Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment.

The violence is criminal too. We are grossly alarmed at the expansion, including the proposed E1 settlement bloc, and at the Israeli’s Government’s legislative changes to entrench Government control.

I know that not everything we have done has pleased everybody, and that we have not gone as far as many would like, but it is important to say that we have taken action. We have recognised Palestinian statehood, although I note that some people do not support that. We have stopped negotiations on a free trade agreement, although I know that some people do not support that, as we have just heard. We have strengthened the enforcement of tariff differentials between green-line Israel and the illegal settlements, but to be honest, I do not think it is as effective as we would like it to be. That is one of the significant problems both for what we are doing now and for what we might want to do in the future.

We have also suspended and blocked military and dual-use licences for equipment that could be used, or is being used, in humanitarian abuse in Gaza. We have sanctioned individuals and organisations linked to the settler movement. We have recently pushed the Charity Commission to look into UK charities that are linked to activities in the illegal settlements.

Let me be absolutely clear: of course we support Israel’s right to exist. I do not think that any hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, certainly not on the Government side of the House, is anti-Israel, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) suggested. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the activities of the Israeli Government without wanting to undermine the existence of the Israeli state. That is a really important distinction to make.

The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that many UK businesses are engaged in perfectly legitimate trade in green-line Israel, which is a powerhouse in many sectors including high tech, pharmaceuticals and so on. I pay tribute to those who have established strong economic relations between Israel and the UK, and, for that matter, between Palestine and the UK—I would like to strengthen that latter connection more. I would like to name UK companies that engage in trade in medicines, food and beverages, and financial services completely legitimately, and in a way that will be supported by everybody in this Chamber, in green-line Israel. Frankly, however, I will not do so for fear of reprisals against those companies, and that in itself tells a tale about the toxicity of this debate.

As I have said, the settlements are illegal. There is therefore a legal obligation on us as a Government not to aid or assist the occupation. The immediate corollary of that is that we need to stop UK businesses providing economic support and legitimacy to illegal settlements. Of course, we want to design measures to stop trade with settlements in a way that balances that with enabling British businesses and citizens to benefit from a strong trading relationship with Israel and with Palestine. That is one of the tricks we have to pull off.

There are four key things that we could do and are seriously considering. First, we could ban imports to the UK of goods from the illegal settlements. I think all UK consumers would want us to do this effectively, and lots of supermarkets and other chains have been looking to do it in their own way. The challenge is—and this is not an excuse, to respond to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse); it is just a fact—that there is no properly verifiable means of determining the real source. [Interruption.] No, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the argument, he can criticise me afterwards if he wants to. This situation is very different from Ukraine, because in Ukraine there is a verifiable process to determine whether something is from occupied Crimea or from Ukraine. That is a significant difference. This is not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is a challenge.

[Andy McDonald]

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.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point, but the danger is that, if we end up banning all trade with Israel, we fall foul of the other problems I have mentioned.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists.

The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day.

Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets.

The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

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?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—

[Andy McDonald]

What are you talking about?

[Andrew Griffith]

There was absolutely a plan before the election to open arc furnaces in Redcar—that was absolutely case—and to move Scunthorpe operations to Redcar.

I asked the Secretary of State to address the issue of tariffs. There is no better example of the folly of these plans—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

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.

Single Status of Worker

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for securing this debate and for his sterling work in ensuring the Employment Rights Bill became the Employment Rights Act. He was doughty in his prosecution of it. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I too received support from trade unions in the run-up to the general election.

I have taken a long-standing interest in these issues, not least by leading, in opposition, on Labour’s new deal for working people. The Minister herself contributed to that in no small part, for which I am eternally grateful. It was a joy to work with her on it. We published it in September 2021, in consultation with affiliated and non-affiliated unions. I entirely support the Government’s direction of travel but, now that the Employment Rights Act has passed, the task is clear: we must implement it properly, deliver the remaining new deal commitments in full and ensure robust enforcement so that rights mean something in practice. I urge Ministers to go further and faster on one central commitment: a single status of worker. That was never peripheral. It was at the heart of the new deal. The principle is straightforward: if you work for someone else, you should enjoy the full range of employment rights. Without that clarity, bogus self-employment will continue to deny millions the basic protections of sick pay and holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal.

