Andy McDonald
MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East · Labour · United Kingdom
“Colleagues will wish to know whether British arms exports currently available for the IDF in the west bank will no longer be licensed. I welcome the proposed sanctions on goods and services linked to illegal settlements I very much welcome that in the context of the previous ridiculous position of properties being marketed in this city fo…”
“That serious risk itself triggers a duty to prevent genocide. The UK must therefore recognise that risk and act now: ending political, financial and military support that contributes to it; sanctioning those most implicated; committing to execute International Criminal Court arrest warrants; and supporting South Africa’s case at the ICJ.”
“It is also welcome that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged the increasing evidence identified by bodies, including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we support the appropriate legal processes to establish responsibility for those crimes.”
“I will confine my remarks to the subject of Israel and Palestine, and I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on Britain-Palestine.”
“The Minister is setting out the criteria around the crime of genocide, but would she accept that the duty actually bites when the risk of genocide is known, not at the determination of legal processes? That is when the United Kingdom has a duty to act. I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.”
“My father served in Gaza from 1945 to 1947, and the position was the same then: this country had failed to discharge its responsibilities to the people of Palestine. But I commend the Foreign Secretary for his statement and the courage and clarity of both him and the Prime Minister in making it.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Andy McDonald, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government will table amendments to that Bill, or can otherwise provide guarantees that the measures in the Bill cover the families who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland. The common characteristics of these appalling human tragedies are the most unimaginable trauma, pain and grief, and the demands are the same. They are for truth, justice and accountability, and today provides the means to deliver on those demands. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from Liverpool, West Derby: if anything tells us why we come to this place to change the country for the better, surely it is what we are doing today, and I very much welcome this landmark legislation.”
“Those measures would assure us that the new Government amendments will function effectively and, among other things, allow us to hold to account police officers and members of the armed forces and the security services, as we are led to believe. I sense that many Members across this House would like to hear more from our Front Benchers about commitments made to ensuring oversight and monitoring. Perhaps the Minister can address that when she responds to the debate. The expectation of honesty and transparency is not, and never can be, a threat to national security. Will the Minister set out how the application of the duty of candour and the prevention of carve-outs will be applied to the work of the Northern Ireland Legacy Commission, which is being established by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?”
“I hope that the Health Secretary can progress that urgently this summer. We are being asked to support dozens of Government amendments today that were tabled with little notice, and without our having been able to scrutinise them in detail, but I am led by the families to support those amendments. I recognise the calls for oversight and monitoring mechanisms, such as those set out in new clause 5, tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and in new clause 1, by my old friend and doughty campaigner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle).”
“Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and many others who have to be recognised for not letting the matter rest, and for their tireless determination to get us to where we are today. We must not forget the Manchester Arena victims, the Grenfell families, the Chinook families, the contaminated blood families, the British nuclear test veterans, and all those who have been part of this campaign. The duty of candour on the NHS did not deliver for the families of my constituents Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, and many others who died in the scandal at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. I have welcomed confirmation of a public inquiry, and the information that applications have been received to chair it, but families need that inquiry to be up and running.”
“It is a true privilege to have been present for this debate, and to have heard some of the most incredible contributions that I have ever heard in this place. I will be mercifully brief. I recognise that it is to the Prime Minister’s considerable credit that he has fulfilled his manifesto commitment and got the Bill to this point within a year of his remarks at the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year. I also put on record my recognition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) for his persistent work on this subject for many years. Principally, however, it is the families of Hillsborough victims, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Pete Weatherby KC, my hon.”
“I welcome the Minister’s interim report and the commitment to co-production with deaf and disabled people’s organisations. The report rightly recognises that while PIP is a highly valued benefit, too many people experience claiming it as stressful, dehumanising and simply not fit for purpose. Frontline organisations such as the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK have welcomed that honest diagnosis, but they warn that disabled people remain anxious about where the review is heading. Does the Minister agree that the real test of success will be the final recommendations being recognised as genuinely co-produced and commanding the confidence of those who rely on PIP? The Minister has mentioned that a good system will bring about savings, but can he assure the House that this will be driven by improving support, not by achieving savings?”
