Andy McDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  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. I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement of 8 September, and particularly the Government having now made it clear that their official position is that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is unlawful—it is illegal. That is an important change, and it at long last brings the United Kingdom into line with the International Court of Justice 2024 advisory opinion, but, as the Minister said, the court’s conclusion was rooted in Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its clear intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist settlement agenda. 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. On genocide, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to full, robust and fair judicial processes, with final determinations made by competent courts, but the UK does not need to wait for a final determination before acting. The UN commission of inquiry stated in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and that state parties to the genocide convention had been on notice of a serious risk of genocide since at least January 2024. 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. I welcome the Government’s commitment to refuse arms licences where exports materially contribute to the unlawful occupation, but the Foreign Secretary did not clearly confirm when I asked during last week’s statement whether existing licences will be cancelled where they meet that test. Will the Minister confirm that the new double lock will apply to existing licences, and set out the criteria by which the Government will determine whether an export contributes to the occupation? 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 for sale in the west bank. When that was raised, the wholly inappropriate response was to send in the Advertising Standards Authority, so I welcome the movement on that by Front Benchers. Will the Government confirm that these measures will cover all settlements, including existing settlements, that the ban on goods will apply to exports as well as imports, and that there will be no “re-export to settlements” clauses in contracts, as modelled on the guidance issued in respect of Russia? Finally, I sincerely hope that this reset will be furthered and sustained, as only by doing so can the commitment to a two-state solution be truly achieved.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  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. It is broadly welcomed, and massively welcomed by the Palestinian people and those who stand up for them. May I ask him to move with all pace on the regulations that he will introduce? Since the Government now acknowledge that the occupation is illegal, surely the already granted licences for arms used in the occupation should be suspended.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury to speak to amendments 103 and 104, new clause 160 and amendment 105 in my name. I thank the Minister for meeting me during the passage of the Bill and for her subsequent letter. I also thank the Spinal Injuries Association for its support for the APPG and, crucially, for people living with spinal cord injury. These amendments are not about preventing reform; they are about ensuring that when responsibility for highly specialised services changes, patients continue to receive safe, equitable and nationally consistent care. Spinal cord injury is a relatively low volume but complex lifelong condition requiring specialist expertise, rehabilitation and long-term follow-up. National commissioning exists to prevent fragmented services and postcode variation. If commissioning moves to integrated care boards, we need confidence that specialist workforce capacity, national standards and the sustainability of specialist centres will be protected. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify how those safeguards will work in practice, particularly around workforce, rehabilitation and geographical variation. I also seek clarity on whether spinal cord injury services will transfer to ICBs and what criteria will determine that decision. Amendment 104 and new clause 160 would provide national assurance and parliamentary accountability for outcomes, access, workforce and geographical variation. Amendment 105 addresses the single patient record. Specialist charities provide vital practical and peer support after life-changing injury, even where they are not part of the clinical care. That is why this appeal is so resonant. If we can engage with those providers at that early stage, the outcomes will undoubtedly be improved. The amendment would allow referral, with patient consent, to approved condition-specific organisations sharing only necessary information. I will not press these amendments to a vote today. I hope that the Minister will consider further safeguards and clarification during the Lords stages of the Bill. The care and access to support for patients dependent on specialist services should not depend on where those patients live.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Policing in Cleveland · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. I also pay tribute to all the officers of Cleveland police who, while grieving the loss of their two colleagues, have continued to serve with extraordinary professionalism, remaining visible in our communities, pursuing offenders and making arrests. My thoughts, those of my Middlesbrough and Thornaby East constituents and those of everyone across Teesside remain with the families of the officers, their friends and colleagues. That has been magnificently demonstrated by the overwhelming generosity shown in donations to the fund established to support the families of Matthew and Tom, and at the outpouring of love and solidarity at the Riverside stadium on Saturday, which reflect the decency of the overwhelming majority of people in our communities. We must, however, confront the reality of crime honestly. The latest figures show around 123 recorded crimes per 1,000 people across the Cleveland police force area—the highest rate of any police force in England and Wales. Yet Cleveland has experienced the largest percentage reduction in full-time equivalent officers since 2010, losing around 13% of its officers. Police numbers are not the only factor, but a force facing the highest demand in the country needs the resources to respond. I am truly grateful to the Home Secretary for the financial assistance she has announced for Cleveland today, and that will address the mutual aid bill and some. Will she meet me and my colleagues to discuss how that deficit in resources can be urgently and permanently corrected?