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 4 of 12.
“Major businesses are already signalling that they will use consultations to soften, delay or carve out core protections. Their language of “burdens”, “balance” and “flexibility” is not commentary, but a co-ordinated push to reshape the settlement. I say to my colleagues on the Government Front Bench that they should be bold and take heart. The thing that was missing from this Bill was the status of workers’ rights reforms. If we were to take courage in our hands and deal with that issue, we would resolve matters by collecting uncollected tax and national insurance to the tune of £10 billion per annum, as well as giving people security in employment. Think about the lack of a pull factor for people to go into the black economy.”
“No, I will carry on. This debate has been muddied by talk of probation. We never proposed abolishing probation periods—they are proper and necessary—but no system should allow dismissal without cause for blatantly unfair reasons. At present, workers can still be dismissed without cause nearly two years into a job. Under this compromise, they can be dismissed almost half a year in, when they might have a mortgage to pay and a family to support. This climbdown casts doubt on the Government’s resolve and determination to deliver all the elements of the new deal for working people in full. Worse still, emboldened opponents of the workers’ rights reforms will return for more. They will undoubtedly attempt to weaken the Bill through secondary legislation.”
“Given that the Bar Council has said it has seen “no evidence” that removing the right to elect to have a jury trial will significantly reduce the Crown court backlog, and that both the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have said that the real cause of delays is years of underfunding and reduced sitting days, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are pursuing the removal of jury trials without publishing any modelling to show that juries—rather than chronic under-resourcing—are responsible for backlogs? Will he release the evidence base underpinning this proposed reform? Releasing impact assessments after the reform is made will be too late.”
“Amnesty warns that the policy could trap refugees in limbo, undermine family life and integration, and breach the refugee convention. Refuge must mean stability, not a fragile, temporary status. The British Red Cross highlights further concerns: family reunion may be delayed or blocked; reassessing core protection every two and a half years risks instability; and ending statutory asylum support could push vulnerable people into destitution.”
“Unfortunately, the debate on this subject has become toxic. Stories claiming that refugees would be stripped of valuables provoked fear. Thankfully, the Home Secretary has clarified that no such policy exists. But criticism of policy is not an attack on democracy; it is proper scrutiny in a properly functioning democracy. One of the most troubling reforms is the proposal to review refugee status every 30 months, potentially over decades. Framed as reassessing the status of safe countries, the proposal raises serious legal, practical and moral concerns, as highlighted by the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and others. The Home Office already struggles with backlogs, and repeated reviews would leave people in constant insecurity.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, which is important because it speaks to who we are as a country and how we uphold commitments to all people fleeing persecution. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister acknowledged that racism is “returning to politics” and that “racist rhetoric, divisive rhetoric…makes people feel very scared.” That recognition is welcome, but the Home Secretary’s asylum proposals in the “Restoring Order and Control” policy paper have undoubtedly prompted widespread criticism from refugee support organisations and others. However, I commend the recognition across the House that we need an immigration and asylum system that is both controlled and humane. That balance is not only possible; it is essential.”
“The way to build a fair, humane and effective system is to invest in faster processing; get it right first time; provide legal, language and employment support; and strengthen humanitarian visa routes. If we truly want safe alternatives to dangerous channel crossings, to combat smuggling and to maintain control of our borders, the path forward is thoughtful reform that supports those who are genuinely seeking sanctuary and integrates people.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent point. Indeed, that is one of the things the Red Cross highlighted. Narrow safe routes alone will not prevent dangerous journeys. The Public and Commercial Services Union report “Welcoming Growth” recommends processing claims within six months, and legal, English language and employment support for refugees. Such measures would protect people, reduce costs, speed up integration and enable people to contribute to society. Will the Minister say whether unaccompanied children and families who are in danger will be exempt? Can core protection be granted for five years to provide stability and reduce bureaucracy? How will the Government safeguard against the unfair loss of support? Will family reunion remain accessible, with the piloting of a humanitarian visa system to provide legal protection?”
“Will the Minister reaffirm that the act of seeking asylum is not illegal or unlawful—in fact, it is lawful under the refugee convention? That appears to have become somewhat muddied and clouded in this debate. Would he like to clarify the Government’s reaffirmation of the principles of the convention?”
