I am doing. I see the expansion as an opportunity to improve our connectivity as a nation, to improve UK competitiveness and to ensure that we deliver for businesses and passengers all across the UK. I understand why he raised the interests of his constituents who live closest to the proposed expansion. He asked me for more detail about the consultation timeline. If we make changes to the ANPS through the review, a consultation will take place on that next year, and we are working on a timeline that would see a new ANPS designated by the end of next year. I give him a commitment to meaningful engagement and consultation. In the document that I referred to in my statement, we will set out a new stakeholder engagement approach, so that people will be treated with fairness. We will act transparently throughout the process.

Disruption at Heathrow

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The question of Heathrow expansion and this very rare—unprecedented—event are two entirely separate issues. He will be aware that the Government have invited Heathrow to bring forward proposals for a third runway, and we will review the airports national policy statement after that.

With regard to back-up capacity at airports, I am told that the back-up power systems at Heathrow operated as they should have done during this incident—they did not fail. I do not want to come to knee-jerk conclusions as a result of this unprecedented incident, but we will be looking very closely at the two reviews I mentioned in my statement. I have also worked with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that passengers who have been affected by this disruption are aware of their rights.

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

Heathrow is in my constituency, as is the substation that caught fire, so I join other Members in thanking the firefighters who worked so hard to get this incident under control so quickly and at some risk. I also thank the police and the council officers who helped to evacuate 150 of my constituents from their homes. I was there on the day and met some of the residents, and I will be writing to them all so that we can pick up lessons from what they experienced on that day and build those lessons in.

Now that this site has gained such a high profile, there are concerns about its security for the future. I would welcome some more detailed information coming out of the inquiry about how we will secure the site for the future, not just from accident but from potential attack.

[Heidi Alexander]

My right hon. Friend raises a fair point. I will ensure that we provide that information to him once we have reviewed the different reports that are going to be published over the next couple of months.

Airport Expansion

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

Well, the brass neck! The last Government crashed the economy, sending mortgages through the roof, and called an early election to avoid having to make difficult decisions. Transport policy should be enabling growth as a priority in this country, so that we can bring about the change that the British people voted for. For 14 years we had a Government who had become so sclerotic in aviation, and indeed maritime—that is also part of my brief—that no decisions were brought forward on decarbonising the maritime or aviation sectors, or making the difficult decisions that this country needs to make. As the hon. Member rightly says, there is currently no development consent order before us, and that is for Heathrow or a related party to bring forward.

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

For me and for you, Mr Speaker, there is more than an element of déjà-vu in this debate. The Minister has said that what we have heard is speculative, but the Chancellor’s statements seem to be more authoritative than that. Has the Department provided the Chancellor with an assessment of where the 8,000 to 10,000 people in my constituency who will have their homes demolished or rendered unliveable will live if Heathrow expansion goes ahead? Has the Minister mapped for the Chancellor the flightpaths of the additional quarter of a million planes flying over the homes of people in those marginal seats of Uxbridge, Watford, Harrow and elsewhere? Has he advised the Chancellor on some of the figures that are being bandied about regarding the economic benefits, which seem to derive from Airports Commission figures that are out of date and that his own Department rubbished very thoroughly in recent years?

[Mike Kane]

My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, but there is no DCO at the moment and we do not know the impact—that will be a matter for Heathrow or a third party to bring forward. I would like to hear a more full-throated support for our airspace modernisation plan, which will improve resilience, capacity and flexibility when it comes to aircraft noise over affected communities. When it comes to growth, my constituency, as you well know, Mr Speaker, has seen £2 billion of the Manchester MIX scheme at Manchester airport, with the development of the Hut Group and the most advanced Amazon fulfilment centre on the planet. We know that aviation brings growth and jobs. We know that there is a trade-off to be had, and we will have those conversations if a development consent order is brought before us.