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking office and thank him profoundly for his tribute to the Cleveland police officers, PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were so tragically killed on 22 August. My constituents, and indeed constituents across Teesside, welcomed his remarks in the past week on support for Cleveland police, and I look forward to the Home Secretary’s statement later today. The Prime Minister’s remarks on greater public control of public service and public utility provision are most welcome, and I look forward to discussing the nature of that public control in more detail in the coming weeks and months. One core aspect of that is the continued waste of public funds through the continued use of outsourcing to provide core public services. I trust that he will engage with key stakeholders who have provided yet more evidence that it makes complete economic sense to insource provision of our services. Does he agree that we must ensure that the new public interest test does its job of economic transformation and delivers, as we promised, the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a true privilege to have been present for this debate, and to have heard some of the most incredible contributions that I have ever heard in this place. I will be mercifully brief. I recognise that it is to the Prime Minister’s considerable credit that he has fulfilled his manifesto commitment and got the Bill to this point within a year of his remarks at the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year. I also put on record my recognition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) for his persistent work on this subject for many years. Principally, however, it is the families of Hillsborough victims, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Pete Weatherby KC, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and many others who have to be recognised for not letting the matter rest, and for their tireless determination to get us to where we are today. We must not forget the Manchester Arena victims, the Grenfell families, the Chinook families, the contaminated blood families, the British nuclear test veterans, and all those who have been part of this campaign. The duty of candour on the NHS did not deliver for the families of my constituents Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, and many others who died in the scandal at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. I have welcomed confirmation of a public inquiry, and the information that applications have been received to chair it, but families need that inquiry to be up and running. I hope that the Health Secretary can progress that urgently this summer. We are being asked to support dozens of Government amendments today that were tabled with little notice, and without our having been able to scrutinise them in detail, but I am led by the families to support those amendments. I recognise the calls for oversight and monitoring mechanisms, such as those set out in new clause 5, tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and in new clause 1, by my old friend and doughty campaigner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). Those measures would assure us that the new Government amendments will function effectively and, among other things, allow us to hold to account police officers and members of the armed forces and the security services, as we are led to believe. I sense that many Members across this House would like to hear more from our Front Benchers about commitments made to ensuring oversight and monitoring. Perhaps the Minister can address that when she responds to the debate. The expectation of honesty and transparency is not, and never can be, a threat to national security. Will the Minister set out how the application of the duty of candour and the prevention of carve-outs will be applied to the work of the Northern Ireland Legacy Commission, which is being established by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government will table amendments to that Bill, or can otherwise provide guarantees that the measures in the Bill cover the families who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland. The common characteristics of these appalling human tragedies are the most unimaginable trauma, pain and grief, and the demands are the same. They are for truth, justice and accountability, and today provides the means to deliver on those demands. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from Liverpool, West Derby: if anything tells us why we come to this place to change the country for the better, surely it is what we are doing today, and I very much welcome this landmark legislation.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Timms Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s interim report and the commitment to co-production with deaf and disabled people’s organisations. The report rightly recognises that while PIP is a highly valued benefit, too many people experience claiming it as stressful, dehumanising and simply not fit for purpose. Frontline organisations such as the Trussell Trust and Disability Rights UK have welcomed that honest diagnosis, but they warn that disabled people remain anxious about where the review is heading. Does the Minister agree that the real test of success will be the final recommendations being recognised as genuinely co-produced and commanding the confidence of those who rely on PIP? The Minister has mentioned that a good system will bring about savings, but can he assure the House that this will be driven by improving support, not by achieving savings?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on leading this debate today. The Government rightly say that Israel’s settlements in the OPT are illegal under international law. If that is the Government’s position, I welcome that recognition, but there is an obvious question: why does Britain still permit trade and financial activity that helps sustain those illegal settlements? In a matter of days, it will be two years since the ICJ advisory opinion was given, which people have commented on. Two years on, the Government are yet to explain how they intend to give effect to those obligations in UK law and policy. In a statement on 9 June, the Foreign Secretary said: “I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous”. —[ Official Report , 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 162.] I had a look at that guidance this morning. It goes no further than advising against economic and financial activity in the settlements. It does not say that trading with settlements is unlawful, and it does not say that such trade, financial services or investment are prohibited. That contradiction was exposed during the Great Israeli Real Estate Event in London, where property in illegal settlements was marketed to British buyers. The Government referred the organisers to the Advertising Standards Authority. With respect, this is not principally an advertising issue; it is a question of whether commercial activity linked to illegal settlements should be taking place at all. If such activity is taking place through Britain’s financial system, Britain’s regulators should be asking whether it is facilitating activity connected to settlements that this Government accept are unlawful. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and I, as co-chairs of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, have written to Britain’s anti-money laundering supervisory bodies—but they bounce the matter straight back to the Government. Ministers point to travel bans, sanctions on two Israeli Ministers and updated guidance. Those are all welcome, but they do not answer the wider question of whether Britain is using every available tool to uphold international law. The Government say they lack the powers—we have heard today that they do not. They cannot occupy two positions at once; they cannot say that settlements are illegal while allowing British commerce to help sustain them. They cannot condemn them in speeches and maintain those positions. Today’s motion cannot change the law, but it can tell the Government that Parliament expects the law to reflect its own state’s position. This country has a history of having betrayed the Palestinian people since 1915, with the betrayal of the Sharif of Mecca in 1917, the 1936 put down of the uprising, and the facilitation of the Nakba. It is about time we discharged our legal and moral responsibilities to the Palestinian people.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  If that is a problem and we want to implement the ban, the issue of distinguishing the goods is Israel’s problem; it should not be ours. We should not be held over a barrel by being told that distinguishing goods is a problem for us. It is Israel’s problem to distinguish which goods to prevent, and we should ban those goods in totality.

• 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!