Andy McDonald MP: speeches

140 published records · newest first.

Speeches

1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source
More
The Government have said that they advise British businesses against involvement in illegal settlements, and this week they warned companies not to bid for the E1 contracts. Given that settlement expansion continues unbated, with properties recently promoted in London, over and above sending in the Advertising Standards Authority, will the Government confirm that they are working with UK regulatory bodies and will ensure that existing sanctions and anti-money laundering and proceeds of crime powers are used to prevent and to punish UK financial and commercial support for and involvement in illegal settlements? We have the criminal powers, so if the Minister wants to take action, will he explain why they are not being used?
17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source
More
I note the definition on activities being “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we are getting into some tortuous territory? It could be properly argued that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to seek to uphold basic human rights and have international humanitarian law observed consistently. That is in our collective and global interests, but we could find ourselves in situations where actors who we currently class as our allies, such as in the example he has given, use organisations to undermine that very principle. Is that not an example of how we need to think this legislation through?
16 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source
More
On what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country, why does the hon. Gentleman think it was rational that other state-owned railways were franchised to run the railway system in this country to the exclusion of this country’s operators? That was absolute nonsense. Trenitalia, Deutsche Bahn, Keolis and Nederlandse Spoorwegen were all taking that subsidy and putting it back into their home market. How on earth was that in the interests of the United Kingdom?
10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source
More
Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the financial support that I received from rail trade unions at the time of the general election. I am pleased to support the Bill and the wider programme of rail reform, but I want to explain why I have tabled a number of amendments and why I support some of those tabled by others. Alongside the Passenger Rail Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, this legislation represents the most significant reversal of rail privatisation in a generation. It creates Great British Railways as the new publicly owned body bringing track and train together under a single strategic direction. After decades of fragmentation, we have an opportunity to build a railway run in the public interest, with resources reinvested in services rather than being extracted from the industry. But if the Bill is to succeed, it must improve conditions not only for passengers but for railway employees. The transition to GBR should be a just transition for railway workers, not simply an organisational restructuring exercise. I urge the Minister to consider a high-level industrial relations strategy alongside the high-level output specification. I am concerned by reports of job losses at Network Rail ahead of GBR’s creation, and by evidence that some TUPE transfers have been accompanied by the erosion of collective bargaining arrangements. The move to GBR should strengthen industrial relations, not weaken them. In that context, the derecognition of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association for employees transferring from Network Rail to its wholly owned subsidiary Platform4 is deeply troubling. The removal of long-established recognition arrangements at the point of transfer sends the wrong signal about industrial relations under public ownership. Ministers have been asked what preparations are being made to understand existing recognition agreements and to engage with trade unions during the transition, yet we have heard responses suggesting that recognition remains a matter for individual employers. That risks reproducing the fragmented industrial relations landscape created by privatisation, rather than overcoming it.
10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source
More
What has been said is not accurate. Our White Paper for GB Rail was published ahead of the Williams-Shapps review. The chronology is either right or wrong, and I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is wrong.
10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source
More
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words, and I fully acknowledge his point. That is exactly how we are going to build a sustainable railway that will serve our communities and be responsive to reasonable requests from its workforce. I have tabled new clause 26 and amendment 64, on the transfer of employees to GBR. The original vision of reform was for a railway with a single directing mind, but there is a strong case for having a single employer too. The legislation should make it clear that employees transferring from Network Rail, DfT Operator operators and former franchises will move into a coherent organisation, with full TUPE protections and clear employment rights. I also encourage the Government to move towards a formal framework for sectoral collective bargaining across the rail industry. Public ownership should create the conditions for partnership, workforce voice and stable industrial relations. I have also tabled new clause 27, on pension schemes. It is remarkable that legislation transferring the railway back into public ownership contains weaker statutory pension protections than the legislation used to privatise it. The Railways Act 1993 included detailed provisions protecting pension rights, and workers joining GBR deserve the same certainty. Every railway employee should have a statutory right to participate in the railway pension scheme on protected terms. I also support amendments to preserve schedule 17. We all remember the overwhelming public opposition to the proposals to close ticket offices, and schedule 17 provides an important mechanism for consultation and accountability when significant service changes are proposed. Those protections should not be casually swept aside. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which would secure GBR in the public sector for the future. I also support amendment 35, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the wider principle of insourcing. He is absolutely right to say that the Bill creates an opportunity for the greatest wave of insourcing in a generation. The railway should not rely on fragmented contracting models that create insecurity and limit progression. Bringing contracted workers directly into GBR would strengthen workforce planning, improve standards and help to fulfil Labour’s commitment to treat railway staff as an asset rather than a cost. This Bill is a historic opportunity. Public ownership can deliver a better railway for passengers, but it must also deliver a better railway for the people who run it every day. By strengthening protections for employment, trade union recognition, pensions and insourcing, we can ensure that Great British Railways is built on the foundations of fairness as well as efficiency.
