Andy McDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be called to speak for a second time on Report. I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union. Much has been said about trade unions and strike action, as if the only purpose of a trade union is to get workers out on strike. It is a mischaracterisation of unions, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). It is also a mischaracterisation of corporate Britain to think that everyone is exploitative and abusive. The majority of companies in our country adhere to environmental, social and governance principles, and they make that commitment; they want to demonstrate that they are responsible people. They want that for their investors and for long-term sustained investment, so we have to draw back on those views and step away from the disdain and the contempt for working people and for trade unions, which is not helpful.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had directions from the Chair on this matter, and I ask for your guidance. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has just been immensely critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has a history of standing up to defend his industry, and who had the courage to go on strike for 12 months. Was he given notice that he would be named in this debate in that way?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. I recently visited Middlesbrough’s James Cook university hospital, and learned of the brilliant work in the neurosciences department for the survivors of stroke, brain and spinal injuries, and many other conditions. It has only 18 rehabilitation beds to serve a population of some 1.4 million people, whereas the guidelines say it needs 80 beds, meaning that patients in the Tees valley do not get the rehabilitation they need. Will the Government remedy the position by ensuring that resources are allocated for meeting the ambition of developing a world-class neuro-rehabilitation centre, serving the Tees valley and beyond?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the evidence of Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, to the Business and Trade Committee. He made it clear that he deliberately broke the law and had no regard for it. Was my right hon. Friend as horrified as I was to see that in this House, and as disappointed at the lack of response from the Conservative party?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a proud trade unionist, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today marks a truly historic moment: the most significant expansion of employment rights in more than a generation. I extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts, and express my enormous gratitude to the employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his time and engagement with me over recent months in discussing the measures in the Bill. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication of Bill Committee members, as well as the countless trade union officers, academics, Labour party members and staffers who have worked tirelessly for decades to bring us to this day. This is a milestone we have long strived for. On a personal note, I extend my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for entrusting me, while in opposition, with the responsibility of delivering Labour’s Green Paper, “A New Deal for Working People”. I speak in support of the Government’s amendments and will touch on my own tabled amendments selected for discussion. Specifically, I support Government new clause 32 and Government new schedule 1, which will extend guaranteed hours protections to nearly 1 million agency workers. This is a crucial step, aligning with my own amendment 264, and I am pleased to see the Government taking it forward. The TUC has rightly emphasised that for these rights to be effective, they must apply to all workers. Including agency workers is essential to prevent unscrupulous employers from circumventing new protections by shifting to agency staff. Exploitative tactics employed by a minority of employers, designed to avoid responsibilities and deny workers job security, remain a deep concern, which is precisely why I have consistently advocated for a single employment status. I tabled new clause 61 because I believe that establishing a single status of worker is a necessary step to ending unfair employment practices. The Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published alongside the Bill, states their intent to consult on moving towards a single worker status. On Second Reading, I noted that we cannot truly eradicate insecure work until we establish a clear and unified employment status. Since then, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, has told the Business and Trade Committee that “the whole business of employment status needs to be addressed”, adding that “you can probably consult until the cows come home on this issue…it is about time to do something about it”. The TUC also urged a rapid review of employment status to prevent tactics such as bogus self-employment from proliferating as employers respond to new rights. I welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation that the Government must prioritise their review of employment status and address false self-employment “so that these reforms are rolled out alongside…the Employment Rights Bill.” I acknowledge the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which seeks to establish a deadline for this consultation. I urge the Government to accelerate progress on this front, but take reassurance from the fact that this issue is well understood at the highest levels. I turn to collective redundancy and the unacceptable practice of fire and rehire. ACAS reported in 2021 that the use of fire and rehire tactics by employers was prevalent in the UK and had increased since the pandemic. Nearly a fifth of young people say their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms. Many will recall how P&O shamelessly broke the law, choosing to pay compensation rather than comply with its legal obligations because it calculated that replacing its workforce with cheaper labour would ultimately be more profitable. I welcome the Government’s consultation on collective redundancy and their introduction of new clause 34, which doubles the