Blair McDougall MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The town of Barrhead in my constituency is full of extraordinary young people, which is why my Scottish Parliament colleague Paul O’Kane and I have reinstated the Barrhead Young Citizen of the Year award. However, after years of Tory and SNP neglect, Barrhead is also blighted by youth-led antisocial behaviour. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate that issue, so that we can put pressure on the SNP Government in Edinburgh to give the hard-pressed police in Barrhead the resources they need to tackle this problem, and so that those young people are not left behind and Barrhead is not left paying the price?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 15, which is tabled in my name. I will minimise my comments to maximise the time available to other hon. Members. Owing to the widespread unease among NHS practitioners and the growing number of concerned voices about the Bill’s shortcomings, if it is passed by the House—I still hope that it will not be—it is likely that assisted deaths will take place away from the public sector. Indeed, the Bill does not prevent assisted deaths from being outsourced to private companies, and there is no definition of what “reasonable remuneration” means in return for helping to end someone’s life. My amendment seeks to ensure that providers publish annually the number of people to whom they have provided those services, the costs of doing so, and the revenues received in return. Many hon. Members will be guided by their religion when they vote on these issues. Although I deeply respect that, I am not a person of faith. If there is a booming baritone voice appealing to my conscience, it is not that of God, but that of Nye Bevan, who was concerned about the commodification of care. In his time, the worry was about the role of the market in extending life. Today, my concern is about the potential role of the market in ending it. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have discussed different kinds of coercion by individuals on the lives of people whose protection is entrusted to us. As a Labour MP, I do not think that we can have this debate without addressing the economic coercion experienced by the vulnerable in our society. As someone who has sat beside a bed and prayed for mercy, I genuinely understand the attraction of arguments around freedom of choice, but arguing for that as a fundamental principle in isolation, without also acknowledging the economic, social and cultural context in which people make such choices, is not a Labour approach to the issue.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to that point shortly. We have a duty to ask whether the poorest and most vulnerable will be coerced into choosing assisted dying over palliative care because of economic disadvantage. Will they be exploited by those with a financial interest in their choosing to end their life? Will their death become a commodity? If we are really going to pass legislation that allows someone’s death to become a matter of business, we must have full transparency on those financial motivations, and my amendment 15 would require that. If we are really going to pass legislation that allows someone’s death to become a matter of business, we must have full transparency on those financial motivations, and my amendment 15 would require that. Carers in the private sector are not bad people any more than people working directly in the NHS, but private healthcare operates in a context. The evidence that profit influences the moral choices made in the care and treatment that is already provided in this country is overwhelming; this is not a hypothetical concern. For example, a systematic review published by The BMJ found that private equity ownership of healthcare is associated with lower standards of care. Around the wonderful miracle of IVF there is an industry profiting from people’s desperation as they start life rather than end it. Already, at the end of life—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher)—choice in palliative care is limited by economic status, with the wealthy more likely to die a good death than the poor. My amendment seeks to address the fundamental question of whether free choice really is free by bringing into daylight the financial motivations of those involved in individuals’ decisions.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) on securing the debate. However, I do not thank her for giving me that familiar feeling of dread—I am discovering that we often get it in this place—when the speaker immediately before makes almost identical points to those I had intended to make. Perhaps my speech will now be a little shorter. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Uyghurs. We are having this debate towards the end of the holy month of Ramadan. Across the Uyghur region, Uyghurs will be imprisoned for observing the fast. When they are imprisoned, they will be forced to eat—often, to eat pork—and they will be forced to drink alcohol. Where once they might have gathered for iftar in mosques, they will find those holy places are now piles of rubble. I have lost count of the number of times I have spoken in the House about the crimes against humanity that are taking place in the Uyghur region, but the right hon. Lady made the really important point that those crimes against humanity exist alongside a framework of financial crime. Uyghurs suffer because their suffering is profitable. Of course, there is an ideological element and a religious element to it, but it makes the Chinese regime a lot of money, so when we see women being sterilised and raped, children being stolen and millions of people in labour camps, we can never separate that from the mass slave labour that is going on. Earlier this week in the Chamber we were discussing the role of Uyghur slave labour in the