Andy McDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s timely intervention. We know that in schools, the National Education Union and the NASUWT union face obstacles from multi-academy trusts such as the Harris Federation, where access is often limited to outside working hours, when staff are rushing home to pick up children, curtailing union engagement. Under the responsibility of the Cabinet Office, the MyCSP civil service pension provider refuses to recognise the Public and Commercial Services union or allow it into workplaces to meet members. That dispute is now in its 15th week. The lack of recognition is a situation that must end under a new wave of insourcing and public interest-led procurement. On Teesworks, union access has been blocked by local employers, with tragic health and safety incidents underscoring the consequences of absent oversight. Until now, UK law has offered no guaranteed legal right of access, relying instead on voluntary agreements or ad hoc arrangements. Even if a Central Arbitration Committee decision is issued, compliance by employers is not guaranteed. Historical parallels include the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which quickly became ineffective because of weak penalties and no means of compelling employer compliance. The lack of a legally binding enforcement mechanism creates a scenario in which unions may abandon attempts to secure access, undermining workers’ rights and collective representation.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that she has in mind the Amazon debacle in Coventry, where that issue was at play. I thank her and all my hon. Friends for their consistent application to this agenda over many years. It is now bearing fruit. Concerns remain about the enforceability of access, as some employers may refuse to comply with CAC decisions, creating incentives to disrupt legitimate access. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has called for the CAC to be adequately resourced. Labour pledged to act to ensure that union members and workers are able to access a union at work. In a written ministerial statement in March 2025, the Government said that they would implement “a fast-track route for achieving an ‘off-the-shelf’ access agreement where certain conditions are met, alongside a mechanism to ensure there are robust penalties in place for non-compliance.” Access rights will mostly be detailed in secondary legislation. Future regulations must genuinely deliver the Government’s promise of a meaningful right of access. That includes ensuring that the right is enforceable, as union-busting employers and their lawyers will exploit any gaps. Unions want to ensure that provisions are as strong as possible. Face-to-face communication remains the most effective way for unions to recruit and organise. Robust penalties are needed so that employers cannot price refusal in. Far too often, we have seen employers pricing in the breach of provisions as simply the cost of doing business. We cannot permit that. Debates in Committee and wider parliamentary discussions have reiterated those points. Witnesses stressed the importance of digital access, reasonable notice, clarity over dwellings and enforceable CAC determinations. Amendments clarified that only independent trade unions certified by the certification officer could exercise statutory access rights, preventing employers from using non-independent sweetheart unions. The CAC is empowered to adjudicate disputes, but unions still bear the cost of pursuing penalties through the employment appeal tribunals, and fines are payable to the Government, rather than the union. That creates a risk that enforcement will remain weak. Trade union experiences illustrate the stakes. The GMB’s efforts to engage with Amazon, Harris Federation schools and Teesworks highlight the fact that lack of access can hinder collective bargaining, prevent timely health and safety oversight, and reduce wages and protections. Access to care homes will be critical as fair pay agreements are rolled out to ensure that low-paid workers gain union representation and negotiate fair terms. I tabled a new clause to amend the Bill on Report to address enforcement and clarify gaps. It would have established a clear statutory right of access for independent trade unions. It would have broadened the Bill’s purpose to include recruitment, representation and bargaining. It would also have set reasonable notice requirements, with provision for urgent cases, and defined access conditions guided by Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service codes. The new clause would have clarified access to dwellings by allowing suitable alternative arrangements. It would have introduced a genuine enforcement mechanism by allowing CAC orders to be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and it would have established transparent penalty-setting criteria based on the gravity and duration of non-compliance. Finally, it would have integrated the new rights with existing law and ACAS guidance. Had it been adopted, it would have significantly strengthened the Bill and created a practically enforceable framework. I urge the Government to adopt similar measures to ensure that statutory access rights are truly effective across sectors. It is very welcome that Matthew Taylor has been appointed to chair the Fair Work Agency. His knowledge of workplace relations informed the new deal for working people. We must ensure that the agency is adequately resourced and empowered to monitor, oversee and enforce union access effectively. Without sufficient funding and staffing, statutory provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than operational. Historical international context underlines the stakes. In 2006 and 2008, the International Labour Organisation’s committee of experts noted that the UK did not consistently uphold convention 87, the global standard that protects workers’ freedom to form and join trade unions of their choosing, and that ensures unions can run their affairs freely. A constant theme of this debate is just how far removed the United Kingdom has been from its ILO obligations. I trust that this Government will not overlook them in the way that previous Governments have. Union officials cannot always access workplaces to support members in disciplinary or grievance hearings, and recognition ballots offer only limited access. The Employment Rights Bill attempts to remedy that by granting broader statutory rights but, as the Bill is drafted, an employer can still veto entry, leaving unions and workers without recourse. ILO recommendation 143 makes it clear that union representatives who do not work for a particular company should still be allowed to enter the workplace to meet and represent union members. Those messages have to be communicated to employers who seem to want to resist that on occasion. The only effective way to honour the commitment