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 3 of 12.
“I am listening closely to what the hon. Member is saying. Does he agree, given that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is no longer a royal, that nothing is really stopping us having a judge-led public inquiry into his affairs and all that attends them?”
“Can the Minister assure me that Sir Laurie Magnus will look at the funding structure and consider whether we need to revisit the ways in which people can be penalised for such egregious transgressions and flagrant disregard for doing business properly? To my mind, these individuals should, just as we as ask directors to be individually responsible, bear personal responsibility in these circumstances.”
“This is truly a sordid affair. The Minister speaks of receiving funds from Labour Together to work on policy; I will just remind him that when we sat on the Opposition Benches, many of us were quite content with the support we received from the trade union movement and were proud to declare it as socialists. On Labour Together and its funding basis, it seems clear that the former chief of staff in Downing Street was content with not declaring, safe in the knowledge that the Electoral Commission’s powers were very limited and that a fine of £16,000—in the context of £730,000 of moneys coming into the system—was simply the cost of doing business.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. I agree that the Prime Minister was quite right to put the “Lord of the files” outside the tent; we got there eventually. However, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the answer to the $64,000 question—what was known at the time when Peter Mandelson was appointed US ambassador—will be put in the public domain? Many people in this place and across the country would not have touched Peter Mandelson with a bargepole. They are trying to get their head round why on earth this Government were not of the same view.”
“However, after hearing the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about police numbers, I have to say, in all candour, that the reduction of 20,000 police officers in the name of austerity was one of the most reckless and stupid things a Government could ever do. I would like him to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that gross dereliction of duty. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chunters and laughs from a sedentary position.”
“I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will find very considerable support for the broad thrust of what she said, especially on streamlining and the new policing models. I know that she is thinking very seriously about how to get the best return on the reorganisation in order to tackle serious and organised crime, and she is alive to the regional specialisms and expertise that already exist. I thank her for that, and for her commitment to delivering better funding for our police force following the disastrous period of austerity under the Conservatives. I want to put some challenges to the Minister, because I have some local concerns.”
“I will in a minute. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State would like to apologise to the country for the damage that was caused. I can tell him that removing so many officers at a stroke had a devastating impact. Looking at the raw numbers— [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member chunters, but he fails to comprehend.”
“The penny has not dropped for the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot for one minute understand how that translated in our communities. That is the issue, because he simply does not take into consideration that loss of expertise. We cannot replace those police with recruits overnight. It was the stupidest thing a Government could do.”
“My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those were the lived experiences of our constituents, and those were the consequences they had to live with. Opposition Members may say that was because of the financial situation they were left with, but austerity was of course a political choice. The Conservatives deliberately ploughed this furrow with disastrous consequences, and they should have the humility to get up and acknowledge the error they made.”
“The right hon. Gentleman should not consider it to be faux outrage. I lived in my constituency throughout that period and saw the damage it caused.”
“Despite serving one of the most deprived and high crime areas in the country, Cleveland police remains the force with the lowest number of officers compared with 2010—a reduction of some 12%—leaving the community more vulnerable and officers overstretched. With the greatest respect, the recent funding settlement compounds the problem. Cleveland received the smallest increase in the country—just 3.3%—and after accounting for inflation and pay awards, that leaves a real-terms shortfall of about £2.4 million, which is equivalent to 40 officers. The Government continue to expect this deficit to be met through local council tax, and I just respectfully suggest that is unreasonable.”
“Yes, and we should acknowledge the damage that was caused. I am going to be challenging my own Government, and I am trying to be objective about these issues, but what has to be understood in this place is the consequences of the terrible decisions that were made. I will now move on, because I want to ask the Minister to address the real issues involving Cleveland police. There is more to be done in improving funding, which remains uneven, and some local areas continue to miss out. I hope to explore this in an objective and rational way with those on the Front Bench. I want to draw attention to the urgent and growing concerns of Cleveland’s police and crime commissioner about the funding of our local force.”
“Again, I just ask the Minister to reconsider this settlement, because I am not convinced that it reflects their efforts, and it redistributes scarce resources to other forces with less need. I therefore urge the Government to revisit the settlement urgently; to properly resource Cleveland police based on need, deprivation and demand, not on population alone; and to provide the answers that the PCC and our communities deserve. Our officers deserve the support they have earned, and our residents deserve the safety and security that only properly funded policing can provide.”