green energy sector, but it is really important to note that it is far from limited to that sector. We spoke a lot about the proportion of solar raw materials infected by Uyghur slave labour, but that is also true of electric vehicles and cotton. We all remember the remarkable scenes recently at the Business and Trade Committee when Shein was simply unable to give convincing answers about whether its products contained slave labour materials from the Uyghur region. It is also increasingly clear that the agricultural sector is exposed to this, particularly in tomatoes and peppers. We see household names such as Kraft Heinz, Nestlé and L’Oréal implicated in the use of agricultural products from Xinjiang that we believe have been made with forced labour. This week’s debate about solar energy and slave labour had a sense of déjà vu for many of us who have been working on Uyghur slave labour for a long time. We can look back to the Health and Care Bill under the last Government and how they were under similar pressure. We will continue to have this debate every time issues of public procurement are raised in the House until we fix our modern slavery legislation. As the right hon. Lady was talking about the legislation, I was thinking of how it is similar to me: 10 years ago, it was fresh and perhaps a thing of beauty, but now it is tired and showing its age. [ Interruption. ] I thank the House for the “Noes” there; that was reassuring. We have to update the modern slavery legislation, not least because much of the rest of the world—ironically, inspired by what we did 10 years ago—has moved to update its protections against slave labour goods. The right hon. Lady mentioned the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States and the due diligence directive and forced labour regulation in the EU. On forced labour goods coming into the UK, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is simply not designed to deal with that issue. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands spoke about the things that have changed in the last decade. Few of us would have imagined that industrial slavery involving millions of people—thought to be a relic of the 19th or early 20th century—would have become so prevalent in the experience of Uyghur Muslims. Neither would we have envisaged how difficult it would become in Xinjiang to do any sort of due diligence. That is what leads many of us to the argument that there must be a presumption that goods from that part of the world have involved modern slavery. Because of the Uyghurs, we know the Modern Slavery Act is not working. Almost every day, a cargo flight arrives into this country from Ürümqi, the ground zero of slave labour for Uyghurs. Section 54 requires companies with a turnover of more than £36 million to produce a statement on slave labour. Looking back at the last 10 years and seeing one in 10 companies choosing not to do that without consequence, it is clear that one of the Act’s major failings was the lack of a penalty. I also want to talk about justice. We know that the workers who are exploited in places such as Xinjiang will not find justice in their own jurisdictions. Under the Modern Slavery Act, neither can they get it here. It is time to say that if a company operates in the UK and is implicated in such human rights abuses within its supply chain, there should be an opening for the victims of that to seek justice in the UK courts. For those who have tried to do that in other cases—some of which are live, so I will not raise them—it has taken years and real legal struggle to get them heard. In order to be a disincentive for companies doing the wrong thing, that needs to be made easier. As we are talking about the behaviour of companies that operate in the UK, after the behaviour of Shein and the spectacle of the evidence given to the Business and Trade Committee, allowing that company to register on the stock exchange here would be unthinkable. It would send a signal that this is an economy that is willing to be based on the competitive advantage that comes from not paying workers. On the subject of justice, I want to mention the organisation Hope for Justice and particularly my constituent Euan Fraser, who has been a source of real help and advice to me since I was elected. He makes the point that back in 2018, when the Government did their last study of the economic and social impact of modern slavery in the UK, it was costed at £4.3 billion. Might the Minister be able to refresh that and give us a new insight? Will she also be willing to meet Hope for Justice to discuss its proposals for independent modern slavery advocates? They are individuals who can work with survivors and ensure that their legal entitlements are realised, not just on things such as getting justice on slavery, but on housing, immigration and, importantly, compensation, so there is more of a disincentive for companies. To conclude, as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said, we are trying to rebuild the British economy, but we cannot do that at the cost of being complicit in the destruction of an entire people. On this 10th anniversary, it is high time to modernise the Modern Slavery Act.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Leader of the House make time for a debate about local sporting excellence, to celebrate REN96 swimming club in my constituency, which won 73 medals in one weekend, GHA rugby in Giffnock, which won the championship, and the young athletes of Giffnock North athletics club, who came home with a haul of medals and personal bests? Will she join me in thanking the army of volunteers behind that success not just in my constituency but right across the country?