One person’s flexibility is another person’s insecurity. There are ways and means of accommodating seasonal work, and nobody would deny that, but we must also look at it from the perspective of small businesses, which work hard to employ people. Let us think through how they are undermined by those who seek to rely upon alternative ways of engaging people. They are undercutting their competitors in Newtownards, down the street, and elsewhere. That is not how it should be. We should be playing by the same rules.

There is also a wider public interest. Artificial self-employment does not just erode rights; it undermines the Exchequer through lost national insurance, income tax and pensions contributions. The TUC’s research on this some years ago showed that it probably accounted for lost revenues in the order of £10 billion per annum. A single status would restore fairness in both the labour market and the tax system.

This reform is not new, and I pay tribute to Lord John Hendy KC, who introduced the Status of Workers Bill in the House of Lords in May 2021. It passed on Third Reading in January 2022 before I brought it to the House of Commons in early 2022. That work demonstrated both the strength of the argument and the breadth of support, yet, as a recent briefing makes clear, the current patchwork of employment statuses has created a legal battleground, with employers able to exploit complexity and avoid responsibility. That is why many of us believe that the Employment Rights Act 2025 should have centred on single status. Instead, we have a commitment to consult, but the case has already been repeatedly and convincingly made. That is why I reintroduced the Status of Workers Bill as an amendment on Report.

We should also heed Margaret Beels, the director of labour market enforcement, who told the Business and Trade Committee that this issue must be addressed and that it is time to act, not simply to consult further. Delay carries consequences. As new rights apply primarily to employees, the incentive for employers to downgrade status will only grow. That is the tragedy: we may be inadvertently promoting a regression and pushing people towards bogus self-employment. Without reform, those rights risk being avoided in practice.

Could the Minister say what work the Government are doing to assess the tax revenue benefits of introducing a single status of worker, as previously advocated by the TUC? Can the Minister say whether and how the Fair Work Agency will respond to the concerns raised by the director of labour market enforcement and ensure that consultation on single status is expedited? Ultimately, this is about the kind of labour market we build: one that is fair, clear and enforceable, rewarding good employers and guaranteeing every worker the dignity and security in the rights they deserve. When people go to work, they should be safe in the knowledge that they have a wage and terms and conditions that will protect them, enable them to put food on the table and let them build a future. At the moment, too many people are entering the job market without any thought about the solid future that we should be promising them.

We must bear in mind the problems that we build up for future generations if we do not provide our workers with security as they head into their middle and old age. If they have not been able to make provision, we are storing up an enormous problem for our successors. I will leave it there, but I trust that the Minister will address some of those points when she winds up.

Royal Mail: Performance

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Over the past week, the delivery offices that serve Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have both been ranked in the top five in their regional area for delivery failure. This matters for customers waiting for vital posts and for staff under immense pressure. It is not the fault of the posties; the responsibility lies with the owners. Poor decisions have created a weakened system, chaotic revisions and a recruitment crisis driven by low pay and worse conditions for new starters. The result is a workforce that is overstretched and a service that is letting customers down.

As for the USO, the six-day delivery remains a vital national guarantee, but changing specifications alone will not fix a service that is being run down. Ofcom has allowed an uneven playing field when it comes to competitors, such as Amazon, that benefit from the universal network without contributing to its cost. Royal Mail carries the burden of serving over 30 million addresses while others extract profit.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made a good point about bogus self-employment among competitors. If we do not get this right, we will undermine the impact of the Employment Rights Act. That is why the CWU is right to call for a universal service fund so that all operators contribute fairly to the network they rely on.

Ofcom’s broader approach risks a race to the bottom—it is not pursuing efficiency. If we are serious about improving performance, we have to have a fundamental rethink. I have raised this with the Minister on previous occasions, and I raise it again today. This is a mess and it is collapsing. An obvious solution is staring us in the face: take Royal Mail back into public ownership, and do it quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.