“The people of Cleveland, their PCC and officers on the frontline have done everything asked of them—exceeding recruitment targets, investing in neighbourhood policing and achieving crime reductions above the national average—and of course they made incredible efforts in response to the riot on 4 August 2024. It was the most remarkable response by the police and the community, banding together in the wake of the most violent attack on our community. I must pay tribute to the incredible work the police did, because they have never had to deal with anything like that. They did it with such incredible dedication and professionalism, and we cannot ever be thankful enough to them for their efforts.”
“The police and crime commissioner has written three times to the Minister seeking urgent clarity about how the settlement was calculated. Each time, he has not had a response, and I ask the Minister to reflect on that and come back to me. Our communities and their elected PCC deserve answers. It is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of public safety. Without adequate funding, Cleveland police cannot meet the Government’s own objectives of reducing knife crime, tackling violence against women and girls, and maintaining effective neighbourhood policing.”
“The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I am capable of being objective when facts are put in front of me, whereas he appears to be completely myopic and in total denial about his own Government’s record of decimating our police forces and the consequences of that. I am perfectly content with making proper representations to the Government on the settlements that have been devolved. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and it is a shame that he could not participate in a more sensible discussion. With almost a third of our neighbourhoods in the top 10% of the most deprived nationally, local residents cannot shoulder a £90 increase on band D properties to restore staffing to safe levels.”
“I hear what the shadow Minister says about police numbers, but what did he say when Cleveland lost 500 police officers on his Government’s watch? Was he concerned then?”
“I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware of today’s Resolution Foundation report that shows how increases in income have significantly slowed over the past 20 years, particularly for those on low incomes, as shown by the basic rate of UC, which has fallen by 9% in real terms since 2010. Does she think there is merit in proposals from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for an independent advisory process to inform universal credit rates, ensuring that the standard allowance reflects the real cost of essentials and the inflation experienced by those living on lower incomes?”
“This is a gross discourtesy to this House, and to the millions of Palestinians impacted by Israel’s actions. Can the Leader of the House prevail upon Government Front Benchers to provide us with adequate time to debate this key issue in this place as soon as possible?”
“I would like to place on the record my disappointment that today the Government have chosen to make two oral statements, both of which are of huge significance—on Sudan and on the national cancer plan—when so many Members will be absent from the Chamber. As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, may I put on the record that this shows disrespect to Members seeking to participate in today’s Backbench Business debates, particularly the one on the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories? Over many months, the Government have failed to respond to the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the UN commission of inquiry, and they have now squeezed the time available for Members to discuss that with the Minister.”
“Despite that, the UK has failed to acknowledge the risk, failed to respond to the ICJ or the commission and failed to act as it has elsewhere. I ask the Minister what evidence would be required to accept the risk of genocide if neither the ICJ nor the UN commission of inquiry suffices, and why, when the UK has argued that acts against children and forced displacement are indicators of genocidal intent, it has not applied that standard here. History will judge whether we acted when the warning signs were crystal clear. I urge the Government to acknowledge the risk and meet their legal duty to prevent genocide.”
“The UN commission of inquiry confirmed that the ICJ’s provisional measures placed all state parties on notice of a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, triggering legal obligations on third states, including the UK. As its chair, Navi Pillay, stated, “Israel has flagrantly disregarded the orders for provisional measures from the International Court of Justice…and continued the strategy of destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza.” Yet in September 2024, UK Government lawyers concluded that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That defies the Court, the commission and the law. The UK itself has argued that genocide is not limited to killings, but includes forced displacement, serious bodily or mental harm and deprivation of food, particularly when children are targeted.”
“I am honoured to serve as co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. We face a stark legal reality: the UK’s duty to prevent genocide is triggered the moment a serious risk becomes evident. The International Court of Justice made that clear in January 2024. Judge Joan Donoghue stated that the Court found “a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention.” The Court issued provisional measures directing Israel to prevent genocide—measures that Israel has ignored. Words matter too. Israel’s President Herzog declared, “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible.” Under international law, such statements are evidence of intent.”
“Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he agree that the amendment as drawn would, in effect, just throw a cloak over the very issues that many right hon. and hon. Members of this House want to see dealt with, and that the way to resolve those sensitive issues is simply to engage the Intelligence and Security Committee? Is that not the best way forward?”
“The Minister was previously asked but did not clarify whether the Ministry of Justice conducted modelling on how much reducing jury trials would actually reduce the backlog. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence that limiting jury trials will meaningfully reduce court delays. Can the Minister publish the evidence on which these reforms are based and explain why no pilot schemes were undertaken?”
“Can the Minister assure the House that those matters will be given full attention in any inquiry and that, from this day on, there will be full engagement with the criminal authorities, because, as many Members have said already, the time has come for criminal prosecution?”