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that we have such a distinguished internationalist in the Chair for this debate. [Interruption.] That did not get me any extra time for my speech. I recognise the impossible decisions that the Government have to take, but I hope that we do not set up a false dichotomy in which we believe that our moral preferences have to be at odds with our strategic interests. I recognise, though, that the Government are making budgetary decisions in response to very painful real-world events that are taking place every day. I represent many of the FCDO workers from East Kilbride, and I myself worked for 10 years delivering aid. I do not want to repeat what others said in pleading for the international development budget, but I want to ask the Government about one thing, and perhaps challenge them on it. If, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, we are not still the development superpower, what is our offer to the global south? We know what Russia’s offer is: blood for gold. It will kill your enemies for you, through mercenaries, and take precious minerals out of your country. We know what China’s offer is: infrastructure in return for debt that keeps you in its power. We cannot offer violence, and we cannot demand subservience. It seems to me that our offer is values, but values need to be projected through vehicles. In the time I have, I want to mention two of those vehicles. I add my voice to those of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in defence of the BBC. Others have spoken about how development helps to save money on defence. That also works the other way around: when defence fails, development picks up the pieces. If we need one example of that, we can look to Afghanistan. When we left Afghanistan, we left behind the BBC World Service. It is now the only broadcast journalism in the country—the only thing that is still there, saying to those people, “We have not abandoned you.” The cuts that we are discussing imply very deep cuts to the World Service, which I hope we will not see. The second thing I wanted to plead for is the democratic infrastructure that supports dissidents and democrats around the world—the people I worked with. As we stand here, that infrastructure is being dismantled because of Elon Musk’s vandalism. The most extraordinarily brave people I have ever met are being utterly abandoned.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Support for Women Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  The most common problem raised with me by women pensioners is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) says, the enormous waiting lists. Researchers from Oxford University, Strathclyde University and Edinburgh University have predicted that by the time the SNP leaves office, almost a million Scots will be on waiting lists. How can we ensure that the billions provided in the Labour Budget do not go down the same drain as everything else given to the SNP?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Given the widespread revulsion at the violent crackdown on peaceful protesters in Georgia, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on that matter? Imedi TV, the main propaganda arm of that brutal Government, operates and is directed from the UK through a company called Hunnewell Partners, so in such a debate we might be able to discuss whether it is time for a National Crime Agency investigation into those operations and the direction from this country of pro-Russian propaganda and incitement to violence against peaceful protesters.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Detained British Nationals Abroad · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate, and on continuing to be a discomfort in the derrière for successive Governments on these issues. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) talked about the brightest and the best going into the Foreign Office, so I will begin by recognising the unfairness of this debate. We will all stand up and talk about the worst failings of the Foreign Office, and I recognise that the debate will be responded to by a Minister who represents some of the best efforts of civil servants, who go into incredibly dangerous and difficult circumstances to try to serve our constituents. I want to put that on the record. There is a lot of talk in this Chamber about the legacies that this Government have inherited, and it is good that we are talking about one of the worst ones: our country’s record of securing the release of those who have been arbitrarily detained overseas. I will come to some of the policy issues that other Members have touched on, but I will deal first with the principle behind such cases. Ella Wheeler Wilcox wrote: “To sin by silence, when we should protest, Makes cowards out of men.” What is true of individuals is also true of nations. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), spoke about the example of the US, which is relevant here. When other countries’ citizens are held unjustly, it is treated as an affront, an injury to all and a national slap in the face. Yes, quiet negotiation takes place politely behind the scenes on behalf of those countries’ prisoners, but alongside that polite and patient diplomacy is their citizens’ full-throated outrage. I know that the staff working on this issue in the Foreign Office care deeply about it, but the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) both raised the case of Jimmy Lai. We have to ask why Canada was successful in securing the release of the two Michaels, and how Australia secured the release of journalist Cheng Lai. Just last week, the Americans secured the release of three more of their citizens, yet Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen and one of us, and who has been arbitrarily detained in solitary confinement for nearly four years, has not been freed. We could talk about Jagtar Singh Johal, Alaa Abd el-Fattah and so many others. Our first responsibility as a Parliament, a Government and a country is to be publicly, vocally