I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for highlighting all the impacts on their constituents, in the form of missed medical appointments, financial appointments or legal appointments. Exactly the same is true in my Witney constituency. Obviously, I speak for the whole Chamber; we are all getting correspondence about this issue in our mailbox, because it is causing so much trouble. The other thing that has come out so strongly in this debate is the stress, the distrust and the unfairness that the posties themselves have to live with. That situation causes a huge amount of unhappiness, but there seems to be no end to it in sight, which is a real problem.

The turnover rate of new Royal Mail employees is extremely high and the work practices are harsh. Yet we rely on our local posties, and almost without exception they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. I will give a particular shout out to my postie, Tony, who on Christmas eve worked way beyond his scheduled hours. He should not have had to do that and should have been paid for it. However, he is representative of everybody working for Royal Mail around the country, and that situation does not just happen on Christmas eve; it happens week in, week out.

The work practices are just getting tougher and tougher. That comes out in the latest quarterly report, which makes for miserable reading. For example, delivery targets were not met in a single postcode across the first three quarters of 2025-26. In Oxfordshire, just 67.2% of first-class mail arrived, against the target of 93%.

In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million, saying that it urgently needed an improvement plan. However, five months later Royal Mail is still saying that it cannot publish that plan until talks with the postal workers union—the CWU—conclude. All the while, our constituents and our posties are left paying more and suffering more for an inadequate and wholly unreliable service.

[Andy McDonald]

Was privatisation a mistake?

[Charlie Maynard]

I have been here for 17 months. We could rehash things from 14 or 17 years ago. I believe that in 2009 the Labour Government sought to take a 30% stake out of the Royal Mail, but I am not interested in going back through that because we are where we are. Let me try to finish my speech, and I will talk about where I think we should be heading now.

The Government and Ofcom need to urgently make it clear to Royal Mail executives that they must get a grip on the situation. Although letter numbers have fallen, there is still plenty of demand for Royal Mail’s delivery services. Crucially, everyone across the country and all of us here in Parliament place huge value on retaining the universal service obligation. What seems clear is that the incentives are wrong.

The new owner of Royal Mail is a commercial operator that bought International Distribution Services, the holding company of Royal Mail, in June 2025 with a full understanding of the Royal Mail’s USO requirement. The business seems to be prioritising its profitable parcel business, General Logistics Systems. The owner also has a clear commercial incentive to cut costs on the Royal Mail side of the business and to keep lobbying Ofcom to continue to loosen the USO requirements even further. Such a strategy serves the owner of Royal Mail very nicely, but is a terrible outcome for the many millions of people up and down the country who depend on the USO, and for the posties.

I am sure the Minister and Ofcom recognise that predicament and also recognise that the USO is a key public good. I am interested in the extent to which the Minister considers the situation similar to or different from the telecoms industry levy, which is used to fund the broadband universal service obligation. Does the Minister agree that insisting on much clearer operational transparency from the Royal Mail would be good to establish more detail on whether parcels are being prioritised over letters and the impact of that? It could be managed by Ofcom requiring root-level data on delivery performance and clear reporting on parcels versus letters prioritisation to make it harder for USO traffic to be quietly deprioritised. What steps is the Minister considering taking to stop a situation where Royal Mail keeps trying to bounce Ofcom into cutting the USO further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

Obviously, part of ensuring that the obligations around postal votes are maintained is making sure that the resource is there on the ground to do that. Another part of it is also the prioritisation of postal votes within the service. There are existing structures for that, such as doing sweeps of boxes. I reiterate that the Government will continue to hold Royal Mail to account, will support strong and independent regulation by Ofcom and will press urgently for the improvements that customers rightly expect to see.

[Andy McDonald]

Just before the Minister sits down, can he help me with a couple of things? The reduction in terms and conditions for new entrants into our sorting offices is causing great problems. People are leaving within days and weeks, so there is an issue there. Similarly, in this competitive landscape, we have other providers working on the basis of bogus self-employment. Given that we approach this issue on a whole-of-Government basis, rather than just in silos, I wonder whether we are looking closely at the damage that this situation is causing. I think particularly of the £10 billion that goes uncollected through bogus self-employment, which could enhance the coffers of the Treasury, among other things, and provide people with secure and solid work. As it stands, we have insecure and fragile work, both in Royal Mail and in the private sector that competes with it. Surely this is the worst of all worlds. A thorough approach is needed. I am yet to hear the Minister tackle the key issue raised by many hon. Members from the Government Benches: that we should be looking at the option of public ownership. Will the Minister please address that?

