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 2 of 12.
“A single status would restore fairness in both the labour market and the tax system. This reform is not new, and I pay tribute to Lord John Hendy KC, who introduced the Status of Workers Bill in the House of Lords in May 2021. It passed on Third Reading in January 2022 before I brought it to the House of Commons in early 2022. That work demonstrated both the strength of the argument and the breadth of support, yet, as a recent briefing makes clear, the current patchwork of employment statuses has created a legal battleground, with employers able to exploit complexity and avoid responsibility. That is why many of us believe that the Employment Rights Act 2025 should have centred on single status. Instead, we have a commitment to consult, but the case has already been repeatedly and convincingly made.”
“There are ways and means of accommodating seasonal work, and nobody would deny that, but we must also look at it from the perspective of small businesses, which work hard to employ people. Let us think through how they are undermined by those who seek to rely upon alternative ways of engaging people. They are undercutting their competitors in Newtownards, down the street, and elsewhere. That is not how it should be. We should be playing by the same rules. There is also a wider public interest. Artificial self-employment does not just erode rights; it undermines the Exchequer through lost national insurance, income tax and pensions contributions. The TUC’s research on this some years ago showed that it probably accounted for lost revenues in the order of £10 billion per annum.”
“I entirely support the Government’s direction of travel but, now that the Employment Rights Act has passed, the task is clear: we must implement it properly, deliver the remaining new deal commitments in full and ensure robust enforcement so that rights mean something in practice. I urge Ministers to go further and faster on one central commitment: a single status of worker. That was never peripheral. It was at the heart of the new deal. The principle is straightforward: if you work for someone else, you should enjoy the full range of employment rights. Without that clarity, bogus self-employment will continue to deny millions the basic protections of sick pay and holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. One person’s flexibility is another person’s insecurity.”
“It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for securing this debate and for his sterling work in ensuring the Employment Rights Bill became the Employment Rights Act. He was doughty in his prosecution of it. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I too received support from trade unions in the run-up to the general election. I have taken a long-standing interest in these issues, not least by leading, in opposition, on Labour’s new deal for working people. The Minister herself contributed to that in no small part, for which I am eternally grateful. It was a joy to work with her on it. We published it in September 2021, in consultation with affiliated and non-affiliated unions.”
“Friend the Member for Redcar can make all the correspondence—including letters demanding explanations on the regulated status of the home loan and the hidden credit line—available to the Minister and her team, in the hope that they may be of assistance to her in considering what remedial actions may be considered. Hopefully, the catalogue of gangster-like behaviours perpetrated by these banks can finally persuade the Minister and her colleagues to launch an independent, judge-led inquiry into an utter scandal that has bedevilled far too many businesses for far too long.”
“That was no accident: the non-disclosure of the hidden credit line risk was deliberately kept out of the review methodology so that the devastating downstream harm could be totally ignored. This is another textbook example of why there must now be a fully independent investigation, completely outside the control or oversight of the FCA, into all forms of hidden credit liabilities across every bank, and why a fair redress scheme must be established for every business and family ruined by this practice. No couple should have their family home put at risk or endure years of severe stress and ill health simply because a bank failed to disclose the true risks and costs of the products it sold them. I am sure that my right hon.”
“When HSBC later admitted that the product had been mis-sold, it offered only a limited swap-for-swap redress, providing an alternative cap product that still left the Lilleys substantially under-compensated. In fact, they received no consequential losses at all—just interest on what was classed as overpayments on the product. How can a product that destroyed a family’s business and lives for over a decade lead to no recognised loss? Across the entire IRHP review, the banks paid out £2.2 billion in total redress for around 20,000 acknowledged mis-sales. Yet only £46 million—just 2%—was paid for consequential losses, even though most victims ended up facing insolvency and personal bankruptcy.”
“Yet the FCA, working in agreement with the banks, deliberately designed the sales standards used in the interest rate hedging products review to exclude any consideration of that damage or harm when assessing consequential losses, as the BankConfidential report confirms. The stress was devastating. Both Stephen and Gloria have suffered heart attacks in recent years, which were directly linked to the financial worry caused by the mis-sale. Speaking in the House in December 2016, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described how the couple had endured sleepless nights and felt powerless as the bank held their retirement security in its hands.”