and unanimously furious about this issue. Everything else follows from the righteous anger that we should all feel on behalf of our citizens who are rotting in foreign jails. That anger should drive us to ask what is behind the failure of British diplomacy in the past. A lack of strategy is certainly part of the answer. Like the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was encouraged by the noises that the Foreign Secretary made last week about making good on his promises, both on the issue of a special envoy and on the right to consular access. I welcome the Government’s commitment to step up the engagement on these cases, but that needs to be part of an entirely new approach. I am not naive: I know that it is only because we are having conversations with foreign Governments about trade that we are able to get in the room and discuss our citizens who have been unjustly detained. Indeed, when I was an adviser in the Foreign Office, the role of Minister for trade and human rights was a stand-alone Cabinet position. Because I believe we must make deals around the world—our constituents’ standard of living depends on it—I question whether our current policymaking framework on arbitrary detention can ever deliver the kind of response that we would all expect if we found ourselves in a prison cell in one of the darker corners of the world. For me, this is about the balance we strike between charming and chastising those we are negotiating with. I wonder whether our current approach to those who are arbitrarily detained makes it inevitable that attempts to secure the release of our people become either a prologue or an epilogue to the main story, which is one of securing our economic self-interest. Are we sending our representatives into these negotiations with red lines that those on the other side of the table know are written in pencil rather than in pen? After 16 years in a Dubai jail, Ryan Cornelius has had more time than anyone to contemplate that tension. He shared with me a letter he has written to the Prime Minister ahead of the Prime Minister’s trip to the Gulf on behalf of the UK, in which he identifies the inherent challenge in diplomacy I describe: “Making it clear to your interlocutors that there can be no normal relationship with a friendly country which treats our citizens in this way may be an uncomfortable thing for you to do on this visit…if you look the other way in the interest of sealing a few deals you will have diminished this country’s standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.” For me, Mr Cornelius’s letter gets to the heart of the matter. In asking our delegations and diplomats to balance arbitrary detention against trade outcomes, the risk is that they will leave those rooms having failed to achieve either objective. If the arbitrary imprisonment and mistreatment of our citizens is not a red line, what is? If it is a red line, it cannot be something that the people we send into these rooms might have to give up in order to secure other Government priorities. The release of our people must be understood by those on the other side of the table as non-negotiable. That is why it is essential that any special envoy we appoint has the power, the status and the degree of independence from Ministers to make it an immutable principle not just that the policy on the release of hostages will not be sacrificed for other priorities, but that it cannot be sacrificed for other priorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, the Chair of the Select Committee, was far too delicate, perhaps not wanting to appear engaged in a power grab, when she said that this is a debate for another time, but we have to debate the fact that other jurisdictions place the power for designating state hostages, or for applying sanctions in response to such cases, in the hands of the legislature. The value of such an approach is that it allows the Executive and their diplomats to honestly say in those negotiating rooms that they cannot separate their wider relationship with a country from the mistreatment of citizens by its Government. I know that the suggestion of losing such power would be greeted with horror in the corridors of King Charles Street, but we cannot simply continue with the current model, which has left British citizens in jail. As well as greater independence in policymaking, there should also be a degree of automaticity in our policy response. As has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, when an individual is designated as being arbitrarily detained, there has to be a consistent application of Magnitsky sanctions. This would not only provide an incentive to release the British citizens already held, as it would hold perpetrators to account, but it would also act as a disincentive to those who might target our people in the future. Inconsistent action in these cases simply emboldens those regimes and makes our citizens less safe. Finally, we have to act in concert with like-minded countries that are similarly committed to the rule of law. Recent years have seen the erosion of norms around arbitrary detention by autocracies that are increasingly working in concert with each other. Only co-ordinated action by democracies, and by those committed to the rule of law, can help recreate a global order in which such actions are deemed universally unacceptable. There is no cause more urgent than ensuring the liberty and freedom of our own citizens. I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Taiwan: International Status · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House, recalling that United Nations Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971, which established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations (UN), does not mention Taiwan, notes that UN Resolution 2758 does not address the political status of Taiwan or establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan and is silent both on the status of Taiwan in the UN and on Taiwanese participation in UN agencies; and calls on the Government to clarify its position that UN Resolution 2758 does not establish the One China Principle as a matter of international law, to state clearly that nothing in law prevents the participation of Taiwan in international organisations and to condemn efforts made by representatives of the PRC to distort the meaning of UN Resolution 2758 in support of Beijing’s One China Principle and the alteration of historic documents by representatives of the PRC, changing the name of the country from Taiwan to Taiwan, province of China. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. This is the first time I have stood in the Chamber to back the democratic rights of the people of Taiwan, and I want to acknowledge those who have worked on this issue over many years, in particular the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my former neighbouring MP Stewart McDonald. I also recognise the Minister’s long-standing commitment to the human rights of people in the region, and indeed your commitment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome to Parliament the deputy representative, director and assistant director of the political division from the Taiwanese Representative Office. They are in the Gallery to observe this debate, which carries an important bearing on our strong and vibrant relationship with Taiwan. The detail in the motion may seem esoteric, but diplomatic technicalities on an issue as fraught as the status of Taiwan could have far-reaching consequences for the entire world, and we must have this debate now rather than later. I think back to the frenetic last-minute activity ahead of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with emergency flights full of anti-tank weapons, hastily drafted sanctions regimes and fruitless shuttle diplomacy. Ukraine stands as a reminder that it is best to form policy on a crisis before the crisis emerges. Incremental changes to the status quo made by authoritarian regimes are likely a prelude to more overt measures, and the best time to deter an aggressor is before their confidence grows. It is not possible to overstate the risks of a conflict over Taiwan. Leaving aside the humanitarian costs and geopolitical consequences of another democracy being attacked by a larger authoritarian neighbour, the economic pain would be felt in every household in this country. Around 90% of the world’s large container ships pass through the Taiwan strait once a year. Taiwan produces two thirds of all semiconductors, and well over 90% of all advanced microchips. It is estimated that a conflict would cost the global economy not less than $2.5 trillion, but that estimate is calculated by the Rhodium Group using only shipping data. Bloomberg puts the figure at a massive $10 trillion—about 10% of global GDP—and it regards that to be a conservative estimate. The scale of the risk is why this debate is taking place not only in this Chamber but in Parliaments around the world, and I put on record my thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for its assistance. Through its work, Parliaments in Australia, the Netherlands and Canada and the European Parliament have all expressed their opposition to the distortion of UN resolution 2758.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Taiwan: International Status · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for restating the Government’s position on the interpretation of UN resolutions, and for celebrating Taiwan’s society, economy and democracy, which I know will be well taken by our visitors. It is encouraging that so many Members spoke in the House with one voice on this issue, regardless of party, and that so many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), made it clear that the situation in Taiwan cannot be separated out from wider questions of human rights in the People’s Republic of China. I did not realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) was going to give her maiden speech in this debate, but it was wonderful none the less and I congratulate her on it. We can all see why she is such a valued friend and colleague to so many of us. She mentioned the former munitions works in her constituency, which is now this beautiful, peaceful, new build community. That made me think that it is almost a metaphor for our attitude in the world’s democracies. President Macron spoke recently about how western democracies are herbivores in a world of carnivores. I think that we have forgotten the sacrifices and the strength that it took for us to enjoy the freedoms we have today. Hon. Members reached back into different parts of history to make that point. I was particularly pleased with the contribution of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor). I am currently trying to get my son interested in ancient Greek history, so to hear someone quoting from the Melian dialogue in Parliament was music to my ears. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) reached back slightly less far into the 20th century, but there is a pattern whereby dictators will take a little bit, a little bit more and little bit more, and if they are not met with strength early on, they will eventually ask for something that we cannot give. That is when it becomes a crisis, and when we have to make greater sacrifices. What I was most encouraged by today was that, as important as it was for this House to condemn with one voice any attempt to change the status quo through force, there was also a celebration of Taiwan. Even if Taiwan were not a democracy, it would deserve protection from the international community, but it is a democracy, and we should protect its people. Even if it did not have a vibrant, open society and free speech, we should be seeking to show solidarity with its people, but it does have that open, vibrant society, so we must show that solidarity. Even if it were not the dynamic economy that is so important and so integrated in everything that we do in the world economy, we should be recognising the cost of any conflict there, but it is integrated in the world economy. And even if we were not in a global context where authoritarians are on the march, we should stand up and say that we would not tolerate another democracy being bullied by its nearby authoritarian neighbour and another society having to be forced into defending its own freedoms through force when, as an international community, we can prevent that from happening. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House, recalling that United Nations Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971, which established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations (UN), does not mention Taiwan, notes that UN Resolution 2758 does not address the political status of Taiwan or establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan and is silent both on the status of Taiwan in the UN and on Taiwanese participation in UN agencies; and calls on the Government to clarify its position that UN Resolution 2758 does not establish the One China Principle as a matter of international law, to state clearly that nothing in law prevents the participation of Taiwan in international organisations and to condemn efforts made by representatives of the PRC to distort the meaning of UN Resolution 2758 in support of Beijing’s One China Principle and the alteration of historic documents by representatives of the PRC, changing the name of the country from Taiwan to Taiwan, province of China.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Having sent birthday wishes to the Clerk of the House, will the Leader of the House extend her congratulations to the 1st Neilston boys brigade on its 70th birthday? It is a vibrant boys brigade at the heart of village life, giving great experiences to young people in my constituency. Will she make Government time available to discuss the role that uniformed youth organisations play in our constituencies? She will know that many of these groups are struggling with heating bills, and have difficulty meeting the demand from parents, who want their children to have the experiences that these organisations offer. Finally, if the Leader of the House has any birthday wishes left in her reserves, will she extend them to the 121st Glasgow scout group in Clarkston and the 3rd Barrhead scout group on their centenaries?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered UK supply chains and Uyghur and Turkic Muslim forced labour in China. Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Dowd, and for the opportunity to highlight the issue. I thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), for being here to respond to the debate: in his last period in office and during his sabbatical from this place he was a consistent advocate for the dignity of people all over the world. That human rights have never been respected by the People’s Republic of China is a given, but the persecution of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims since 2017 has been unprecedented even for the Chinese Communist party. More than 1 million Muslims have been imprisoned in an enormous network of camps; possibly as many as 3 million out of a population of 11 million Muslims have made their way through the camps at some time. This is the largest mass arbitrary detention since the second world war. Uyghur women face forced sterilisation, forced abortion, sexual violence in the camps, and forced marriage to Han Chinese men. Thousands of mosques have been demolished. Hundreds of Muslim graveyards have been bulldozed. Countless sacred Islamic shrines have been destroyed. Uyghurs are forced to consume pork, drink alcohol and eat during the Ramadan fast. These crimes are part of a deliberate effort to destroy the Uyghurs as an ethnic group with a distinct culture and religious identity. International organisations and human rights groups too numerous to list assess that crimes against humanity are taking place in Xinjiang, and this House of Commons has voted to recognise that what is going on is a genocide—an intentional policy that seeks to destroy a people. All of that provides context to the issue of forced labour in Xinjiang, but it is important to understand that Uyghur Muslim slavery is not a by-product of the attempt to destroy a people; it is an integral part of China’s project. Indeed, as the camps were built, factories for forced labourers were constructed alongside them. For those Uyghurs who are not inside the camps, the threat of incarceration is used to coerce them into the PRC’s wider labour transfer programme. There is a dark contradiction at the heart of all this. The atrocities are happening in a region that is increasingly closed to those who would testify to the crimes, the journalists and human rights groups who would document them and of course those who would flee to freedom if they could. However, at the same time that the region is closing down, it is increasingly open to and integrated into the global economy. Xinjiang mines, refines and manufactures for the world. Some of the best-known global brands are profiting from the destruction of a people. The scale of slavery in the region is enormous and is barely disputed: four years ago, official Chinese Government documents acknowledged that 2.6 million Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities had gone through labour transfer programmes. The scope of the industries affected is too large to cover in the time afforded to us today, so I will focus on three areas that especially expose the UK’s economy and that risk consumers being unwittingly complicit in Muslim slave labour: clothing, cars and climate change. Xinjiang produces a quarter of the world’s cotton. The idea of hundreds of thousands of slaves working in cotton fields evokes an image of slavery and forced labour from another era, but this is not historical practice. It is a well-documented economic reality in the Uyghur region today.