“This is a disaster, and against the backdrop of the incredible abuse of young women for such a long time, it fills the House will horror. I must agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); this House would be minded to bring forward legislation and to do so quickly. It would appear that Gordon Brown was very concerned in September 2025 that there had been a disclosure of information by Mandelson to Epstein that may have been used for commercial gain. He turns out to have been right. How is it that such an error could occur within government and that the information was not known?”
“T10. Ben Houchen’s Teesworks saga has seen more than half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money funnelled into enriching a few business people, while the opportunity for a sovereign wealth fund investment programme has been squandered. What steps are being taken to ensure that there is meaningful investment for economic growth and development in Teesside?”
“The Minister will be aware that too many retired civil servants are waiting too long to be paid their pensions and lump sums. Seventy thousand people are still caught up waiting for past discrimination to be addressed under the McCloud remedy, and there are already concerns about Capita’s management very early in its new contract period. Does the Minister share my concern that this is completely unacceptable and that urgent action, as called for by the Public and Commercial Services Union, is required? Can he provide the House with a full statement on Capita’s performance in administering the civil service pension scheme at the earliest opportunity?”
“Can we have a debate in Government time to explore the exposure of the UK to this restriction via the CMCC and what measures the UK can take, economic and otherwise, to ensure that UK public-funded agencies can continue to deliver aid and help bring this catastrophe in the state of Palestine to an end?”
“Yesterday, MPs heard from some of the international non-governmental organisations whose Israeli registration to operate in Palestine will be terminated and which from 1 March will no longer be able to provide critical aid. In Gaza, the suffering and the killings have not stopped. In bitter winter conditions, delays are preventing critical food, medical, hygiene and shelter supplies from entering Gaza. Many still face starvation. The birth rate has dropped by over 40% in the past year, and newborns are not surviving. While Israel prevents the work of aid organisations, the UK continues its membership of the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which is meant to facilitate the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza—part of the state of Palestine, which the UK now recognises.”
“Families must have enforceable rights to truth, information and challenge, particularly when the Secretary of State retains wide powers over legacy bodies. That is especially important given the unresolved disagreements surrounding the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.”
“That is not lawfare. What civil cases and inquests have done is to correct false records, expose wrongdoing and finally give families truthful answers after decades of official denial. However, we must honest. The remedial order does not go far enough. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which blocks the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from investigating troubles-related police misconduct, remains unaddressed. The Court of Appeal found that to be incompatible with human rights, yet victims and families are still denied access to a fully independent investigative mechanism. That failure continues. The Government are, of course, serious about a victim-centred approach to the past, and in pursuit of that further amendments are essential. National security must not be used as a smokescreen for secrecy.”
“It removes the conditional immunity and de facto amnesty contained in the 2023 legacy Act—provisions that were found unlawful by the courts in the Dillon case in Belfast. The High Court and the Court of Appeal were clear that those provisions breached articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights and the Windsor framework. The Government accepted that judgment and rightly abandoned their appeal. Those immunity provisions never legally took effect, and it is right that they are now formally removed. The order also restores access to civil claims, reopening an important route to truth and accountability that had been wrongly closed. These processes were never about witch hunts. Since the Good Friday agreement, only one former soldier has been convicted for a troubles-era killing, and he received a suspended sentence.”
“I welcome the introduction of the remedial order. It is a necessary and overdue step if the Government are to retain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland that they are serious about justice, accountability and dealing honestly with the legacy of the troubles. As several hon. and gallant Members have said from the Government Benches, those who served never wanted special protection, exemptions or immunity from the law. They wanted and expected exactly what the public expect: to be judged by the same universal standards of justice that apply to everyone else. Accountability does not weaken the armed forces but strengthens trust in them. The remedial order recognises that basic principle.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. There is an obligation on the Government under section 4 of the Human Rights Act: where they have been told by a court that legislation is incompatible with a convention right, they are duty-bound to remove that incompatibility. That is exactly what is being done here. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member chunters from a sedentary position, but that is the legal position. The remedial order is a positive correction, but it is only a first step. Justice delayed has already cost families decades. Justice diluted will cost confidence altogether. If we want reconciliation rooted in truth, the law must apply equally to all, and independent investigations must be fully restored.”