[Blair McDougall]

Our focus at the moment is on getting the business on to a sustainable footing. That is about the negotiations on the very terms and conditions that my hon. Friend raises. As I mentioned, Ofcom has put on notice those other parcel providers. That is primarily about the poor quality of service that we see from many of them, but when we talk to Royal Mail and the union—as I am sure my hon. Friend has done—they will point out that sense of better employers being undermined by those working practices. He has been a constant campaigner in that respect.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I reassure them that the specific localised issues that they have raised will be covered in ongoing engagement with Royal Mail and Ofcom, along with the bigger structural conversation with the union and owners. I close by again paying tribute to the posties who do an extraordinary job across the country, and stress again that none of the criticisms today are laid at their door.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Lady is right to pay tribute to her local posties. It is because we recognise the connection between the sustainability of the Royal Mail and the postal service and the conditions of workers and the importance of the talks that are going on, that the Secretary of State has been convening the meetings that I have mentioned, and he will continue to do so.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

This situation is completely intolerable, as everybody has described. Will the Minister confirm that if the owners continue to fail to discharge their obligations as a matter of urgency, the option of taking Royal Mail back into public ownership will be fully considered, because that is popular with the public?

[Blair McDougall]

Our focus is on ensuring that the talks that are under way are productive, and that they end with measures that will get the delivery service improved and the business on to a sustainable footing. As I have mentioned, we have an undertaking that the owners are not allowed to take value out of the company until service standards improve.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

There is a slight irony here. We call ourselves the mother of Parliaments and the cradle of democracy, yet when it comes to an issue such as this we are bound by archaic rules that mean that we cannot hold the most powerful people to account. Let’s be honest: there may be some very good members and some very bad members of the royal family, but if we believe in the hereditary monarchy, it is pot luck what we get.

I have seen the rules that have led us to where we are now and it is surely time to review them. It is beyond ridiculous that someone in a similar position could be appointed to exactly the same job as Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was, but, because they have been lucky in the great genealogical sweepstake and found themselves born into the royal family, be automatically above scrutiny and accountability and therefore beyond reproach.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I am listening closely to what the hon. Member is saying. Does he agree, given that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is no longer a royal, that nothing is really stopping us having a judge-led public inquiry into his affairs and all that attends them?

[Brendan O’Hara]

Absolutely; I could not agree more. Isn’t it ridiculous that the King had to strip Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of his titles and evict him from his home for us to be able to have this discussion? That is what has to change.

In conclusion, I hope the Government not only release everything they hold pertaining to the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but remove what that great trailblazer, Paul Flynn, the former Member for Newport West, described as the bandages on our mouths so that no one is above the law and no one’s behaviour is beyond scrutiny by Members of this House.

Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

If hon. Members allow me to make some progress, I will get to the background and reasoning for the compensation cap.

Continued delay to the Bill will put implementation at risk, which creates insecurity and uncertainty for workers and employers alike. I hope the other place acknowledges the importance of this and will let the Government deliver the Bill, which is backed by an electoral mandate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said. We have been engaged in ping-pong for far too long, and further delay is in no one’s best interests. I hope the arguments I make today will address the reservations of those Members of the other place who have been engaging in good faith when they have had genuine concerns about the Bill.

As I told the House last week, I convened a series of constructive conversations on the unfair dismissal provisions, which resulted in a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives and was the subject of Government amendments made last week. I can assure hon. Members, as someone who was in the room during the negotiations, that the agreement between unions and business representatives was made with good will and in good faith by all sides.

As those representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry said in today’s letter to the Secretary of State, the “outcome” of the

“dialogue…represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.”