9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I want to thank the Minister for the middle east for agreeing with me last week when I referred to the forced displacement of people by Israel as a war crime, and I am grateful for that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her sterling work in raising the issue of charities, which was reflected in the statement. I want to press the Foreign Secretary when she says that “businesses should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements.” There must be consequences for that. Those activities are criminal, and we have the architecture in this country with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having to ensure that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority are giving guidance to their members? Importantly, what conversations is she having with the National Crime Agency, because until such time as those companies are prosecuted and convicted of their crimes, I am afraid this is not going to bite?
3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source
More
I share the Minister’s condemnation of the murderous attacks on Kuwait airport this morning. I am sure he will share with me the condemnation of the murder of two more health workers in Lebanon this morning, at the hands of the IDF. The Minister referred to the Israelis ordering the war crime of the forcible displacement of around 1 million Lebanese south of the Zahrani and Litani rivers, with 3,500 killed and tens of thousands injured by their actions. This reflects the early stages of the Gaza war, when they told Gazans to move south of the Wadi Gaza river. Since then, the estimates are that 70,000 have been killed and 170,000 injured. Indeed, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz explicitly said that the destruction of villages in southern Lebanon would proceed in accordance with the model of Beit Hanoun and Rafah in Gaza. With the growing Israeli attacks in the west bank in addition to that, when will the Government act on this consistent pattern of war crimes purposefully pursued by the Israeli Government, take action to pressure the Israeli state to stop its military action, end arms sales, stop F-35 supplies, impose sanctions, and utilise the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002? There are tools at the Minister’s disposal. When will he use them fully?
1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source
More
May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his place and wishing him well in the responsibilities that he carries on behalf of patients, NHS staff and communities across the country? I welcome the Bill and its intention to improve patient care through investment, modernisation and better integration across the health service. It is right to acknowledge the progress made on waiting times and waiting lists since Labour returned to government, with the overall waiting list falling significantly and long waits continuing to come down, but may I add my voice to those of others about the appointment of a chair for the Tees, Esk and Wear Valley inquiry? My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) gave that commitment, which we were pleased to hear, but we have yet to see that chair appointed. If that could be given attention, we would be most grateful. I remain concerned about the continuing impact of historic private finance initiative costs on NHS trust budgets, including the pressures facing South Tees hospitals NHS foundation trust in my patch. Too much money is still being diverted from frontline care. I regret that this issue remains unresolved. The principal reason I rise today is as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury. Last summer, the APPG’s inquiry into spinal cord injury services reached a clear conclusion: the evidence points to the need for more national co-ordination, not less. Spinal cord injury is a low-volume but highly complex condition requiring specialist pathways, lifelong rehabilitation and co-ordinated support, yet the inquiry heard repeated evidence of fragmented services, postcode variation, delayed rehabilitation and patients being lost within the system. The APPG therefore called for a national strategy and a modern service framework for spinal cord injury care. As we intend to hold a lived experience roundtable shortly, I invite the Health Secretary to come and meet people with spinal cord injury to hear their concerns about the proposed changes to commissioning. We welcome the excellent constructive engagement from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and NHS England officials, but we remain deeply concerned about proposals to transfer spinal cord injury commissioning from national oversight to integrated care boards. Indeed, NHS England’s own evidence to the inquiry emphasised national standards, national quality metrics and nationally co-ordinated pathways, quality measures and oversight. If national consistency has not yet been achieved under national commissioning, what evidence demonstrates that transferring responsibility to multiple ICBs will improve outcomes or equity? What is at stake is not abstract. When somebody sustains a spinal cord injury, their life changes overnight. They may require specialist rehabilitation, housing support, benefits advice, mental health support and long-term clinical care. Patients and families should not be left to navigate a fragmented system alone. That is why I welcome the ambition behind the single patient record and Diagnosis Connect. Connecting newly diagnosed patients directly to specialist support reflects one of the APPG’s recommendations. Organisations such as the Spinal Injuries Association help people rebuild their lives after life-changing injury. I hope that Ministers will consider including spinal cord injury within the early phases of Diagnosis Connect. The question is not whether structures change on paper; it is whether people living with spinal cord injury will experience safer, more equitable, more co-ordinated care. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer some straightforward questions. If NHS England accepts that national consistency has not yet been achieved, what evidence shows that localised commissioning will improve it? How will national standards, benchmarking and quality oversight remain coherent under a fragmented arrangement? Do the Government accept that spinal cord injury differs fundamentally from standard population health commissioning because of its low volume, high complexity and cross-boundary nature? What safeguards will prevent widening regional inequity, if accountability is dispersed across multiple ICBs? The APPG’s inquiry concluded that spinal cord injury services require stronger national co-ordination and oversight, not greater fragmentation, and I hope the Government will reflect carefully on that evidence. This country led the world in spinal cord injury provision under the leadership of Professor Ludwig Guttmann after the second world war, with the remarkable work that he achieved. We need to return to those days of being pioneering and world-class. As a lawyer who previously practised in this area, I am afraid that over the past several decades services have deteriorated and gone backwards. We must restore those services and bring trust to people who so desperately want reassurance that there is a national system for them to rely on that will address their needs. We are currently not in that place at all. The Bill is an opportunity to address that, and I trust the Minister will take that on board.