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for the time he has taken to meet me and meet Uyghurs in the UK, and for his concern. On cotton, it is highly likely that high streets around the UK are today selling goods made by Muslim slaves from Xinjiang for brands such as Primark, Next, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss, Pull&Bear, Mango, Guess, Jack & Jones, Levi’s, Burberry, Nike, Adidas, PUMA and Max Mara. In my city of Glasgow, I have identified 15 retailers on the famous style mile that stock brands that have been identified as at risk of being implicated in Uyghur forced labour. The same story is true of every shopping mall and high street across the UK. The price of disposable fashion is Muslim forced labour. I turn to cars. The automotive industry is also deeply compromised: the steel, aluminium, electric vehicle batteries, electronics, tyres and spare parts used all have chains stretching back to the Uyghur region, to companies that we know take part in PRC-mandated labour transfer programmes. Audi, Honda, Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Tesla, Renault, LEVC, which is the maker of electric London black cabs, Aston Martin, Bentley, Daimler, Jaguar and Rolls-Royce have all been identified by researchers as having supply chains at high risk of being compromised by Muslim slave labour. Even if we were not appalled at the inhumanity of the persecution of Muslims, the theft of children from their parents, the sexual violence and the sterilisation, we should be angry as a nation at the economic unfairness of it. We cannot build our own manufacturing industries and create good jobs for our own people while competing with companies that have little or no labour cost. This Government are building a new green energy future for the country, but we cannot generate the green jobs that are part of that vision while competing against Muslim slave labour. That brings me to my final point, which is on climate. The primary material for the production of solar panels is polysilicon. That manufacturers of polysilicon in the Uyghur region use forced labour is not in dispute. Every single polysilicon manufacturer in the Uyghur region has reported its participation in labour transfer programmes or is documented as being supplied with raw materials by companies that have participated in those programmes. More than a third of the global production of polysilicon takes place in the Uyghur region. No company or public authority in the UK should be sourcing solar materials that originate in that region. A further third of global production of polysilicon takes place in other parts of China, with a high likelihood that those supply chains ultimately begin with Muslim slave labour. I am keen to hear the Minister expand on the welcome pledge that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero made during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill that the Government are working to ensure that the extension of solar energy in the UK is not built on Uyghur forced labour. I would argue that the only real solution, given the Chinese dominance of the market, is an urgent international effort to develop alternative supply chains that, from quartz to panel, never pass through China. The measures in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have not stopped companies profiting from the slave labour of Uyghurs and other Muslims in China. Nothing that I have said today is new. These stories have been splashed over front pages and broadcast on television news. Shame, it seems, is not a greater motivator than profit margin. Sunlight is not disinfecting. Legislation based on transparency and reporting alone is not getting the job done. Other nations in the European economic area have gone further than us by requiring companies to conduct human rights due diligence on their supply chains. I ask the Minister whether it is time to introduce UK legislation that emulates the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was signed into law by President Biden and which creates a presumption that any goods manufactured wholly or in part in the Uyghur region should be assumed to be the product of forced labour unless clear and convincing evidence proves otherwise. I recognise that supply chains can be difficult to unravel and that exports often pass through multiple companies on their way into our economy. However, there is a direct freight flight from the Uyghur capital Ürümqi to Bournemouth that brings goods from the epicentre of forced labour in China. Yesterday, a flight from Ürümqi arrived just before 7 pm; another will arrive on Friday, and another on Sunday. That will continue week after week. This is not opaque or convoluted: it is a clear and obvious route and there is a significant risk that those flights will contain goods compromised by Muslim slave labour. I ask the Minister whether import inspections have been or can be carried out on the goods arriving on the freight flight to Bournemouth from Ürümqi. After the results of yesterday’s election in the United States, there will be much debate about the state of the global struggle between autocracies and democracies and between strongmen and human rights. As we look for a policy response, we can begin by ensuring that our own economies are not funding the worst excesses of such regimes.