“They cannot occupy two positions at once; they cannot say that settlements are illegal while allowing British commerce to help sustain them. They cannot condemn them in speeches and maintain those positions. Today’s motion cannot change the law, but it can tell the Government that Parliament expects the law to reflect its own state’s position. This country has a history of having betrayed the Palestinian people since 1915, with the betrayal of the Sharif of Mecca in 1917, the 1936 put down of the uprising, and the facilitation of the Nakba. It is about time we discharged our legal and moral responsibilities to the Palestinian people.”
“If such activity is taking place through Britain’s financial system, Britain’s regulators should be asking whether it is facilitating activity connected to settlements that this Government accept are unlawful. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and I, as co-chairs of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, have written to Britain’s anti-money laundering supervisory bodies—but they bounce the matter straight back to the Government. Ministers point to travel bans, sanctions on two Israeli Ministers and updated guidance. Those are all welcome, but they do not answer the wider question of whether Britain is using every available tool to uphold international law. The Government say they lack the powers—we have heard today that they do not.”
“162.] I had a look at that guidance this morning. It goes no further than advising against economic and financial activity in the settlements. It does not say that trading with settlements is unlawful, and it does not say that such trade, financial services or investment are prohibited. That contradiction was exposed during the Great Israeli Real Estate Event in London, where property in illegal settlements was marketed to British buyers. The Government referred the organisers to the Advertising Standards Authority. With respect, this is not principally an advertising issue; it is a question of whether commercial activity linked to illegal settlements should be taking place at all.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on leading this debate today. The Government rightly say that Israel’s settlements in the OPT are illegal under international law. If that is the Government’s position, I welcome that recognition, but there is an obvious question: why does Britain still permit trade and financial activity that helps sustain those illegal settlements? In a matter of days, it will be two years since the ICJ advisory opinion was given, which people have commented on. Two years on, the Government are yet to explain how they intend to give effect to those obligations in UK law and policy. In a statement on 9 June, the Foreign Secretary said: “I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous”. —[ Official Report , 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c.”
“If that is a problem and we want to implement the ban, the issue of distinguishing the goods is Israel’s problem; it should not be ours. We should not be held over a barrel by being told that distinguishing goods is a problem for us. It is Israel’s problem to distinguish which goods to prevent, and we should ban those goods in totality.”
“The Government have said that they advise British businesses against involvement in illegal settlements, and this week they warned companies not to bid for the E1 contracts. Given that settlement expansion continues unbated, with properties recently promoted in London, over and above sending in the Advertising Standards Authority, will the Government confirm that they are working with UK regulatory bodies and will ensure that existing sanctions and anti-money laundering and proceeds of crime powers are used to prevent and to punish UK financial and commercial support for and involvement in illegal settlements? We have the criminal powers, so if the Minister wants to take action, will he explain why they are not being used?”
“I note the definition on activities being “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we are getting into some tortuous territory? It could be properly argued that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to seek to uphold basic human rights and have international humanitarian law observed consistently. That is in our collective and global interests, but we could find ourselves in situations where actors who we currently class as our allies, such as in the example he has given, use organisations to undermine that very principle. Is that not an example of how we need to think this legislation through?”
“On what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country, why does the hon. Gentleman think it was rational that other state-owned railways were franchised to run the railway system in this country to the exclusion of this country’s operators? That was absolute nonsense. Trenitalia, Deutsche Bahn, Keolis and Nederlandse Spoorwegen were all taking that subsidy and putting it back into their home market. How on earth was that in the interests of the United Kingdom?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“What has been said is not accurate. Our White Paper for GB Rail was published ahead of the Williams-Shapps review. The chronology is either right or wrong, and I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is wrong.”
“What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having to ensure that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority are giving guidance to their members? Importantly, what conversations is she having with the National Crime Agency, because until such time as those companies are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes, I am afraid this is not going to bite?”