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for her answer. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a welcome statement on the importance of sovereignty and the international rules-based order, yet within the state of Palestine, 37 international NGOs will no longer be allowed to deliver humanitarian aid, on the say-so of Israel. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK Government understand and accept that continued humanitarian access into Palestine must be determined by the Palestinians, and that it cannot be undermined either by Israel or by the board of peace? Can she say what concrete actions the Government intend to take to counter Israeli obstructions and give proper effect to the sovereignty of the state of Palestine?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Can I take this opportunity to welcome the passage of the Employment Rights Bill through the Lords? It will deliver the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. Less than two weeks ago, I took part in a steel signing ceremony at the new NETA engineering training centre in Thornaby in my constituency, following the opening of Middlesbrough college’s new TTE centre, and all dovetailing with Teesside University’s Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre. With all those new facilities, does the Secretary of State agree that Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is helping to lead the delivery of the UK’s modern industrial strategy, and will she take the opportunity to visit some of our fantastic new industrial and digital facilities on Teesside?”
“My hon. Friend has set out how sensible the conversations have been thus far, but does she agree with me that they have been totally frustrated by colleagues down the corridor, who have no regard for the mandate that was returned to the Government at the last general election, and that we should stand firm and make sure that these rights are not further impeded by the unelected House?”
“Human Rights Watch highlights the wider impact of hostilities including hate speech, repression of peaceful critics and communal polarisation, echoing decades of Kashmir’s troubled history. The UK cannot resolve the conflict, but we cannot be indifferent to it—and we certainly should not be hiding behind the bilateral policy abrogation. We should press the Indian Government to end arbitrary detentions, repeal draconian laws and allow independent investigations. We should encourage both India and Pakistan to avoid actions that escalate tensions, and create space for dialogue. Above all, the voices and the rights of the Kashmiri people must be central to any peace process. The world is watching, and so are my constituents. It is our moral duty to act, uphold human rights and ensure that Kashmiri voices are heard.”
“The latest UN warning reflects a long-standing pattern of repression dating back to 1947. Since then, the region has endured wars, insurgencies, mass displacements and cycles of violent repression. The revocation of article 370 in 2019 further undermined autonomy, ushering in years of mass detentions and communication shutdowns. The UN findings confirm what Kashmiris have long experienced: heavy-handed security measures, unchecked emergency powers and the silencing of dissent. The current ceasefire between India and Pakistan has not addressed the underlying issues. Suspended treaties and diplomatic contacts remain unresolved, and experts warn that without dialogue it is a question of not if, but when hostilities resume.”
“Their findings are alarming: about 2,800 people including journalists and activists have been arrested under Indian national laws such as the public safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which have been made more stringent under Prime Minister Modi’s BJP Government. The UN reports torture, incommunicado detention, suspicious deaths and the targeting of Muslim and Kashmiri communities alongside punitive demolitions, forced evictions and arbitrary displacement, all in violation of India’s Supreme Court rulings. Communication blackouts, blocked social media and restrictions on independent journalism have compounded the crisis. Beyond Kashmir, Kashmiri students in India face surveillance, hate speech is rising, and nearly 1,900 Muslims and Rohingya refugees have been expelled without due process.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on securing this debate, and on all the work he does with the APPG. I speak on behalf of many of my constituents in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and particularly our vibrant Kashmiri community, who are deeply concerned by the escalating human rights crisis in Jammu and Kashmir. I draw attention to the latest UN assessment, issued on 24 November, which expresses grave concern about systematic human rights violations following the Pahalgam attack in April, which was an atrocity we all unequivocally condemn. The experts emphasise that respect for human rights is non-negotiable even when combating terrorism.”
“Can my hon. Friend help me with this conundrum? It has been suggested that somebody in a monarchical position in years past has decided to cede a territory to one country or another. Would that not therefore deny the people of that territory the right to self-determination? I am curious; I wonder what would happen in this country if there were an issue between France and Ireland, and yet the British people were not allowed the right to self-determination. Would that make sense?”
“He said: “These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver… we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections… day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 561-62.] That was a very good speech, made just a short time ago.”
“I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am proud. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) that this is a transformational piece of legislation, but it has been weakened. My motion would restore day one rights on unfair dismissal. I tabled a motion to reject the Lords amendments, since when the Government have tabled a motion to adopt a six- month qualification period. I commend the remarks of Lord Collins about issues relating to unfair dismissal.”
“I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that this episode highlights, again, flaws in the upper House, but even with the convention of double insistence, the concession goes too far.”
“Absolutely, and no decent employer should fear any of these measures. Rogue employers were warned that exploitation and arbitrary dismissal would end, but under the compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification.”
“That is absolutely right, but under this compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification. A worker could leave secure employment in good faith, only to be summarily dismissed with no protection or explanation, months into a new role.”
“If this legislation is to deliver a new deal for working people, this House must ensure that the back door is not opened to dismantling it. I urge Ministers, even now, to reconsider, because they are making a profound mistake.”