The amendments tabled in the other place undermine that agreement, as the compensatory award cap would not be removed and instead the Government would conduct and publish a review of the impact of the cap. The removal of the cap would then require further primary legislation.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has set out how sensible the conversations have been thus far, but does she agree with me that they have been totally frustrated by colleagues down the corridor, who have no regard for the mandate that was returned to the Government at the last general election, and that we should stand firm and make sure that these rights are not further impeded by the unelected House?

[Kate Dearden]

That is why our motion today disagrees with the Lords amendments and insists on our amendments from the previous round of ping-pong, which deliver on the agreement made by trade unions and business representative organisations.

Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my membership of Unite, and the kind support of ASLEF and the GMB for my election campaign.

This Employment Rights Bill is our promise to working people on its way to being fulfilled, thanks in no small part to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). I am glad to see that Ministers have tabled amendments that reflect the constructive negotiations between themselves, unions—including my former employers at the TUC—and business associations, because that is how we roll in the labour movement. We get round a table, we talk, we come to a deal and we move forward. That is the right way to do things when people do not agree.

To be clear, unions negotiated this deal with the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), and it has my support. Today I will not let the best be the enemy of the good. Cutting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months will benefit 6.35 million workers—disproportionately, young workers, ethnic minority workers, and an astonishing 36% of hospitality workers. New figures based on Government data have been produced today to tell us about the impact that the Bill is going to have. Removing the cap on unfair dismissal compensation means that workers will be able to get what they deserve, and bad bosses cannot price in the cost of ignoring the law.

I was also glad to hear my hon. Friend’s clarity about the timing. Our opinions have not changed, and our opinions on the principle have not changed. What is needed now is practicality to ensure that the Bill moves forward—and as we take it forward, Members should be sure to notice who opposes it. I would expect nothing less of the Tories. I would expect the Lib Dems to remember their total opposition to the Trade Union Act 2016, including their opposition to changes in the political fund rules and their opposition—at that time, but apparently no longer—to the undemocratic ballot thresholds that create a higher bar for trade unions than for anyone else in society. I would gently remind their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), that the right to request worked so well for flexible working that flexible working does not work—we are having to fix it with this Bill—and yet she proposes to bring in an unworkable right to request, instead of a guaranteed right to a decent hours contract. I will take no lectures from the Greens—what a shame that they are not here—who are letting their peers vote whichever way they want on something as important as this. As for Reform UK, they pretend to be the representatives of working-class people, but vote against their interests at every turn.

I say to those in the other place: it is time to pass this Bill to make work pay and to deliver the rights that were promised in our manifesto and voted for—the rights that millions have waited far too long to see.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am proud.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) that this is a transformational piece of legislation, but it has been weakened. My motion would restore day one rights on unfair dismissal. I tabled a motion to reject the Lords amendments, since when the Government have tabled a motion to adopt a six- month qualification period. I commend the remarks of Lord Collins about issues relating to unfair dismissal. He said:

“These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver… we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections… day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 561-62.]

That was a very good speech, made just a short time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We have worked on this legislation for more than 20 years. I just want to put it on the record for my constituents that I wish to abide by the manifesto commitment of day one rights, and I believe it is breaking a promise not to do so. However, other matters will be consulted on now. Some in the House of Lords may take confidence from the Government’s acceptance of this; can we send them the message that we will not in any way compromise any further on this legislation, that we will dig in, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) has said, we will sit for as long as possible, if necessary, to see it through?

[Andy McDonald]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that this episode highlights, again, flaws in the upper House, but even with the convention of double insistence, the concession goes too far.

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend was one of the authors of the new deal for working people, which insisted that the most critical part of this Employment Rights Bill would be employment rights from day one. Does my hon. Friend agree with me on that point?

[Andy McDonald]

Absolutely, and no decent employer should fear any of these measures. Rogue employers were warned that exploitation and arbitrary dismissal would end, but under the compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The point that my hon. Friend is making is that this is not about fair dismissal, but about unfair dismissal. Does he agree that the people who will experience the most discrimination will be disabled workers, young workers and ethnic minority workers?

[Andy McDonald]

That is absolutely right, but under this compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification. A worker could leave secure employment in good faith, only to be summarily dismissed with no protection or explanation, months into a new role.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No, I will carry on.