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I want to thank the Minister for the middle east for agreeing with me last week when I referred to the forced displacement of people by Israel as a war crime, and I am grateful for that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her sterling work in raising the issue of charities, which was reflected in the statement. I want to press the Foreign Secretary when she says that “businesses should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements.” There must be consequences for that. Those activities are criminal, and we have the architecture in this country with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
“With the growing Israeli attacks in the west bank in addition to that, when will the Government act on this consistent pattern of war crimes purposefully pursued by the Israeli Government, take action to pressure the Israeli state to stop its military action, end arms sales, stop F-35 supplies, impose sanctions, and utilise the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002? There are tools at the Minister’s disposal. When will he use them fully?”
“I share the Minister’s condemnation of the murderous attacks on Kuwait airport this morning. I am sure he will share with me the condemnation of the murder of two more health workers in Lebanon this morning, at the hands of the IDF. The Minister referred to the Israelis ordering the war crime of the forcible displacement of around 1 million Lebanese south of the Zahrani and Litani rivers, with 3,500 killed and tens of thousands injured by their actions. This reflects the early stages of the Gaza war, when they told Gazans to move south of the Wadi Gaza river. Since then, the estimates are that 70,000 have been killed and 170,000 injured. Indeed, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz explicitly said that the destruction of villages in southern Lebanon would proceed in accordance with the model of Beit Hanoun and Rafah in Gaza.”
“This country led the world in spinal cord injury provision under the leadership of Professor Ludwig Guttmann after the second world war, with the remarkable work that he achieved. We need to return to those days of being pioneering and world-class. As a lawyer who previously practised in this area, I am afraid that over the past several decades services have deteriorated and gone backwards. We must restore those services and bring trust to people who so desperately want reassurance that there is a national system for them to rely on that will address their needs. We are currently not in that place at all. The Bill is an opportunity to address that, and I trust the Minister will take that on board.”
“If NHS England accepts that national consistency has not yet been achieved, what evidence shows that localised commissioning will improve it? How will national standards, benchmarking and quality oversight remain coherent under a fragmented arrangement? Do the Government accept that spinal cord injury differs fundamentally from standard population health commissioning because of its low volume, high complexity and cross-boundary nature? What safeguards will prevent widening regional inequity, if accountability is dispersed across multiple ICBs? The APPG’s inquiry concluded that spinal cord injury services require stronger national co-ordination and oversight, not greater fragmentation, and I hope the Government will reflect carefully on that evidence.”
“Patients and families should not be left to navigate a fragmented system alone. That is why I welcome the ambition behind the single patient record and Diagnosis Connect. Connecting newly diagnosed patients directly to specialist support reflects one of the APPG’s recommendations. Organisations such as the Spinal Injuries Association help people rebuild their lives after life-changing injury. I hope that Ministers will consider including spinal cord injury within the early phases of Diagnosis Connect. The question is not whether structures change on paper; it is whether people living with spinal cord injury will experience safer, more equitable, more co-ordinated care. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer some straightforward questions.”
“Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and NHS England officials, but we remain deeply concerned about proposals to transfer spinal cord injury commissioning from national oversight to integrated care boards. Indeed, NHS England’s own evidence to the inquiry emphasised national standards, national quality metrics and nationally co-ordinated pathways, quality measures and oversight. If national consistency has not yet been achieved under national commissioning, what evidence demonstrates that transferring responsibility to multiple ICBs will improve outcomes or equity? What is at stake is not abstract. When somebody sustains a spinal cord injury, their life changes overnight. They may require specialist rehabilitation, housing support, benefits advice, mental health support and long-term clinical care.”
“Spinal cord injury is a low-volume but highly complex condition requiring specialist pathways, lifelong rehabilitation and co-ordinated support, yet the inquiry heard repeated evidence of fragmented services, postcode variation, delayed rehabilitation and patients being lost within the system. The APPG therefore called for a national strategy and a modern service framework for spinal cord injury care. As we intend to hold a lived experience roundtable shortly, I invite the Health Secretary to come and meet people with spinal cord injury to hear their concerns about the proposed changes to commissioning. We welcome the excellent constructive engagement from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon.”
“If that could be given attention, we would be most grateful. I remain concerned about the continuing impact of historic private finance initiative costs on NHS trust budgets, including the pressures facing South Tees hospitals NHS foundation trust in my patch. Too much money is still being diverted from frontline care. I regret that this issue remains unresolved. The principal reason I rise today is as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury. Last summer, the APPG’s inquiry into spinal cord injury services reached a clear conclusion: the evidence points to the need for more national co-ordination, not less.”