“Additionally, the Bill states that human rights are to be “respected”, rather than imposing a binding obligation. Clearer language would strengthen accountability and reassure the public that all bodies must comply fully with the ECHR. Will the Government make that explicit? Finally, independence in appointments, particularly of judicial panel members, is essential. The Secretary of State’s broad appointment and resignation powers risk perceptions of political influence. Strong safeguards are needed to maintain trust. In conclusion, although the Bill and the remedial order mark progress, significant issues with disclosure, independence, inquiries and universal protections remain. I urge the Minister to clarify how the Bill will rebuild trust and ensure fairness, transparency, and full human rights compliance for victims and families.”
“Although the Bill narrows the definition of sensitive information and introduces a public interest test, only the commission can appeal disclosure refusals, and only judicial review principles—not merits review—apply. Families’ rights to truth under articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR therefore remain vulnerable. Outstanding cases, such as that of Sean Brown, highlight the need for full, independent investigations. Courts have confirmed that an article 2 inquiry is required, yet none has been convened. Concerns also remain about universal protections. Veterans appear singled out, potentially undermining fairness. Will the Secretary of State clarify how the Bill will ensure that protections apply equally, and that no group is seen as prioritised over victims and families?”
“The family of Sean Brown, who was abducted and murdered in 1997, have long sought an independent public inquiry, and the Taoiseach called for such an inquiry this year. The PSNI has apologised for failings in the original investigation. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will commit to a fully independent inquiry into Mr Brown’s death, and that the proposed veto powers will not prevent it? Given the legacy of mistrust, why do disclosure decisions remain solely in the Secretary of State’s authority? Will the Government consider an independent mechanism to balance national security with public confidence in legacy commission investigations?”
“However, as with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill and the Government’s engagement with the Hillsborough families, it is vital that this legislation gains the confidence of those affected in the north of Ireland. Amnesty International notes progress but also remaining concerns. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which limits police ombudsman investigations, is only partly addressed. Will the Minister say how incompatibilities with the ECHR, highlighted by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, will be resolved? The Bill also retains the national security veto, giving the Secretary of State sole authority over sensitive disclosures. That risks undermining compliance and public trust, especially where state wrongdoing may be implicated.”
“I rise to welcome the Bill, particularly its reversal of aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and its effort to restore human rights compliance and public confidence. It resolves court-identified incompatibilities and makes changes to legacy cases. Alongside the remedial order, it removes immunity from prosecution, restores civil actions for troubles-related conduct, and reinstates some inquests. Other matters will be handled through the legacy commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, enabling family participation and appropriate handling of sensitive information. These measures acknowledge that previous approaches caused deep harm and were, in many respects, unlawful.”
“The Government have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that would create sweeping powers to impose conditions on public protests based on cumulative disruption. Can the Minister set out to the House what that amendment means by serious disruption to a community? How will this be determined and measured, and how will these powers be made subject to democratic scrutiny?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. I whole- heartedly agree that the public have not bought into this model, but that does not mean there has not been some excellent work done by PCCs and their staff with great commitment and professionalism. Will she join me in thanking Matt Storey, the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, for the sterling work he has done in engaging with young people. She heard from some of those young people just two weeks ago, and the voice of youngsters is being heard in Cleveland. Could she also say something about the services commissioned by PCCs, especially in the areas of sexual assault, domestic violence and drug rehabilitation? People today will be in shock about this decision, and they will want some reassurance that their good practice will not be lost in the transition,”
“Instead, they would impose a six-month qualifying period and empower Ministers to introduce a further initial period in which only limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity that the Bill was designed to end.”
“I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these policies in the platform of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s newly elected Democrat mayor. Among other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet the amendments to this Bill made in the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments, which, taken together, would weaken the protections that this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom. Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120, which concern day one rights, would remove the right not to be unfairly dismissed from the very start of employment.”
“I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am most proud. The past four decades of structural decline in the share of the national income going to employees, decades marked by the erosion of trade union rights, has been exacerbated by 14 years of the Conservative Government forcing down real wages across the United Kingdom, leaving working families still struggling to recover. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of this Labour Government is to raise living standards. Trade unions are critical to that mission and the Employment Rights Bill will help to deliver that. The Bill represents a cornerstone of the Government’s new deal for working people, a vote-winning manifesto pledge.”
“The concept is pretty simple. Conservative Members are conflating different issues around unfair dismissal and probationary contracts. They are scaremongering. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the continuation of probation periods. The only thing we are saying is that it would be unfair to dismiss somebody for an unlawful reason. I really wonder why it is so difficult to grasp that concept.”
“I therefore call on all Members to reject the Lords amendments and to stand by our commitment to working people: to deliver the new deal for working people in full and to build from it a fairer, more secure world of work.”
“The consultations now under way must ensure that secondary legislation goes further and fulfils the Government’s wider promise to make work pay. I hope we see a robust and enforceable right of access for trade unions to workplaces, both physical and digital, so that unions can reach and represent workers effectively, with penalties that deter obstruction. I hope we will create a process to expand fair pay agreements beyond adult social care and schools, embedding sectoral collective bargaining across the economy to raise pay and standards in every workplace. We must also make progress towards a single status of worker. The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark measure, but its promise will be realised only if this House defends it against dilution and strengthens it in implementation.”
“Finally, Lords amendment 62, which reintroduces ballot thresholds for industrial action, seeks to restore one of the most restrictive elements of the Trade Union Act 2016. This House has already agreed that those provisions were excessive and undemocratic. No other organisation is bound by such turnout requirements before it may act. Reinstating them would frustrate meaningful negotiation and delay the resolution of disputes, not promote it. Let us drop the thresholds and quickly move to e-balloting, as we promised. For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist the Lords amendments and to insist on the Bill as originally passed by this House. It must be delivered in full, for it represents the baseline of a fair work settlement. However, while defending the Bill, we must also recognise that it is only a starting point.”
“No, because I am conscious of time. There is no impact on retaining probationary periods—they remain intact. Having day one rights against unfair dismissal does not prevent an employer vetting and doing recruitment properly, and using probationary periods legitimately. Turning to Lords amendment 1B, the so-called guaranteed hours opt-out, this provision transforms a clear right into a conditional option. Instead of guaranteeing a contract that reflects the hours a person actually works, it allows employers to invite workers to opt out of that right altogether. Experience with the working time opt-out shows exactly where this leads: it becomes a standard clause, routinely signed away. That is not the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts; it is their re-badging.”
“Would the Minister agree that the introduction of these rights and protections is absolutely critical, but equally important is the ability to enforce those rights? The Fair Work Agency has the potential to bring that to fruition and ensure that when people are in those circumstances and are the beneficiaries of an award, they will ultimately receive it, because far too many people take on these cases and do not get any redress.”
“I congratulate the Prime Minister and thank him for bringing forward this Bill, which represents an epic struggle by the Hillsborough families, who are to be much admired and praised, but this will extend beyond Hillsborough, as the Prime Minister has said. I thank him on behalf of the families of Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, who suffered great loss under the auspices of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS foundation trust, which lacked a duty of candour when those terrible tragedies struck. I hope that he can give consideration to a full, judge-led public inquiry, because the families are in search of truth, justice and accountability.”
“I thank the Minister for her response, but with the cost of living pressures continuing, it is clear that delivering increased real incomes and better living standards is our No. 1 priority. Can the Minister say a little more about which further sectors are most ready for fair pay agreements, and what steps the Department is taking to meet the UK’s obligations, as a member of the International Labour Organisation, to extend sectoral collective bargaining as a means to raise pay and improve living standards?”
“Earlier this week, I was pleased to welcome health practitioners, charities and those with lived experience to the House when the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury published its new report, “From Fragmented to Co-ordinated: Building a National Spinal Cord Injury Strategy”. The APPG officers look forward to the Government’s considered response. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Public Health and Prevention to meet the APPG officers and the secretariat, and could we also have a statement in the House from the Department on the report’s recommendations?”
“With the Government’s welcome commitment to improving terms, conditions and career progression in adult social care, as demonstrated through the planned fair pay agreement and the care workforce pathway, will the Minister confirm that the Government’s response to the public procurement consultation will deliver a public interest test that accelerates insourcing and requires providers to recognise trades unions, as well as more sustainable careers and long-term employment opportunities?”