maximum protective award for unfairly dismissed workers to 180 days’ pay. However, while this may deter some employers, I question whether it is a sufficient deterrent to prevent further abuses. The TUC has raised concerns that merely doubling the cap will still allow well-resourced employers to treat breaching their legal obligations as the cost of doing business. The TUC instead proposes a stronger deterrent: the introduction of interim injunctions to block fire and rehire attempts—an approach I have sought through new clause 62. Mick Lynch, the outgoing general secretary of the RMT, told the Bill Committee that unions should have the power to seek injunctions against employers like P&O. He rightly pointed out: “The power is all with the employers,” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 59, Q57] and that unions currently lack the legal means to stop mass dismissals before they happen. My new clause offers a solution, giving employees immediate redress through an injunction if they can show that their dismissal is likely to be in breach of the new law, ensuring that they remain employed with full pay until a final ruling is made. I encourage the Minister to address this issue in his response and to indicate an openness to considering injunctive powers in this Parliament.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend highlights a critical issue—this is about making that shift and reversing the decline in collective bargaining. We should be looking for the International Labour Organisation standard and, as per the European Union, to get to 80% collective bargaining coverage across the piece. I also note the concerns of the TUC and Unite regarding Government new clauses 90 to 96, on the “one establishment” issue, and urge them to engage with the unions on these issues. Much has been said about wealth creators, but there needs to be a recognition that working people are wealth creators and they are entitled to their fair share. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee calls for consensus. At the core of this discussion has to be that good, well-paid, secure, unionised employment is good for our constituents, our businesses and our economy, and this crucial Employment Rights Bill is an essential step along that road to a brighter economy and a brighter future for all our people.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will have heard constantly, particularly in response to the P&O disaster, that the Conservatives were going to introduce an employment Bill when they were in government. Does my hon. Friend agree that they have criticised this Government for doing what they promised: to bring in this Bill within 100 days?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the shadow Minister aware that the TUC’s survey clearly shows that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts really want regular hours? Can he respond to that?

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing the debate. Football is more than just a sport in this country; it is a cornerstone of local pride and community identity. I say that as a proud Boro fan, and now as a fan of Thornaby FC. Since the premier league’s formation in 1992, its revenue gap with the EFL has grown from 33% to a simply staggering 1,600%. Two seasons ago, just 25 clubs received 92% of English football’s distributable revenues—around £3.3 billion—leaving the remaining 67 clubs to share only 8%, or £245 million. Parachute payments originally designed to assist relegated clubs now act as trampoline payments, giving some clubs an unfair financial advantage and limiting promotion opportunities. There is enough money in English football for sustainability throughout the pyramid to be a realistic aspiration. That can be achieved without harming the premier league’s status as the primary league in the world. I welcome the Football Governance Bill and the establishment of an independent football regulator with enforcement powers to ensure financial security. Football is often called the beautiful game—we must ensure that it also remains the people’s game.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom occupies a very special position, given our historical connections with the region? Does she also agree it is imperative that, in all trade discussions, the issues of observing human rights and the right to self-determination are consistently progressed by our Government?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Plan for Neighbourhoods · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. The previous Government admitted that they thought that Labour’s formulas, which provided money to deprived urban areas, “needed to be undone”, so I welcome this Government’s commitment to tackling deprivation, which is much-needed. As a local authority area, Middlesbrough has the lowest wages in the region and some of the worst statistics for deprivation in the qualifying metrics, so it is regrettable that no community in my constituency of Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has qualified for the long-term plan for towns, which is a legacy of the predecessor Government’s failed levelling-up agenda. I fully understand the rationale, in terms of the parameters and populations, and the need to follow through on promises previously made, but will the Minister confirm the steps that he is taking to move on from the Conservatives’ pork barrel politics, and provide assurance that the Government’s determination is to invest in the deprived urban areas not served in today’s announcement?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate. The Israeli occupation and annexation is unlawful; I would gently say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we cannot pick and choose where the law applies. There is no exemption for Israel. I want to ask three questions about settlement goods. Can the Minister set out what legislative and regulatory steps the Government have considered to prohibit UK nationals, companies and financial institutions from conducting business in, or with, illegal Israeli settlements? Has the UK taken any measures aimed at banning trade in settlement goods, such as introducing effective tracking systems, and will the UK ban investments in Israeli companies or banks that are contributing to maintaining Israel’s unlawful occupation?