21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
I warmly welcome the Bill and the action that the Government are taking to protect Britain’s steel industry. I congratulate the Minister for Industry on his sterling work to bring this legislation before the House. Steel manufacturing is a strategic national asset; it underpins our infrastructure, transport system, energy, security, defence capability and industrial future. It is too important to be left entirely to the private sector. For many of us who represent industrial communities, this debate is deeply personal. On Teesside, iron and steel built towns, livelihoods and identities from the early 19th century onwards. Generations of skilled workers helped forge modern Britain with Teesside steel, and as Chris Rea said: “The ships and bridges they were all delivered From Sydney harbour to the Cisco bay”. Over the decades, however, those industries were systematically weakened. The deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s hollowed out communities across the north and across Britain. Then, in 2015, the Conservative Government allowed the Redcar steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for 3,000 workers, families and a further 6,000 in the wider Teesside economy. Whereas with ILVA’s Taranto plant the Italians intervened to save that, and the French did the same for Florange, the previous UK Government sat on their hands. The truth is that a different choice could have been made in Redcar, just as a different choice is being made now. The Government could have intervened back then to preserve strategy industrial capability. The Bill signals something important: a Government once again willing to play an active role in shaping industry and growing the economy, and doing so pragmatically. It will create a framework for the state to step in when markets fail to protect industries of strategic national importance. It will allow intervention, including public ownership where necessary, when the loss of industrial capacity would damage the national interest. It is common sense: people understand that there are sectors in which the public interest must come before narrow private gain. We have already seen this Government adopt new models of public intervention elsewhere. We need a serious strategy for reindustrialisation and growth. That means backing British business through a strong public procurement strategy and delivering a long-term pipeline of orders. If public money is funding railways, schools, hospitals and so on, then wherever possible the steel for those projects should be made here, in Britain, by British workers.
21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
What are you talking about?
21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source
More
What does the shadow Minister make of tilting the balance in favour of communities in Redcar and across Teesside, when his Government sat on their hands and saw the blast furnace go to the wall? Is that his definition of sustainability—to let those businesses and communities collapse?
21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
This week we have seen two Israeli Ministers, already sanctioned by this Government, act with impunity—Ben-Gvir assaulting and mocking humanitarian aid activists, and Smotrich saying the Palestinian Authority will “get a war”. Smotrich then ordered the ethnic cleansing, an apartheid act, of the village of Khan al-Ahmar, as part of the illegal development of the E1 corridor. Khan al-Ahmar is a village that many colleagues and I visited, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, I ask the Minister, does he agree that our diplomacy and limited-sanctions approach is not working to arrest the ongoing genocide? Will he set out what steps he will take with Government colleagues to escalate pressure, through resourcing the enforcement of criminal law, including the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, updating the overseas business risk guidance, and ensuring regulatory bodies are advising their members in relation to the continued illegal trade in settlement goods and services?
21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
Because you’re not going to do it—that’s why!
21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source
More
I, too, thank the Chancellor for her statement, and in particular the announcement of the £350 million chemicals resilience fund. As a consequence of the Iran war, energy price rises of 16% and food price rises of up to 7% are predicted by the Bank of England. I very much welcome the Chancellor’s addressing the cost of living crisis, and the steps to help families this summer, including with bus fares for children; that will be welcomed in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. We will no doubt monitor and evaluate the dividends of that travel offer. Will the Chancellor consider whether the long-term free travel initiatives elsewhere in Europe have translated positively into economic engagement and growth, and whether they could be replicated here? Given the cries from the retail sector this week, can she advise on what a voluntary pricing arrangement on core items in a basket of supermarket goods, as introduced in France in 2023, might do for living standards?