“They are the vehicle through which better pay, safer working conditions and fairer workplaces can be achieved. Equipping them effectively is fundamental to restoring balance.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered trade union access to workplaces. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions. It is important to open with some stark context. The 14 years of austerity between 2010 and 2024 forced down real wages in the UK, a setback from which many working families are still recovering. That came atop a 40-year structural decline in the share of national wealth going to labour, coinciding with the erosion of trade union rights and with declining membership and falling union density. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of the Labour Government is clear: raising living standards. Trade unions are central to that mission.”
“The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. It may have been compulsory, but it is certainly one of the better decisions that he has ever made. The problem of trade union access to workplaces is long-standing. Employers have often restricted union representatives from entering their sites, particularly in high-profile industrial settings. The GMB’s attempt to access Amazon’s Coventry warehouse during its 2024 recognition ballot was met with resistance, highlighting the barriers that unions face even when legally seeking to organise.”
“Until now, UK law has offered no guaranteed legal right of access, relying instead on voluntary agreements or ad hoc arrangements. Even if a Central Arbitration Committee decision is issued, compliance by employers is not guaranteed. Historical parallels include the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which quickly became ineffective because of weak penalties and no means of compelling employer compliance. The lack of a legally binding enforcement mechanism creates a scenario in which unions may abandon attempts to secure access, undermining workers’ rights and collective representation.”
“I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s timely intervention. We know that in schools, the National Education Union and the NASUWT union face obstacles from multi-academy trusts such as the Harris Federation, where access is often limited to outside working hours, when staff are rushing home to pick up children, curtailing union engagement. Under the responsibility of the Cabinet Office, the MyCSP civil service pension provider refuses to recognise the Public and Commercial Services union or allow it into workplaces to meet members. That dispute is now in its 15th week. The lack of recognition is a situation that must end under a new wave of insourcing and public interest-led procurement. On Teesworks, union access has been blocked by local employers, with tragic health and safety incidents underscoring the consequences of absent oversight.”
“The Bill will require employers to respond within a defined negotiation period, with the CAC empowered to determine access terms where agreement cannot be reached.”
“My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. We hear constantly about the crises of recruitment and retention in our core public services, among others. Only by strengthening workers’ access to trade union representation will we ever conquer the rolling crisis across our economy. It is an important point. I very much welcome the Employment Rights Bill for establishing statutory procedures for union access. It was an important part of our discussions when we formulated the new deal for working people, ably aided and abetted by the Minister, for which I am eternally grateful. Clause 63 will allow unions and employers to negotiate access agreements, permitting union representatives to enter workplaces for recruitment, organisation, the support of members and potentially collective bargaining.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decline in trade union penetration of the economy is consistent with the stagnation in wages. If we are to turn the issue around, these recognitions and collective bargaining processes have to be given their full voice. The Bill also acknowledges the need for facility time for union representatives, providing paid time for duties. The Business and Trade Committee welcomed the statutory right of access, but urged that it explicitly include digital channels. It also endorsed the GMB’s call for template agreements to speed up negotiations.”
“By doing so, we will ensure the recovery from austerity and the reversal of the erosion of labour’s share of wealth in a way that is meaningful and sustained.”
“By empowering unions with enforceable rights, reasonable conditions and clear penalties, the Government can equip the trade union movement to deliver real improvements. This is not simply procedural; it is a question of economic justice and social equity. As we look forward, the Labour Government’s task is to reverse decades of declining real wages, expand union influence and ensure workers share in the benefits of productivity and growth. Statutory access is not an end in itself; it is a tool for delivering broader goals. With proper enforcement, digital provisions and resourcing, unions can represent members effectively, negotiate fair pay and improve conditions across all sectors.”
“Where that is not possible, CAC orders should at least be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and penalties should accrue to the union—I cannot stress enough the importance of that happening. Such measures would align the UK with international labour standards and strengthen the practical impact of statutory access. The Employment Rights Bill is an important milestone, but it must be part of a wider strategy to raise living standards and restore labour’s share of wealth. Trade unions are central to that mission, providing the infrastructure through which workers can secure better pay, safer workplaces and a stronger voice. The Bill’s success depends on ensuring that access rights are clear, enforceable and adaptable to modern workplaces.”
“The Employment Rights Bill attempts to remedy that by granting broader statutory rights but, as the Bill is drafted, an employer can still veto entry, leaving unions and workers without recourse. ILO recommendation 143 makes it clear that union representatives who do not work for a particular company should still be allowed to enter the workplace to meet and represent union members. Those messages have to be communicated to employers who seem to want to resist that on occasion. The only effective way to honour the commitment in the new deal for working people would be a free-standing right of entry, underpinned by injunctive relief to secure entry in cases of unreasonable refusal.”
“In 2006 and 2008, the International Labour Organisation’s committee of experts noted that the UK did not consistently uphold convention 87, the global standard that protects workers’ freedom to form and join trade unions of their choosing, and that ensures unions can run their affairs freely. A constant theme of this debate is just how far removed the United Kingdom has been from its ILO obligations. I trust that this Government will not overlook them in the way that previous Governments have. Union officials cannot always access workplaces to support members in disciplinary or grievance hearings, and recognition ballots offer only limited access.”
“I urge the Government to adopt similar measures to ensure that statutory access rights are truly effective across sectors. It is very welcome that Matthew Taylor has been appointed to chair the Fair Work Agency. His knowledge of workplace relations informed the new deal for working people. We must ensure that the agency is adequately resourced and empowered to monitor, oversee and enforce union access effectively. Without sufficient funding and staffing, statutory provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than operational. Historical international context underlines the stakes.”
“It would also have set reasonable notice requirements, with provision for urgent cases, and defined access conditions guided by Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service codes. The new clause would have clarified access to dwellings by allowing suitable alternative arrangements. It would have introduced a genuine enforcement mechanism by allowing CAC orders to be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and it would have established transparent penalty-setting criteria based on the gravity and duration of non-compliance. Finally, it would have integrated the new rights with existing law and ACAS guidance. Had it been adopted, it would have significantly strengthened the Bill and created a practically enforceable framework.”
“Trade union experiences illustrate the stakes. The GMB’s efforts to engage with Amazon, Harris Federation schools and Teesworks highlight the fact that lack of access can hinder collective bargaining, prevent timely health and safety oversight, and reduce wages and protections. Access to care homes will be critical as fair pay agreements are rolled out to ensure that low-paid workers gain union representation and negotiate fair terms. I tabled a new clause to amend the Bill on Report to address enforcement and clarify gaps. It would have established a clear statutory right of access for independent trade unions. It would have broadened the Bill’s purpose to include recruitment, representation and bargaining.”
“Far too often, we have seen employers pricing in the breach of provisions as simply the cost of doing business. We cannot permit that. Debates in Committee and wider parliamentary discussions have reiterated those points. Witnesses stressed the importance of digital access, reasonable notice, clarity over dwellings and enforceable CAC determinations. Amendments clarified that only independent trade unions certified by the certification officer could exercise statutory access rights, preventing employers from using non-independent sweetheart unions. The CAC is empowered to adjudicate disputes, but unions still bear the cost of pursuing penalties through the employment appeal tribunals, and fines are payable to the Government, rather than the union. That creates a risk that enforcement will remain weak.”
“In a written ministerial statement in March 2025, the Government said that they would implement “a fast-track route for achieving an ‘off-the-shelf’ access agreement where certain conditions are met, alongside a mechanism to ensure there are robust penalties in place for non-compliance.” Access rights will mostly be detailed in secondary legislation. Future regulations must genuinely deliver the Government’s promise of a meaningful right of access. That includes ensuring that the right is enforceable, as union-busting employers and their lawyers will exploit any gaps. Unions want to ensure that provisions are as strong as possible. Face-to-face communication remains the most effective way for unions to recruit and organise. Robust penalties are needed so that employers cannot price refusal in.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that she has in mind the Amazon debacle in Coventry, where that issue was at play. I thank her and all my hon. Friends for their consistent application to this agenda over many years. It is now bearing fruit. Concerns remain about the enforceability of access, as some employers may refuse to comply with CAC decisions, creating incentives to disrupt legitimate access. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has called for the CAC to be adequately resourced. Labour pledged to act to ensure that union members and workers are able to access a union at work.”
“Does the Minister agree that there are many good employers across our economy who actively engage and encourage trade union access and recognition? They could be of great service in the process that she describes for supporting other businesses as the regulations are implemented.”
“My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Will he join me in thanking our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and his predecessor, Alex Cunningham, for securing the Alfanar investment in that constituency, and our right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for securing investment at the Wilton International Centre, which will lead to many hundreds of secure, permanent jobs?”