“The bank was required to give clear explanations of all risks, including all-moneys charges and contingent liabilities, but despite repeated requests from their adviser for full disclosure of the credit line and the size of the liability, which was needed for consequential loss calculations, HSBC refused to provide the information. Its response was particularly blunt: “With regard to the rest of the other queries raised…they are not pertinent to the review methodology nor the redress outcome.” As personal guarantors, Mr and Mrs Lilley had an absolute right to know the full extent of the bank liabilities and risks they were personally guaranteeing. Had the credit line risk and the undisclosed up-front commission been properly disclosed, the resulting losses and damage to the business would have been entirely foreseeable.”
“Mr and Mrs Lilley had paid off their mortgage and were looking forward to a peaceful retirement but, instead, HSBC persuaded them to raise £455,000 of commercial borrowing, secured first on their business premises. When there was not enough equity in the business premises to cover the undisclosed initial commission—internally classed as “added value”—and the hidden credit liabilities on the swap, the bank required their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s share portfolio to be used as additional collateral: a total of £960,000. The first charge on Stephen and Gloria’s home created a regulated mortgage contract under the FSA’s mortgage conduct of business rules.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing the debate, for his expert exposition and for the work he has done on this issue over many years. I will raise case of my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), as she is unable to do because of her Front-Bench position. The case concerns the retired couple Stephen and Gloria Lilley. Their family home, their son’s home and Stephen’s investment portfolio were all tied up as collateral for a commercial loan, without their knowledge or agreement, to provide security for the hidden credit liability on a swap the bank insisted they take out.”
“If the Government were confident of their amendment, they would put it to a vote, but in a move that in my view is disrespectful of this House, they have decided to wrap up such a hugely significant constitutional matter among their other, excellent, amendments, which this House will doubtless wish to prevail. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice as to how I may secure a binding, singular vote on Lords amendment 312, as this key constitutional measure, if not challenged, will inevitably erode and restrict the right to peaceful protest.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, I have tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 312 seeking to disagree with their lordships. This House will not be given the opportunity today to vote on this singular matter, notwithstanding that it does—in my view and that of many thousands of people watching our proceedings—represent a dangerous erosion of civil liberties, including those under article 9 on freedom of thought and religion, article 10 on freedom of expression and article 11 on freedom of assembly and the right to protest, which this Parliament has long since immortalised in our celebrations of the cumulative and persistent protests of the suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement, marked by the plaque in honour of Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall.”
“My hon. Friend will remember our discussion, and I hope that she can help me. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC was appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime. The review was also to consider the laws around protest, and we were hopeful that we would have that. I am not aware that the review has concluded, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us. If it has not concluded, why are we legislating before that?”
“The hon. Gentleman is talking about the proscription of the IRGC. Will he explain to the House why the Tory party did not do that in their 14 years in government?”
“I say to Ministers that much in this Bill commands support, and there is no need to jeopardise that support by attaching to it a measure that raises serious civil liberties concerns and has not been properly tested in this House. The Government should withdraw Lords amendment 312. If they do not, Members should be clear that this is not a minor or technical issue to be nodded through. It may require the House to divide—if necessary, on a roll-up motion at the end of the proceedings—to ensure that our view is properly recorded and we defend the civil liberties that generations have so proudly fought for.”
“It has been reported that in the case involving Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham, which I understand is now subject to appeal, the defence argued that at the protest in question, the police relied on powers relating to cumulative disruption that were derived from the 2023 regulations, which were later quashed by the Court of Appeal in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If that account is borne out, it raises serious questions. It means that even without a clear statutory footing, such expansive interpretations are already influencing operational decisions, which underlines the risk that legislating for cumulative disruption may not clarify the law, but instead entrench uncertainty and overreach at the expense of the right to protest.”
“It has not been introduced as a Government clause in this House, which would make it subject to full debate, amendment and Division; it has been inserted by the Lords. I say gently but firmly that that mirrors the approach that many of us criticised when it was adopted by the previous Government. If we believe that something is important enough to legislate on—particularly something that touches on fundamental rights—it is important enough to be properly scrutinised in this Chamber. In considering the proposals, we should reflect on very recent events.”
“It embeds the concept of cumulative disruption in primary legislation, and avoids reopening the broader and highly contentious definition of “serious disruption”, reflecting an incremental approach shaped by judicial intervention and parliamentary resistance. I recognise that, but recognising that the drafting is more careful does not answer the central question: should we be doing this at all? We are being asked to take a concept that was rejected in this House and the other place, and which was unsuccessfully imposed through regulations that were struck down by the courts, and to reintroduce it. It is more carefully packaged but substantively similar. There is a second concern, which is about the process, because this measure has not come to us in the ordinary way.”