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister has set out a detailed chronology. He has made it abundantly clear that he has not lied and he has not misled this House. In those circumstances, would it not be right to embrace this process and wipe the floor with the critics who have put those things to him? While we are at it, would my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Peter Mandelson had previously made it abundantly clear that his purpose every day was to take action to bring down the then duly elected leader of the Labour party made him wholly and utterly unsuitable for the office of ambassador?
27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source
More
The Bill must be carried over. We need to replace the unlawful 2023 Act, and we must get this right. This is a test of whether the House is serious about addressing legacy in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement commits us to reconciliation based on self-determination, consent and rights. That must work for victims, veterans and civilians alike, and command confidence because it is rooted in human rights and the rule of law. The previous Act was found to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly the duty to properly investigate serious crimes. That is why the Government were right to bring forward a remedial order and introduce legislation to replace it. There is no justification for sweeping immunity measures that risk undermining both justice and reconciliation. Victims, including those who served in our armed forces, deserve more than slogans; they deserve answers, truth, and processes that they can trust. We should listen carefully to Bernard Duhaime, the UN special rapporteur, who met the Secretary of State and briefed Members last week. He recognised that the September 2025 joint framework with the Irish Government provides a genuine multilateral foundation for a comprehensive legacy mechanism, but he also issued clear warnings: that the governance of any legacy commission must preclude interference by those whose conduct may be under investigation; that a reparations mechanism should be considered, to give victims an accessible route to remedy; and that claims of disproportionate targeting of veterans are simply not supported by the evidence. Protecting individuals from poor-quality investigations is one thing; shielding anyone from accountability where evidence exists is quite another, and the Bill must not permit that outcome. When the Secretary of State speaks of safeguarding Operation Banner veterans, he must take care not to alienate the families who are still seeking justice in cases involving the actions of British forces. So I say again that opposing the carry-over motion would be irresponsible, and would undermine the pursuit of justice and reconciliation. However, confidence also depends on our getting the legislation right, and excessive delay or poorly judged amendments risk undermining that confidence too. We look forward to constructive engagement in the weeks and months ahead, because getting this wrong would be not just a legislative failure, but a moral one.
21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source
More
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and for the work that she and the Energy Secretary have done in this regard. The focus on renewables and the decoupling of gas and electricity is most welcome, but may I point something out? One of the problems that we inherited from the Conservatives, who have the gall to complain about the high cost to businesses and households, is that we are heading towards curtailment fees in 2030 of around £6 billion per annum. Would the Chancellor be kind enough to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) to discuss some of the technological options available to us to mitigate those soaring costs?
15 Apr 2026 · Single Status of Worker · Hansard source
More
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. 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. 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. 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. That is why I reintroduced the Status of Workers Bill as an amendment on Report. We should also heed Margaret Beels, the director of labour market enforcement, who told the Business and Trade Committee that this issue must be addressed and that it is time to act, not simply to consult further. Delay carries consequences. As new rights apply primarily to employees, the incentive for employers to downgrade status will only grow. That is the tragedy: we may be inadvertently promoting a regression and pushing people towards bogus self-employment. Without reform, those rights risk being avoided in practice. Could the Minister say what work the Government are doing to assess the tax revenue benefits of introducing a single status of worker, as previously advocated by the TUC? Can the Minister say whether and how the Fair Work Agency will respond to the concerns raised by the director of labour market enforcement and ensure that consultation on single status is expedited? Ultimately, this is about the kind of labour market we build: one that is fair, clear and enforceable, rewarding good employers and guaranteeing every worker the dignity and security in the rights they deserve. When people go to work, they should be safe in the knowledge that they have a wage and terms and conditions that will protect them, enable them to put food on the table and let them build a future. At the moment, too many people are entering the job market without any thought about the solid future that we should be promising them. We must bear in mind the problems that we build up for future generations if we do not provide our workers with security as they head into their middle and old age. If they have not been able to make provision, we are storing up an enormous problem for our successors. I will leave it there, but I trust that the Minister will address some of those points when she winds up.
14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill (Ways and Means) · Hansard source
More
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. 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.
14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source
More
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source
More
May I trouble the Minister one more time?
14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source
More
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?
14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source
More
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →