Andy McDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  20. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps she is taking to support sectors identified in the UK’s modern industrial strategy 2025.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  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? 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.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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? 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? 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.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  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,

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.