“Those regulations did three things of note: they lowered the threshold of disruption to “more than minor”, introduced the concept of “cumulative disruption”, and expanded police discretion to consider multiple events collectively. And what happened? The regulations were quashed by the courts in the National Council for Civil Liberties v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2023. They were quashed because the process by which they were brought forward was found to be unlawful. To be fair, the Government have learned from that episode, and Lords amendment 312 is more cautious.”
“Members will recall that during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023, the then Government sought, through Lords amendments 48 and 49, to require the police to take account of cumulative disruption when imposing conditions on protests under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Those provisions were defeated in the House of Lords, with opposition from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, yet even before the ink was dry on those proceedings and the 2023 Act had received Royal Assent, the then Government sought to achieve the same outcome through secondary legislation: the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023.”
“It was not so many weeks ago that Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, was in this Parliament, expressing horror about the fact that the United Kingdom Government were at the leading edge of these provisions. The rest of the world is looking. Other countries are waiting to see how this plays out in our country, because they intend to copy and paste and do the self-same thing in their jurisdictions. It is perhaps fortunate that Viktor Orbán has gone, because I am pretty convinced that he would be looking to these measures, among others. Lords amendment 312 does something very specific: it revives, in substance, provisions that were previously rejected. Hon.”
“That is the democratic tradition we inherit, and it is one that we should be extremely cautious about constraining—which brings me to Lords amendment 312. Whatever its intentions, the amendment represents a continuation of, not a departure from, a trajectory set by the last Government. We have in recent years seen a steady expansion of public order powers, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. At each stage, concerns were raised—by Members on both sides of the House, by those in the other place and by civil liberties organisations—that the balance between public order and the right to protest was being tilted too far, and we are now being asked to accept a further step in that same direction.”
“Protest exists precisely because Governments of the day, of all political colours, have too often sought to restrict the expression of public opinion when it has become uncomfortable. We should be honest about that. Public organising—protest—is how people express their view, but expressing a view is not the same as being heard, and it is certainly not the same as achieving change. Change comes when that expression is repeated, sustained, and cumulative—when it builds pressure over time until it cannot be ignored. That was as true for the suffragettes as it was for those in the anti-apartheid movement. Neither succeeded because they protested once, politely, and then went home. They succeeded because disruption accumulated, because pressure mounted, and because their cause could not be quietly set aside.”
“Follow that, indeed! Let me begin by making it clear that I welcome the Bill and the many measures that the Government have introduced. There is much here that will strengthen policing, protect communities, and respond to genuine public concern about crime and safety. However, Lords amendment 312 causes me real concern, because protest is not some peripheral irritation in our democracy. It is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is, in truth, part of the lifeblood of the labour movement, and of every movement that has ever expanded rights, protections or dignity in this country. From the earliest trade unionists to the Chartists to those who organised in the streets when they had no voice in this Chamber, progress in this country has never been handed down; it has been demanded, organised, and often disrupted into being—yes, disrupted.”
“Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has been commissioned to carry out a review of the complex public order architecture, we are taking a measure in this arena without the benefit of that review’s findings? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given what she has just said, would it not have been wiser to await the outcome of the review, so that we could have seen Lord Macdonald’s view of the entire scene before taking yet further legislative measures that will move the dial even further? Would that not have been the right course of action?”
“Just on that, if she is going to consult with the College of Policing and others, where is the role for this House to have its voice in that discussion? There are many people here who would like to positively input into that discussion.”
“Will he confirm that if the Government will not withdraw the relevant clause, there will be a full debate and a dedicated Division on this proposal for Members of this House?”
“May I associate myself with the remarks made by the Leader of the House concerning our colleague David Winnick? The Leader of the House has just announced that the Crime and Policing Bill will come back to us for consideration of Lords amendments on 14 April. It will return to the Commons massively expanded and including measures to restrict protests, which were inserted in the Lords. Those measures were snuck in in the same way that a predecessor Conservative Home Secretary did with the Public Order Bill of 2022-23. As this Government seek to restrict the campaigning methods that the suffragettes and the anti-apartheid movement used, will the Leader of the House confirm that he has spoken to the Chief Whip and Mr Speaker, who have been written to by dozens of MPs?”