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. The context in which we approach this question is following 16 months of bloodshed and the deaths of almost 50,000 Palestinians, and a welcome temporary ceasefire. So the remarks of the US President, in conference with the Israeli Prime Minister, that the US will “take over the Gaza Strip” to create a “Riviera of the Middle East” and that “1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza” should live in “other countries”, are reckless and dangerous. That has emboldened the Israeli Defence Minister Katz overnight to further propose the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. The remarks are generating fear and tension in the Palestinian population, and across the middle east—as evidenced by the statements of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others—and will cause concern and more determined demonstrations in the UK. The US President has also restored arms shipments, ended funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council. Netanyahu says that Israel will redraw the map, and the Israeli Defence Forces have detonated whole streets in the Jenin refugee camp in the west bank. In such dangerous circumstances we should be careful, calculated and accurate in our use of language. Forced displacement of the type advocated, which has already occurred within the Gaza strip, is a breach of international humanitarian rights and a war crime. Advocating the expulsion of a people is also justly described as ethnic cleansing, and can only be achieved through yet further appalling violence. I acknowledge that the Government will wish to maintain their diplomatic relationship with the US, as a long-standing friend, but it is the role of friends to be honest with each other, and the UK must use its influence. The Prime Minister’s remark yesterday that the Palestinians “must be allowed home” is most welcome, but the Government must go further. Will the Minister say that the UK rejects the President’s remarks, and those of the Israeli Prime Minister and Defence Minister? Will she confirm that recognition of the Palestinian state is an urgent necessity in resolving the conflict? Will she confirm that the borders of that state are the 1967 borders set out in UN Security Council resolution 242? Finally, when will the UK Government respond to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Would the shadow Minister like to explain how he could sit on the Government Benches for several years but not say a word about the 20,000 officers who were lost, including the 500 lost in Cleveland?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is critical that when discussing crime and social tensions, we express ourselves in this place and outside with the greatest care. It falls to everybody on both sides of the House to ensure that people do not rush to social media to try to exploit an already inflammatory and delicate situation. We all have that obligation, and I share his celebration of the response from the community and the police in working together. That was truly remarkable, and it was only as successful as it was because the community and the police worked together in that way. The Minister will no doubt remember a very impressive officer from my hon. Friend’s constituency of Hartlepool, who I know only as Coggy. He is the most impressive individual, and he took it upon himself—his colleagues did the same across the Cleveland force area—to engage with young people who had lost their way and were not engaged. He told me that on one occasion, he had to remonstrate with a young man by saying, “I went to school with your dad, and he would be embarrassed.” The young man said, “No, that’s not true. You didn’t go to school with my dad. You went to school with my grandad.” Coggy is a remarkable man. I want to talk about some of the impacts on my local force, Cleveland Police, and to put on record my thanks to our police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey. A big positive for Cleveland is the doubling of the neighbourhood policing grant, which will help us to deliver on our commitments locally and to drive the Government’s pledges nationally. It is clear that this Government’s commitment to funding community policing is like night and day by comparison with 14 years of Tory austerity, but there are some comments that I would like to make. The funding formula still hurts us in Cleveland. We have the budget of a small rural force, with metropolitan levels of crime. We need a formula based on need and deprivation, just as local government has had. Cleveland’s grant is slightly below the national average, which means that we have to make up the gap somewhere else. The chief constable’s analogy is that we have a king-size bed with a single duvet: we are constantly moving it around, but we cannot cover everything. For example, a neighbouring force, with far less need than Cleveland, received £10 million more than we did in 2010. Today, the gap is £30 million. We need the funding for our historical investigations unit to continue at its current level and not taper off, as had been planned. The unit is doing critical work and has been given excellent inspection reports. The work it is doing is essential to ensuring justice on some very complex issues. I will raise those issues directly with the Minister outside the Chamber. It is clear that under the Tories, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country, but this Labour Government are now recruiting the neighbourhood police officers that we need to help and protect the public and keep our streets safe, and the constituents that I serve in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East will very much welcome that. I want to finish with a comment about the loss of 20,000 police officers since 2010. This has been remarked on by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), prompted by an intervention about the loss of experienced officers. I cannot think of anything more reckless and cavalier, and I shudder to think of the consequences that have flowed from the loss of that level of experience across our country. It was the most reckless thing to do, bordering on negligent, as would be seen if we were to monetise it in terms of the demand placed on other public services by the lack of police officers’ presence where they were needed. Frankly, the Conservatives should reflect very carefully on their record in office and hang their heads in shame.