This debate has been muddied by talk of probation. We never proposed abolishing probation periods—they are proper and necessary—but no system should allow dismissal without cause for blatantly unfair reasons. At present, workers can still be dismissed without cause nearly two years into a job. Under this compromise, they can be dismissed almost half a year in, when they might have a mortgage to pay and a family to support. This climbdown casts doubt on the Government’s resolve and determination to deliver all the elements of the new deal for working people in full.

Worse still, emboldened opponents of the workers’ rights reforms will return for more. They will undoubtedly attempt to weaken the Bill through secondary legislation. Major businesses are already signalling that they will use consultations to soften, delay or carve out core protections. Their language of “burdens”, “balance” and “flexibility” is not commentary, but a co-ordinated push to reshape the settlement.

I say to my colleagues on the Government Front Bench that they should be bold and take heart. The thing that was missing from this Bill was the status of workers’ rights reforms. If we were to take courage in our hands and deal with that issue, we would resolve matters by collecting uncollected tax and national insurance to the tune of £10 billion per annum, as well as giving people security in employment. Think about the lack of a pull factor for people to go into the black economy.

If this legislation is to deliver a new deal for working people, this House must ensure that the back door is not opened to dismantling it. I urge Ministers, even now, to reconsider, because they are making a profound mistake.

[Kate Dearden]

I only have a few minutes, so I will try to respond as quickly as I can to comments from colleagues across the House. I thank everybody for their reflections today.

To respond to the shadow Minister, I do not recognise the figures he mentions, and I urge hon. Members to reflect carefully on the figures that he mentioned in the debate. I would have thought that he had learned the terrible lessons from his former boss, Liz Truss, and I know my constituents are still paying the price for the impacts of her mini-Budget. He is now quoting the Growth Commission, which has Liz Truss as an adviser. I will leave it at that.

The Tories had 14 years to adapt to the way the world of work has changed, but they did nothing to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts and barely acknowledged the existence of the gig economy. They saw the impacts of covid on our key workers and the limits of statutory sick pay, and decided to do nothing. The world of work has changed an enormous amount in the last 20 years, and the Conservative party seems to be telling us that the system is working as intended, but I say that it is not. I say it needs change, and it needs this Bill.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her leadership, and for all her work on the Bill and on our wider package for working people. I know she is keen to see the time that employees must wait for fair rights to be shortened, and we share her desire for employees to benefit as soon as possible from this Bill, which is why it is so important that we get it on to the statute book and implemented as soon as possible. I thank her for her remarks and reflections today.

The Government amendments in lieu are a result of dialogue and compromise. Business and unions have preferred to go the extra mile to find solutions, rather than insisting on their own positions and disregarding all other perspectives. I thank my colleagues for their reflections, and I am pleased that we have been able to provide a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions.

Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Antonia Bance]

I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my proud 23 years in Unite, and the generous support from the millions of ordinary members of the GMB and ASLEF in paying into their political funds to put representatives of the working class here in Parliament.

I am here to deliver a simple but firm message: there will be no concessions on this Bill—not one. Opposition parties in the House of Lords are trying to water down the rights that working people voted for, but we will stand firm. The new deal for working people was a Labour manifesto commitment, and it will be delivered in full.

I want to talk about two sets of amendments, starting with Lords amendments 61 and 72, on political funds. The Lords want to keep the opt-in system, but it is abundantly clear that this is a deliberate attack on the political voice of working people. All this Bill does is restore the long-standing opt-out system that has lasted since 1946. Union members will still have robust rights, and they can opt out easily. Unions are tightly regulated—no other membership organisation has faced these rules. Unions’ political spending is transparent and accountable, with annual returns to the certification officer and the Electoral Commission regulating donations and campaigning. Of course, these political funds support wider campaigning, not just party donations, although I am proud to say that they support party donations too.

I also oppose Lords amendment 62, on keeping the unnecessary and unneeded ballot thresholds, which are designed to stop workers having a voice. The Tory and Lib Dem Lords want to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold that was introduced by the draconian Trade Union Act 2016. I remind Members from the Liberal Democrat party that they opposed that Act in 2016, including the ballot thresholds, and I wonder why they have now reversed their position. Ballot thresholds weaken unions and stall negotiations. Before 2016, ballots triggered talks and resolved disputes early. Now the thresholds delay dialogue and make resolution harder. No other organisations face turnout thresholds; this just singles out unions. Of course, anyone who is familiar with how the trade union movement works knows that no union would call members out on strike if they are not up for it.