“I have raised this with the Minister on previous occasions, and I raise it again today. This is a mess and it is collapsing. An obvious solution is staring us in the face: take Royal Mail back into public ownership, and do it quickly.”
“Ofcom has allowed an uneven playing field when it comes to competitors, such as Amazon, that benefit from the universal network without contributing to its cost. Royal Mail carries the burden of serving over 30 million addresses while others extract profit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made a good point about bogus self-employment among competitors. If we do not get this right, we will undermine the impact of the Employment Rights Act. That is why the CWU is right to call for a universal service fund so that all operators contribute fairly to the network they rely on. Ofcom’s broader approach risks a race to the bottom—it is not pursuing efficiency. If we are serious about improving performance, we have to have a fundamental rethink.”
“Over the past week, the delivery offices that serve Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have both been ranked in the top five in their regional area for delivery failure. This matters for customers waiting for vital posts and for staff under immense pressure. It is not the fault of the posties; the responsibility lies with the owners. Poor decisions have created a weakened system, chaotic revisions and a recruitment crisis driven by low pay and worse conditions for new starters. The result is a workforce that is overstretched and a service that is letting customers down. As for the USO, the six-day delivery remains a vital national guarantee, but changing specifications alone will not fix a service that is being run down.”
“As it stands, we have insecure and fragile work, both in Royal Mail and in the private sector that competes with it. Surely this is the worst of all worlds. A thorough approach is needed. I am yet to hear the Minister tackle the key issue raised by many hon. Members from the Government Benches: that we should be looking at the option of public ownership. Will the Minister please address that?”
“Just before the Minister sits down, can he help me with a couple of things? The reduction in terms and conditions for new entrants into our sorting offices is causing great problems. People are leaving within days and weeks, so there is an issue there. Similarly, in this competitive landscape, we have other providers working on the basis of bogus self-employment. Given that we approach this issue on a whole-of-Government basis, rather than just in silos, I wonder whether we are looking closely at the damage that this situation is causing. I think particularly of the £10 billion that goes uncollected through bogus self-employment, which could enhance the coffers of the Treasury, among other things, and provide people with secure and solid work.”
“The Prime Minister was right when he said today that “we will not be drawn into the wider war”. But the US President is now requesting UK military assets to police the strait of Hormuz. This is exactly the sort of mission creep that many have warned against. Discussing NATO this morning, General Sir Nick Carter said that it was “not…for one of the allies to go on a war of choice and then oblige everybody else to follow.” Can the Minister confirm that the UK will not provide further military assets for this US war, on which President Trump did not consult the UK and which the UK public do not support, or that the House will be able to vote on any such proposal?”
“This situation is completely intolerable, as everybody has described. Will the Minister confirm that if the owners continue to fail to discharge their obligations as a matter of urgency, the option of taking Royal Mail back into public ownership will be fully considered, because that is popular with the public?”
“I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. On work visas and people integrating into our communities, will he say something about the abuses that we hear of—including how sponsors control the situation for these people—and about the potential damage that will be caused, especially to our public services, if the thresholds are unobtainable to many of our key workers, especially those in our health service?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer, but since December 2015, 19 new settlements have been approved, bringing the coalition’s total to 68 in three years and around 210 overall, housing 750,000 settlers. Last month, the Israeli Cabinet approved measures to designate large areas as state property and resume land registration in area C—de jure annexation. Those steps defy International Court of Justice advisory opinions and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Given the scale of sanctions that the UK is willing to impose on Russia, when will the Government impose meaningful trade measures, arms controls and sanctions that match the scale of Israel’s illegal actions?”
“Given the serious and continuing concerns regarding finance, governance and audit, will the Government provide an opportunity for a full statement on the conclusions reached and any further steps proposed to secure best value and to restore confidence in and the future of the development corporations?”
“May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will make time for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to report to this House on the findings of the best value process for the mayoral Tees Valley combined authority as the 12 months of the best value notice draw to a close? In that period, Mayor Houchen has been required to relinquish the chairmanship of three development corporations and the authority is seeing changes to all three statutory officers, with the outgoing director of finance referring to “informal agreements” between the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks and with interim officers resigning. Its external auditors, EY, have disclaimed the last two years’ accounts, with reports suggesting a further year of disclaimed accounts is likely.”