in the new deal for working people would be a free-standing right of entry, underpinned by injunctive relief to secure entry in cases of unreasonable refusal. Where that is not possible, CAC orders should at least be enforceable as High Court injunctions, and penalties should accrue to the union—I cannot stress enough the importance of that happening. Such measures would align the UK with international labour standards and strengthen the practical impact of statutory access. The Employment Rights Bill is an important milestone, but it must be part of a wider strategy to raise living standards and restore labour’s share of wealth. Trade unions are central to that mission, providing the infrastructure through which workers can secure better pay, safer workplaces and a stronger voice. The Bill’s success depends on ensuring that access rights are clear, enforceable and adaptable to modern workplaces. By empowering unions with enforceable rights, reasonable conditions and clear penalties, the Government can equip the trade union movement to deliver real improvements. This is not simply procedural; it is a question of economic justice and social equity. As we look forward, the Labour Government’s task is to reverse decades of declining real wages, expand union influence and ensure workers share in the benefits of productivity and growth. Statutory access is not an end in itself; it is a tool for delivering broader goals. With proper enforcement, digital provisions and resourcing, unions can represent members effectively, negotiate fair pay and improve conditions across all sectors. By doing so, we will ensure the recovery from austerity and the reversal of the erosion of labour’s share of wealth in a way that is meaningful and sustained.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fair pay agreement architecture gives us a real opportunity to enhance the provisions.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that there are many good employers across our economy who actively engage and encourage trade union access and recognition? They could be of great service in the process that she describes for supporting other businesses as the regulations are implemented.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Will he join me in thanking our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and his predecessor, Alex Cunningham, for securing the Alfanar investment in that constituency, and our right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for securing investment at the Wilton International Centre, which will lead to many hundreds of secure, permanent jobs?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and we all achingly welcome the longed-for ceasefire in Gaza and the safe return of prisoners and hostages, but does the Prime Minister share my concern that the 20-point plan is without Palestinian input? Will he acknowledge the need for Palestinian self-determination and their consent for any governance or stabilisation arrangements? Will he ensure the continued pursuit of war criminals, and will he work to achieve an end to Israel’s illegal occupation of all Palestinian territories and the full engagement of a sovereign Palestinian state?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Postural Tachycardia Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent has contacted me about his daughter, who lives with PoTS and faces exhausting weekly travel for costly private IV treatment due to the lack of local NHS provision. They have now found support in York, but it is still far from home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence of national clinical guidelines and clear care pathways leaves too many families in that position, and that the Government should do more to ensure consistent and accessible care for people with PoTS, wherever they live?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Tory cuts to local authorities cruelly caused lasting damage to many communities. What a contrast to the Government’s Pride in Place programme awards to Park End and Thorntree in Middlesbrough, which will change lives for the better. Does the Secretary of State agree that 100% council tax equalisation and a new children’s formula are essential elements to fully deliver for those communities that were totally overlooked by the Conservatives?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Much has been said about the process, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was clearly never worth the risk to appoint Peter Mandelson? Will he go further than that on the professionalism of the role? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about the reputation of our ambassadorial officials across the world. Would we be better served if in the future we looked to professionals to fill those roles rather than politicians?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to intervene, not to have the shadow Minister shape the terms of my intervention. She is talking about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. How can that be? Has it yet been enacted?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  If workers are in good, well-paid work, they can go on to lead good, flourishing lives, and they will return that as a dividend through their collaboration with their employer. They will also be in a position to be more active in the economy. We know that when working people have money, they are able to spend it and generate activity in the economy. Does the Minister agree?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend will, without doubt, remember those dark days of covid, when people had to turn up in the workplace, despite being poorly. That contributed to the spread of the pandemic. Does that not illustrate the need to ensure that when people are ill, they can rely on a sickness absence framework that supports them, and allows them to return to work when they have recovered?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible and to get this Bill on the statute book so that the position is clear, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency, and he is right to point that out. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. We cannot support that halfway measure. Our manifesto is clear: Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks entrenching insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period of six months or two years before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principle of security from day one. I must urge the rejection of Lords amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle—not parliamentary votes or local elections. This House was elected without such restrictions. Trade unions must not be uniquely singled out. Removing the threshold restores fairness, strengthens industrial relations and honours our commitment to repeal draconian Conservative legislation. Finally, Lords amendment 121 would permit academies to deviate from pay and conditions agreed through the school support staff negotiating body, which risks entrenching inequality. It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust being on wildly different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectoral bargaining, we should be expanding it, ensuring fair, consistent and collectively agreed standards across the board. Let us be frank: after years of pay erosion, school support staff truly need a pay restoration deal that values the vital work they do. In every case, the Lords amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them. Our task is to make work pay, end one-sided flexibility and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation does not go far enough to meet union demands for sectoral bargaining and a single worker status, Members of this House will rightly call for a second employment Bill this autumn. We cannot sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country; they need that security to plan their futures, and they need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy. In addition, were they to be brought into that architecture, the Treasury would benefit to the tune of more than £10 billion per annum, opposite the uncollected tax and national insurance contributions. Working people have waited long enough. It is time for us to deliver the stronger rights and protections that they truly deserve.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to support from trades unions. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Employment Rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to their places. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for her support and hard work in the taskforce, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, that led to the production of the new deal for working people. We are in good hands as she carries on the excellent work. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his excellent stewardship in securing the Employment Rights Bill and taking it thus far. I welcome the return of the Employment Rights Bill and the opportunity to address the urgent priorities of the people of this country, which are improving employment rights for better security at work and, ultimately, better pay from work. The cost of living crisis remains a burning issue, and giving people the tools at work to tackle in-work poverty is crucial. This Bill starts the process of delivering much-needed dignity and security for working people. It will not have escaped the attention of colleagues that Members of the party now purporting to speak for working people are nowhere to be seen in this debate. We know whose side the Reform party is on, and it is not working people. These Lords amendments demonstrate the problems before us. I urge the House to reject the Opposition’s amendments, which, if passed, would weaken the rights and protections that this Bill seeks to deliver. On Lords amendment 1, which would water down the right to guaranteed hours, let us be clear: moving from a duty on employers to proactively offer secure contracts to a model in which workers must request them would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill. Vulnerable workers, often young people on their very first job, should not be left in the position of having to plead with their employer for basic security. We have heard from Unite members such as Izzy, a pub worker who felt unable to raise issues for fear that her hours would be cut, and Caren, a restaurant worker who was left with 40 hours one week and barely any the next, with her mental health paying the price. This House cannot endorse a model that forces workers into the role of Oliver Twist, asking, “Please, Sir, may I have some more?” The duty must rest firmly with employers. Lords amendments 7 and 8 would reduce access to short-notice cancellation payments. Again, the effect is to let employers off the hook. A 48-hour limit is wholly inadequate. Imagine a parent who is told late on a Friday night that their Monday shift has been cancelled; there is no compensation, but there is still childcare to pay for.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment speaks to those sorts of figures. I am making the point that that sort of notice is simply not acceptable. People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime, and I reject it wholeheartedly. That is not reasonable notice; it is a transfer of cost and stress on to the worker. USDAW’s evidence shows that, in many sectors, workers already get four weeks’ notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the standard, we drag conditions down across the board. That is why the Government have rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendment.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  And some people do not.

• 11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff. May I thank the Minister for his statement? The Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision, and I think that has to be acknowledged. He has moved at pace to put it right— [ Interruption. ] Don’t be ridiculous. Treat this seriously.

• 11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly the appointment process did not pick up these issues; that is self-evident. Can we have an assurance that there will be an inquiry into why that was not the case and that this House will be kept informed?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this wonderful debate. I hope, Mr Stringer, that you will indulge a speech that not only celebrates our transport heritage but takes a look at our transport future. Some 200 years ago, on 27 September 1825, a small steam locomotive named Locomotion No.1 set off from Shildon, went through Darlington and reached Stockton-on-Tees. What seemed an eccentric experiment at first became the spark that ignited the modern world. That line—the Stockton and Darlington railway—was the first public railway to carry passengers and freight by steam. That journey began on the banks of the Tees; it transformed not only Britain, but every corner of the globe. In a few years the line reached the mouth of the Tees, and within a generation a small farmstead called Middlesbrough, with a population of 25 people, became an industrial giant—“the infant Hercules”, as Gladstone called it. The town’s first passenger station opened in 1846 and the present station, dating from 1877, has now been restored, its undercroft part of a new heritage quarter. From the 1880s came the great goods yards and sidings: Middlesbrough goods yard, the dockside yards, the Eston and South Bank sidings feeding the furnaces; then South Bank yard, Cargo Fleet sidings and finally Tees yard in Thornaby—the great marshalling hub for Teesside freight. Here, rail was never just about moving people; it fuelled an industrial revolution. Durham coal fed the network—carried to Stockton and Middlesbrough to power London’s homes, factories and ships. As iron and steelworks rose at South Tees, Middlesbrough and Redcar, the railway was their lifeblood. Rails, bridges, engines, ships—the very fabric of the modern world—were forged there and carried by train from that spot. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, having woven Northern Ireland into the debate, was absolutely right: people have to know their own heritage. What I have described brought about the immigration of thousands and thousands of people from Ireland, who came to work in those industries. The Stockton and Darlington railway was not just a local line, but the first step in a global transformation—the marriage of steam, steel and energy that built the modern age. We on Teesside can say, with great pride, that it all began with us. In celebrating our heritage, I hope that at the end of this month I will be able join the Boulby Flyer, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), as it runs from Middlesbrough to Saltburn—I will give notice of my visit. I may also visit one of the exhibitions planned at Eaglescliffe station, the one I use so regularly, on the original railway’s route. If the first half of our story is pride, the second half must be honesty. Although our ancestors led the world, our region is today in some respects being left behind. Look at the line that still runs from Darlington, through Middlesbrough, to Saltburn. Nearly two centuries on, it still has not been electrified. Passengers and freight alike rely on ageing diesel trains. While other regions benefit from faster, cleaner and more reliable services, Teesside is stuck with the infrastructure of yesterday, not tomorrow. It is a bitter irony that the birthplace of the railway revolution now finds itself waiting on the platform while others speed ahead. Electrification is not just about convenience. It means efficiency; cutting emissions; freight trains hauling more without choking our air; faster, quieter and more reliable passenger services; and connecting Teesside businesses and communities to a modern rail network worthy of the 21st century. In 2024, the Tees Valley combined authority announced that it would use part of the £1 billion of funding devolved to it to develop a business case for electrification from Northallerton to Saltburn, but the Conservatives’ record is clear. In 2017, when I was shadow Transport Secretary, they scrapped electrification in Wales, the east midlands and the north-west. Again and again promises are made and then abandoned. That is why, whether it is urged by this House’s Transport Committee, the RMT, the Railway Industry Association or the Campaign for Better Transport, I believe that a Labour Government must deliver a long-term, rolling programme of rail electrification—not piecemeal promises or short-term fixes, but a serious national commitment. At home on Teesside, that must mean electrifying the line from Northallerton and Darlington through to Saltburn. Two hundred years ago, George Stephenson and Edward Pease had the vision to imagine a future that others thought impossible. They did not wait: they built, they acted, and they changed the world. We owe it to their memory, and to the generations to come, to show the same ambition today, so let us celebrate the courage of 1825 not with nostalgia alone, but with action. Let us put Teesside once again at the forefront of Britain’s future as it was at the forefront of Britain’s past. From Stockton to Darlington and from Middlesbrough to Saltburn, the railway that carried coal and steel now carries our pride, our history and our hope. Let us make sure that it carries our future as well.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a really interesting exploration of our fantastic rail heritage, and we have celebrated many elements of it. Since his and my part of the world was the birthplace of the railway and we see the advances that have been made over 200 years—that fantastic progress showcased at the National Railway Museum in York—does my hon. Friend share with me an ambition for our part of the world, and the entire country, to make another seismic shift in the advancement of our transport, to be inspired by that heritage experience and to take it forward for the next 100 or 200 years, for the benefit of our people and economy?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a good man who pays an awful lot of attention to these issues. He is telling us about the difficulties regarding aid and he is applying his mind to them. However, as we speak, we have President Herzog in the country. So I ask the Minister: is that opportunity being used to discuss the root cause of this situation? The failure to transmit humanitarian aid is because of the genocide and war crimes being committed by Israel. Is President Herzog being challenged on his open statements about collective responsibility and saying that there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan? And will he be upbraided for blithely signing his name on bombs that come raining down on Palestinian children? If so, will the Minister make those comments known to the public? We must know how this President is being received.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  UNRWA has been crippled, staff killed, warehouses targeted and its mandate undermined. Since last July, less than 40% of required food supplies have entered Gaza. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, anti-Islamic US biker gang included, operates only a handful of distribution points where UNRWA once ran 800. Its centres are largely in the south, forcing desperate civilians towards the Egyptian border, in line with Israeli military objectives. There have been repeated shootings at those sites. This is not humanitarian work; this is exploitation of suffering. The assault on Gaza City is escalating, 1 million residents have been told to evacuate, and we risk a further escalation of civilian death—a new phase in the genocide, so I ask the Government: what action is being taken to enforce an immediate ceasefire? Will the UK match the EU’s move to suspend bilateral support to Israel? And will we ask our F-35 partner nations to consider suspending supplies?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comment. Much more needs to be done. I also support the call for UN peacekeepers. I ask the Government directly: has there been any discussion with the UN Secretary-General on the use of peacekeepers to secure operations? And will demands be made of President Herzog, as he is here today—the man who signed the bombs that would rain on Gazan children and who made it abundantly clear that he was totally aligned with the principles of collective punishment? We have to shake our heads that such a man should be invited into our country. Civilians in Gaza cannot wait. Starvation is advancing. International law is being shredded. Britain must act decisively, urgently and on the side of humanity.