“May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his place and wishing him well in the responsibilities that he carries on behalf of patients, NHS staff and communities across the country? I welcome the Bill and its intention to improve patient care through investment, modernisation and better integration across the health service. It is right to acknowledge the progress made on waiting times and waiting lists since Labour returned to government, with the overall waiting list falling significantly and long waits continuing to come down, but may I add my voice to those of others about the appointment of a chair for the Tees, Esk and Wear Valley inquiry? My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) gave that commitment, which we were pleased to hear, but we have yet to see that chair appointed.”
“Given the cries from the retail sector this week, can she advise on what a voluntary pricing arrangement on core items in a basket of supermarket goods, as introduced in France in 2023, might do for living standards?”
“I, too, thank the Chancellor for her statement, and in particular the announcement of the £350 million chemicals resilience fund. As a consequence of the Iran war, energy price rises of 16% and food price rises of up to 7% are predicted by the Bank of England. I very much welcome the Chancellor’s addressing the cost of living crisis, and the steps to help families this summer, including with bus fares for children; that will be welcomed in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. We will no doubt monitor and evaluate the dividends of that travel offer. Will the Chancellor consider whether the long-term free travel initiatives elsewhere in Europe have translated positively into economic engagement and growth, and whether they could be replicated here?”
“Will he set out what steps he will take with Government colleagues to escalate pressure, through resourcing the enforcement of criminal law, including the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, updating the overseas business risk guidance, and ensuring regulatory bodies are advising their members in relation to the continued illegal trade in settlement goods and services?”
“This week we have seen two Israeli Ministers, already sanctioned by this Government, act with impunity—Ben-Gvir assaulting and mocking humanitarian aid activists, and Smotrich saying the Palestinian Authority will “get a war”. Smotrich then ordered the ethnic cleansing, an apartheid act, of the village of Khan al-Ahmar, as part of the illegal development of the E1 corridor. Khan al-Ahmar is a village that many colleagues and I visited, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, I ask the Minister, does he agree that our diplomacy and limited-sanctions approach is not working to arrest the ongoing genocide?”
“What does the shadow Minister make of tilting the balance in favour of communities in Redcar and across Teesside, when his Government sat on their hands and saw the blast furnace go to the wall? Is that his definition of sustainability—to let those businesses and communities collapse?”
“If public money is funding railways, schools, hospitals and so on, then wherever possible the steel for those projects should be made here, in Britain, by British workers.”
“The Bill signals something important: a Government once again willing to play an active role in shaping industry and growing the economy, and doing so pragmatically. It will create a framework for the state to step in when markets fail to protect industries of strategic national importance. It will allow intervention, including public ownership where necessary, when the loss of industrial capacity would damage the national interest. It is common sense: people understand that there are sectors in which the public interest must come before narrow private gain. We have already seen this Government adopt new models of public intervention elsewhere. We need a serious strategy for reindustrialisation and growth. That means backing British business through a strong public procurement strategy and delivering a long-term pipeline of orders.”
“Over the decades, however, those industries were systematically weakened. The deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s hollowed out communities across the north and across Britain. Then, in 2015, the Conservative Government allowed the Redcar steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for 3,000 workers, families and a further 6,000 in the wider Teesside economy. Whereas with ILVA’s Taranto plant the Italians intervened to save that, and the French did the same for Florange, the previous UK Government sat on their hands. The truth is that a different choice could have been made in Redcar, just as a different choice is being made now. The Government could have intervened back then to preserve strategy industrial capability.”
“I warmly welcome the Bill and the action that the Government are taking to protect Britain’s steel industry. I congratulate the Minister for Industry on his sterling work to bring this legislation before the House. Steel manufacturing is a strategic national asset; it underpins our infrastructure, transport system, energy, security, defence capability and industrial future. It is too important to be left entirely to the private sector. For many of us who represent industrial communities, this debate is deeply personal. On Teesside, iron and steel built towns, livelihoods and identities from the early 19th century onwards. Generations of skilled workers helped forge modern Britain with Teesside steel, and as Chris Rea said: “The ships and bridges they were all delivered From Sydney harbour to the Cisco bay”.”