“We were warned: plan 2 and plan 5 are not just loans, but lifetime surcharges, and that is because of cumulative political choices: the introduction of fees in 1998, variable fees in 2004, the loan book sale, the high-fee and high-interest plan 2, and now plan 5’s lower thresholds. Higher education is a public good, yet we have built a system that assumes that every degree guarantees high earnings and prices them accordingly, despite the fact that many do not enjoy those earnings. We must rethink, and be honest that a system built over 28 years is now failing.”
“It is a pleasure, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate. I was a beneficiary of free higher education under Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, but I must begin with the stark reality that today’s graduates face. The average debt on graduation in England is around £53,000, and many leave owing £70,000, £80,000 or even £100,000, with postgraduate borrowing included. That is a mortgage-sized burden placed on young adults before they have saved a deposit, started a family or built financial security, and even before repayment thresholds and interest are factored in.”
“In the name of God, I ask the Minister—I urge him and this Government—to do the right thing and act, before the Palestinian people are completely wiped from the map.”
“We must use leverage, trade measures, arms controls and sanctions—concrete consequences for grave breaches of international law. Healthcare is protected in war. That is not optional; it is the law. The UK has not done anywhere near enough to exert pressure on Israel. If the same ineffective stance is maintained, the UK risks facing charges of complicity. We have more than diplomacy in our locker. It is absolutely criminal that the UK is not using the levers available. We have legal, moral and historical obligations and responsibilities to the Palestinians, who this country has betrayed for over 100 years, from the Balfour declaration to the present day, and the genocide continues.”
“Have the Government assessed whether UK-supplied arms, including F-35s, were used in strikes on healthcare facilities? Will they publish their assessment? Will he state without equivocation that the destruction of hospitals in Gaza is a breach of international humanitarian law and is in direct contravention of the genocide convention? What diplomatic or economic sanctions has the UK imposed in response to Israel blocking 18,000 patients? What consequences will Israel face for deregistering aid agencies? How is the UK implicated through the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre? Given that the UK sanctioned over 1,500 individuals after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the glaring double standards are beyond reprehensible. The UK’s diplomatic statements have not shifted the Israeli Government’s policy one iota.”
“The deliberate targeting of healthcare, the obstruction of aid and the killing and detention of medical personnel raise serious questions under international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention. A ceasefire must mean a ceasefire. Israel must uphold the ceasefire, lift its blockade on medical aid, end registration rules, allow safe passage for patients, permit the reconstruction of hospitals and release detained healthcare workers. The UK Government must do more than issue statements. They must interrogate Israel’s actions and intent, and enforce consequences. We are seeing scenes where the dogs are healthy in Gaza and the people are starving. We must ask ourselves how it is that the dogs are so healthy. Where are they getting their nutrition? I will leave people to make up their own mind. I ask the Minister these questions.”
“They have stitched, they have amputated, they have delivered babies and they have kept children alive in wards without power and under bombardment. Even under the so-called ceasefire, Israel restricts healthcare. Dual-use restrictions block medical equipment, including imaging machines, prosthetic materials and surveillance tablets. More than 6,000 amputees await limbs. Only a few hundred prostheses have been allowed in. Stocks will run out. Israel has moved to deregister more than 35 international NGOs, including those funded by the British public. Those organisations deliver one in three births in Gaza and hundreds of thousands of consultations. They are being forced to hand over staff data or be shut down. Medical evacuations remain desperately limited. The WHO lists 18,000 people as in urgent need of care outside Gaza.”
“In 2024, the UN commission of inquiry concluded: “Israel has implemented a concerted policy to destroy the health-care system of Gaza.” The special rapporteur Francesca Albanese has stated that the targeted destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system by the IDF amounts to “medicide”, part of “the intentional creation of conditions calculated to destroy Palestinians in Gaza which constitutes an act of genocide.” One image stays with me: a hospital tent, a patient on a drip, flames climbing the IV line, a man too sick to run. That is what the destruction of a health system looks like. Amid this horror, there have been many extraordinary acts of courage from very many British medics, including Middlesbrough doctor Mohammed Mustafa and Professor Ghassan Abu-Sittah.”
“It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this debate and on his expertise in the area. The Israeli Government carry out these crimes against humanity because they can, and no one stops them. For nearly two years, Gaza’s healthcare system has been systematically dismantled during Israel’s military campaign. The World Health Organisation reports that there were 735 attacks on healthcare in Gaza from 7 October 2023 to 11 June last year.”