With all due thanks and respect to the other place, we will still repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 in full, with no concessions. This Bill is the first step in delivering the new deal for working people—our promise to the working people of this country. This is the change that working people voted for. The Government will not give in to unelected Tory and Lib Dem Lords siding with bad bosses to weaken workers’ rights—not now, not today, not ever.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am most proud.

The past four decades of structural decline in the share of the national income going to employees, decades marked by the erosion of trade union rights, has been exacerbated by 14 years of the Conservative Government forcing down real wages across the United Kingdom, leaving working families still struggling to recover. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of this Labour Government is to raise living standards. Trade unions are critical to that mission and the Employment Rights Bill will help to deliver that.

The Bill represents a cornerstone of the Government’s new deal for working people, a vote-winning manifesto pledge. I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these policies in the platform of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s newly elected Democrat mayor. Among other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet the amendments to this Bill made in the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments, which, taken together, would weaken the protections that this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom.

Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120, which concern day one rights, would remove the right not to be unfairly dismissed from the very start of employment. Instead, they would impose a six-month qualifying period and empower Ministers to introduce a further initial period in which only limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity that the Bill was designed to end.

[James Wild]

When the hon. Gentleman has spoken to employers in his constituency about this specific provision—I am sure that he has—what have they said?

[Andy McDonald]

The concept is pretty simple. Conservative Members are conflating different issues around unfair dismissal and probationary contracts. They are scaremongering. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the continuation of probation periods. The only thing we are saying is that it would be unfair to dismiss somebody for an unlawful reason. I really wonder why it is so difficult to grasp that concept.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No, because I am conscious of time.

There is no impact on retaining probationary periods—they remain intact. Having day one rights against unfair dismissal does not prevent an employer vetting and doing recruitment properly, and using probationary periods legitimately.

Turning to Lords amendment 1B, the so-called guaranteed hours opt-out, this provision transforms a clear right into a conditional option. Instead of guaranteeing a contract that reflects the hours a person actually works, it allows employers to invite workers to opt out of that right altogether. Experience with the working time opt-out shows exactly where this leads: it becomes a standard clause, routinely signed away. That is not the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts; it is their re-badging.

Finally, Lords amendment 62, which reintroduces ballot thresholds for industrial action, seeks to restore one of the most restrictive elements of the Trade Union Act 2016. This House has already agreed that those provisions were excessive and undemocratic. No other organisation is bound by such turnout requirements before it may act. Reinstating them would frustrate meaningful negotiation and delay the resolution of disputes, not promote it. Let us drop the thresholds and quickly move to e-balloting, as we promised.

For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist the Lords amendments and to insist on the Bill as originally passed by this House. It must be delivered in full, for it represents the baseline of a fair work settlement. However, while defending the Bill, we must also recognise that it is only a starting point. The consultations now under way must ensure that secondary legislation goes further and fulfils the Government’s wider promise to make work pay. I hope we see a robust and enforceable right of access for trade unions to workplaces, both physical and digital, so that unions can reach and represent workers effectively, with penalties that deter obstruction. I hope we will create a process to expand fair pay agreements beyond adult social care and schools, embedding sectoral collective bargaining across the economy to raise pay and standards in every workplace. We must also make progress towards a single status of worker.

The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark measure, but its promise will be realised only if this House defends it against dilution and strengthens it in implementation. I therefore call on all Members to reject the Lords amendments and to stand by our commitment to working people: to deliver the new deal for working people in full and to build from it a fairer, more secure world of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

The taskforce will bring together different stakeholders so that we can assess the problems within the system and work out the best way to fix them, because at the moment it is not working for employers or workers, who want access to justice and want it quickly.