“The Prime Minister has set out a detailed chronology. He has made it abundantly clear that he has not lied and he has not misled this House. In those circumstances, would it not be right to embrace this process and wipe the floor with the critics who have put those things to him? While we are at it, would my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Peter Mandelson had previously made it abundantly clear that his purpose every day was to take action to bring down the then duly elected leader of the Labour party made him wholly and utterly unsuitable for the office of ambassador?”
“Protecting individuals from poor-quality investigations is one thing; shielding anyone from accountability where evidence exists is quite another, and the Bill must not permit that outcome. When the Secretary of State speaks of safeguarding Operation Banner veterans, he must take care not to alienate the families who are still seeking justice in cases involving the actions of British forces. So I say again that opposing the carry-over motion would be irresponsible, and would undermine the pursuit of justice and reconciliation. However, confidence also depends on our getting the legislation right, and excessive delay or poorly judged amendments risk undermining that confidence too. We look forward to constructive engagement in the weeks and months ahead, because getting this wrong would be not just a legislative failure, but a moral one.”
“Victims, including those who served in our armed forces, deserve more than slogans; they deserve answers, truth, and processes that they can trust. We should listen carefully to Bernard Duhaime, the UN special rapporteur, who met the Secretary of State and briefed Members last week. He recognised that the September 2025 joint framework with the Irish Government provides a genuine multilateral foundation for a comprehensive legacy mechanism, but he also issued clear warnings: that the governance of any legacy commission must preclude interference by those whose conduct may be under investigation; that a reparations mechanism should be considered, to give victims an accessible route to remedy; and that claims of disproportionate targeting of veterans are simply not supported by the evidence.”
“The Bill must be carried over. We need to replace the unlawful 2023 Act, and we must get this right. This is a test of whether the House is serious about addressing legacy in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement commits us to reconciliation based on self-determination, consent and rights. That must work for victims, veterans and civilians alike, and command confidence because it is rooted in human rights and the rule of law. The previous Act was found to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly the duty to properly investigate serious crimes. That is why the Government were right to bring forward a remedial order and introduce legislation to replace it. There is no justification for sweeping immunity measures that risk undermining both justice and reconciliation.”
“I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for the work that she and the Energy Secretary have done in this regard. The focus on renewables and the decoupling of gas and electricity is most welcome, but may I point something out? One of the problems that we inherited from the Conservatives, who have the gall to complain about the high cost to businesses and households, is that we are heading towards curtailment fees in 2030 of around £6 billion per annum. Would the Chancellor be kind enough to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) to discuss some of the technological options available to us to mitigate those soaring costs?”
“We must bear in mind the problems that we build up for future generations if we do not provide our workers with security as they head into their middle and old age. If they have not been able to make provision, we are storing up an enormous problem for our successors. I will leave it there, but I trust that the Minister will address some of those points when she winds up.”
“Can the Minister say whether and how the Fair Work Agency will respond to the concerns raised by the director of labour market enforcement and ensure that consultation on single status is expedited? Ultimately, this is about the kind of labour market we build: one that is fair, clear and enforceable, rewarding good employers and guaranteeing every worker the dignity and security in the rights they deserve. When people go to work, they should be safe in the knowledge that they have a wage and terms and conditions that will protect them, enable them to put food on the table and let them build a future. At the moment, too many people are entering the job market without any thought about the solid future that we should be promising them.”
“That is why I reintroduced the Status of Workers Bill as an amendment on Report. We should also heed Margaret Beels, the director of labour market enforcement, who told the Business and Trade Committee that this issue must be addressed and that it is time to act, not simply to consult further. Delay carries consequences. As new rights apply primarily to employees, the incentive for employers to downgrade status will only grow. That is the tragedy: we may be inadvertently promoting a regression and pushing people towards bogus self-employment. Without reform, those rights risk being avoided in practice. Could the Minister say what work the Government are doing to assess the tax revenue benefits of introducing a single status of worker, as previously advocated by the TUC?”