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her opening speech, and I welcome the almost £20 billion of total funding for policing in England and Wales in today’s settlement, an increase of up to £1.1 billion when compared with the previous deal under the Conservative Government. This is a real-terms funding increase of 4.1%, and a cash increase of 6.6%. The announcement of the doubling of funding to kick-start the recruitment of 13,000 more neighbourhood police officers is vital. Policing on Teesside continues to be impacted by the legacy of Conservative cuts. In March 2010, we had over 1,700 officers. After an initial loss of 500, we still have around 200 fewer officers than we did in 2010, so I welcome the new recruitment funding announced this week and the Minister’s recent visit to my constituency. I trust that she was as impressed as I was by the incredible engagement from not just police officers across Cleveland—particularly those from Hartlepool and Middlesbrough—but other agencies and stakeholders, which demonstrated the complete rejection of the terrible events that we saw on our streets in the summer.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  We were doing so well. We were talking about fairness across the board and not pitting one against the other—so far, so good. But given the shadow Minister’s comment, may I just remind him of the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), in the garden in Tunbridge Wells, where, when talking about his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he mentioned having transferred funds deliberately away from deprived and challenged areas to more affluent ones? Surely we have to call out the record correctly, and if we want a fresh start, let us have a fresh start.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) spoke about auditors, and we are all aware that auditors are spread pretty thinly, which may, in part, contribute to delays in getting accounts signed off. Local authorities are complex environments. In my area, we have two unitary authorities with populations of less than 100,000 people, so I commend the Government for looking very seriously at a more sensible local government structure. We are fortunate to have a Local Government Minister with such experience and expertise. It is a real boon, especially as we embark on such an ambitious and radical programme. I welcome this year’s local government finance settlement. Councils have been subject to steep funding cuts since 2010-11, and these cuts have had a disproportionate impact on the most deprived areas. Many authorities face effective bankruptcy, putting essential services and jobs at risk. By 2025-26, councils in England will have received a 15.9% real-terms cut in their core spending power compared with 2010-11. Councils in the special interest group of municipal authorities, like Middlesbrough, have seen an average cut of 19.9%. Middlesbrough itself has seen cuts worth 22%, which is a real-terms cut of £55 million per year that amounts to around £835 per household, so this year’s settlement of more than £69 billion in overall national funding is welcome. It represents a cash-terms increase of almost 7% and a more than four times real increase on the past year. The Government are on the right track in redirecting funding to areas that are in the most need and have the greatest demand for services. Those areas are often less able to raise income locally, as much as the Conservatives sought to pass the buck to local council tax increases. In areas like mine, many households pay over £3,000 per annum more in council tax than is paid by Buckingham Palace, so this settlement is fairer for councils and will provide welcome relief to the most deprived areas. In Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, we very much welcome the settlement announced by the Government and the long overdue reforms to council funding. Middlesbrough council is now in a position to invest more money in key services. I welcome the fact that Mayor Chris Cooke, the Labour council and the new chief executive, Erik Scollay, have established the Middlesbrough priorities fund, worth over £4 million, and initiatives such Middlesbrough’s empty homes strategy, which will use £6 million of Government funding to purchase and refurbish empty homes for emergency accommodation. While the settlement is under way, many authorities continue to face a shortfall, and the Minister has been very candid that this is not a done deal. We look forward to the three-year settlement later this year, because councils will not be able to rely on the additional funding being repeated. As colleagues from across the House have said, the three-year settlement gives councils the ability to plan much further ahead. I hope we can extend our commitments to wider investment in our services on a longer-term basis, through a fairer funding system that delivers long-term financial stability across all council services. The position of our wonderful councillors has been raised. They do a terrific job, with very little reward, and they are sometimes on the receiving end of the ire of members of the public—sometimes justly, but sometimes unfairly and unkindly—so we need to address that.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is generous in giving way. He quite correctly praises councillors. Does he think, as we move forward with the changes, that it would not be a bad idea to start thinking about how we compensate councillors for their efforts? Many of them give up so many hours of their week and do vital work for very little by way of recompense. Does he agree that we should look at that?