[Andy McDonald]

Would the Minister agree that the introduction of these rights and protections is absolutely critical, but equally important is the ability to enforce those rights? The Fair Work Agency has the potential to bring that to fruition and ensure that when people are in those circumstances and are the beneficiaries of an award, they will ultimately receive it, because far too many people take on these cases and do not get any redress.

[Kate Dearden]

We met Matthew Taylor, the new chair of the Fair Work Agency, this week to discuss the agency’s progress to ensure that it is up and running at speed. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, enforcement is vital, and it is crucial that workers are aware of their rights. That is why the agency is so transformational in our approach and important for our wider agenda.

To respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I urge her to support the Government as we seek to update and upgrade our employment rights to be fit for the 21st century. She mentioned lots around detail. As I mentioned earlier, as is standard for lots of employment rights legislation, we want to consult extensively with businesses, unions and employers to ensure that we get this right, and I am sure that she agrees with that approach.

The hon. Member mentioned turnout thresholds. As I have mentioned, we want to create an industrial relations framework fit for a modern economy and workforce and that works for everybody. We have been clear that we intend to ensure that trade union legislation is proportionate and effective and does not create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. We remain committed to removing the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots through the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. We support a strong mandate for strike action, but a threshold set in legislation is not the best way to achieve that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) talked about our proud Labour legacy of the courage and conviction to change lives, and she is a powerful and inspiring demonstration and testament to that. That is why this legislation is so important, reshaping the world of work and delivering security and dignity that people can feel, as she rightly mentioned. We cannot build a strong economy through employment insecurity. The legal loopholes that exist have contributed to the erosion of living standards and allowed a race to the bottom. I am always grateful for her support and thank her for her offer of support as we proceed to Royal Assent and the implementation stages to ensure that everybody across the country can benefit, workers and business alike, and that is why the Bill is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a powerful speech and responded eloquently to lots of points raised by Opposition Members, and I thank him for that. I reassure him that we remain committed to the repeal of the 50% turnout threshold, and we have been clear that it is our intention to align the removal of thresholds with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for unions. The amendment does not change that commitment. We are working at pace to permit electronic balloting by April 2026. He will be pleased to know that we will shortly launch a consultation on an electronic and workplace balloting code of practice, and I encourage all stakeholders to respond to that consultation.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her excellent points on the importance and use of political funds. I reiterate my remarks on the 50% threshold and hope that she is reassured by them. She will have heard the Government’s commitment to delivering the Bill in full from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at Labour conference. I hope to have reiterated that commitment at the Dispatch Box today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all his work on this legislation. It has been a pleasure to work with him over a number of years. He mentioned fair pay agreements, which we are introducing for social care, as he rightly said. We will learn from that process before considering their introduction in other sectors, but I appreciate his passion for this area. I am sure that we will be in touch with him to speak about that progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

That was a very thoughtful contribution, and I am very grateful for it. The Motability Foundation is an independent charity and is regulated by the Charity Commission, but it does engage fully with the Government in the most respectful way. As my hon. Friend would imagine, I have instructed my officials to work with those in the Department for Work and Pensions to see how we can make recommendations and certainly to support the take-up of British cars as much as possible. This Government are of course committed to the growth of the automotive sector. We are providing support through programmes such as DRIVE35, the electric car grant, which will invest up to £2.5 billion of support into zero emission manufacturing across the UK.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of implementing fair pay agreements in a range of business sectors.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing advocacy in this area. We want to work constructively with unions, employers and stakeholders to build on the Employment Rights Bill. Our first priority for a fair pay agreement is adult social care, a large and complex sector with over 19,000 providers and 1.5 million dedicated workers. As such, our priority is ensuring that this process works effectively, which is why I am delighted that the Government have announced a £500 million investment in the first ever fair pay agreement in the social care sector. We will use what we learn to consider where fair pay agreements can offer similar benefits across other sectors.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank the Minister for her response, but with the cost of living pressures continuing, it is clear that delivering increased real incomes and better living standards is our No. 1 priority. Can the Minister say a little more about which further sectors are most ready for fair pay agreements, and what steps the Department is taking to meet the UK’s obligations, as a member of the International Labour Organisation, to extend sectoral collective bargaining as a means to raise pay and improve living standards?