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is incumbent upon everyone in politics to recognise the work of our local councils and to treat them with the respect that they deserve. Some of the comments that I have heard in recent times run contrary to that. Councillors in my area have been put in harm’s way by careless and irresponsible comments made by people in this House who really ought to know better. I will finish by talking about not only councillors, but the local government workforce and the issue of pay. The Minister will be aware that local government workers have missed out on the higher wage settlements paid out to workers in other parts of the public sector in the past year. Overall, they have seen 25% wiped from the value of their pay since 2010. In drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I note that Unison, the GMB and Unite have said that a substantial pay award for local government staff is essential. Will the Minister therefore take steps to address those concerns and look to the upcoming spending review to deliver the finances and provide a long-overdue £15 minimum hourly rate for those workers who served us so incredibly well—I think of the covid days of maintaining those public services—so that they are properly compensated for their work?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has the House’s wholehearted support in pursuing the recovery of funds taken by fraud and error. The National Audit Office estimates that, in the last financial year, £39 billion of tax revenue was not received due to fraud and error, compared with £7 billion in overpaid benefits classed as fraud, which we want to pursue. Can she reassure the House that an appropriate level of resources will be targeted at recovering this large sum of money, which will bring better dividends back to the Treasury?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is yet another example of the tension and conflict between delivering high-quality public services and driving down costs, which leaves the people who deliver the services in poverty. That has to be addressed. Similarly, in the railways, the RMT says that outsourced workers struggle to make ends meet, and it directly attributes that to outsourcing firms profiting from low pay. Many outsourced workers’ wages are anchored to the minimum wage, and they do not have the right to occupational sick pay and decent pay schemes. The RMT argues that insourcing would not only lift living standards by putting money into people’s pockets, but raise workers’ productivity, tackle structural inequality and even achieve greater efficiency in public spending. It is time to start a wave of insourcing now. In the civil service, the Government have come into office with numerous disputes having recently taken place, or currently taking place, between outsourced service contractors and their employees, including various instances of industrial action. That is disruptive and costly to the civil service, and it is a result of those service providers holding down the pay of their staff, particularly in facilities maintenance areas such as cleaning, catering and security. PCS, the union representing those workers, wrote to the Prime Minister in mid-July to discuss matters faced by workers across the UK civil service, including those working in contracted out and devolved areas. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met with the FDA, Prospect and PCS in June, at the earliest opportunity after taking office, but the number of civil service disputes in contracts inherited from the Government’s predecessors requires action. There are multiple disputes involving PCS members employed as cleaners, post room staff, porters, catering and reception staff in several Government Departments, and they are not limited to one outsourced employer, but concern G4S, ISS and OCS.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and wholeheartedly agree with his comments. The whole premise of outsourcing has been to reduce costs, and that is visited on the workforce in terms of pay and other terms and conditions, with the disproportionate impact that he describes, which I will come on to shortly. All too often, wider social, environmental and economic implications have been eclipsed by the pursuit of narrow short-term cost savings, with an insufficient assessment of the overall costs and longer-term impacts. Since 1979, under the Conservatives, starting with compulsory competitive tendering, there has been a huge growth of private business involvement in public service delivery and its scale. That has resulted in more fragmented, poorer-quality services run by companies seeking to renegotiate contract terms, with staff—often women and minority ethnic employees, as my hon. Friend described—the subject of squeezed terms and salaries. The last Labour Government invested in public services but did not slow the growth of outsourcing. That allowed the coalition to expand it further, with austerity encouraging public bodies to turn to outsourcing as a means of reducing costs, while ideologically driving it through a White Paper, “Open Public Services”, which argued that few services should be exempt from outsourcing. That is where we were in the run-up to the recent general election, before which Labour set out a clear message on outsourcing. In February 2021, at the height of the covid pandemic, the now Chancellor set out her concerns about outsourcing. Spend on outsourcing was worth £249 billion in 2014-15, and by 2019-20 had reached £296 billion—a significant sum that dwarfs the NHS budget. She said: “Outsourced services are not integrated into the fabric of our communities. Unlike our public services and providers, like charities, many of which offer vital frontline services, outsourced companies have not built up trust over time and lack the vital local knowledge and flexibility required.” Furthermore, she added: “A shadow state has emerged and it is unaccountable to the people. Even before the pandemic, the government spent an extraordinary £292bn on outsourcing over a third of all public spending and that level is rising year on year. The public pays for these contracts yet so often it cannot adequately scrutinise many of them. This secrecy must stop.” To set out the case for insourcing, I want to highlight the experience of outsourced workers represented by a number of unions. In the civil service, the Public and Commercial Services Union states that the two-tier gap between directly employed and outsourced workers is widening as pay and terms and conditions for the latter erode, with civil servants reliant on universal credit and workplace food banks. Departments’ budgets are stretched as they deal with the inefficiency of picking up the cost of tendering and awarding contacts, which have to deliver a profit for the contractors.