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Dowd, for the opportunity to close the debate. I thank hon. Members for speaking up on behalf of the dignity and humanity of Uyghurs and other Muslims in this situation. I thank them for not using sanitised language in describing what is going on in the Uyghur region, which I was potentially guilty of myself. We talk about “labour transfers” when we are really talking about slavery. We talk about “sexual violence” when we are talking about women being raped. We talk about “re-education centres” when we are really talking about concentration camps. We talk about “the removal and transfer of children” when we are talking about state kidnapping. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In the short time I have been in the House, I have been in the room countless times when he has spoken up on behalf of religious freedom. He made a point essential to understanding the nature of what is happening in Xinjiang: it is religiously motivated. He mentioned the small infractions for which people can end up in the internment camps. I would add that having a beard, going on a pilgrimage to Mecca or simply travelling to another Muslim country is enough for someone to find themselves in a camp. Sometimes, in politics, the word “Orwellian” is used. It has become a hyperbolic cliché that we turn to, but I do not think that there is a more appropriate word to describe what is happening in the Uyghur region. I have heard stories of people phoning home on FaceTime or video calls to find a uniformed Chinese state security person answering their relative’s phone, stories of artificial intelligence being used to identify particular ethnicities, and stories of the collection of biometric information on millions of people. It is almost impossible to imagine the traditional approach to forced labour and due diligence working where the oppression of people is so intense and so pervasive. In Parliament, the causes and intent behind human rights issues are often a matter of nuanced debate. When it comes to the situation of the Uyghurs, it is incredibly clear what the intent, plan and motivation are. My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) both hit the nail on the head: the political and economic power of China is driving the forced labour crisis. The longer it continues without being challenged, the deeper the problem becomes. Others in the debate have spoken about how pervasive it is, from the cars we drive to the clothes we wear. It is also in the food we eat, whether it is tomatoes or seafood. Our moral complicity grows, and the longer it goes on, the more our own economic ruin grows as well. We cannot possibly compete with industries that have no labour cost. Some of this is about international action as well as the action of individual Ministers. We know that authoritarians are increasingly organised, and those of us who believe in the rule of law and in basic standards have a responsibility to pursue the same multilateral actions. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and others named and shamed some of the companies that are involved in this process. The awful truth is that some companies are literally shameless. They are more motivated by the bottom line than they are by public reputation and international opinion. I thank the Minister for showing such moral clarity. Given China’s economic power, all Governments have to work with it, but to hear the Minister give such clear and unambiguous condemnation of the attacks on Uyghurs is important. From my time working with Uyghurs, I know that they often feel forgotten and unheard. Many of the things that hon. Members have spoken about today that happen to them, happen unseen. Today, we have shown that they are not happening unheard. That is incredibly important. I welcome the Minister’s use of the word “innovative” about the approach to supply chains, which is essential given the dominance of China in the polysilicon matter. I also welcome his commitment to continue to assess, monitor and learn from the approaches that other countries have taken. He knows that other Members and I will continue to press him to do that at speed. I close by paying tribute to those who, at considerable risk to themselves, ensure that the story of what is happening in Xinjiang escapes an increasingly closed society—to the Uyghurs who have lost contact with their families and risk imprisonment when they travel. I also pay tribute to civil society organisations such as Anti-Slavery International and the World Uyghur Congress. Uyghurs often feel forgotten, and if this debate has done one thing today, it has shown the world that we will not forget them and that they have a voice within our Parliament. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered UK supply chains and Uyghur and Turkic Muslim forced labour in China.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  8. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on supporting employment rights in Scotland.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) on the birth of his daughter Connie. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As my hon. Friend enjoys his paternity leave, I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the Dad Shift campaign, which seeks to increase paternity leave for more fathers. Will he support that campaign so that more fathers can enjoy paternity leave, in addition to the tens of thousands the Government have already opened it up to, and does he agree that that is a huge contrast with the Conservative party’s spending its time talking about getting rid of maternity leave?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am not surprised to see the Conservative Benches so empty as we come to scrutinising their economic record. People understand that our inheritance from the previous Government was not one of poor delivery or of an economic downturn, but was one of national decline. Everywhere we look in this country, things simply do not work. People understand that, because they live it every single day of their lives. I disagree a little with our Front-Bench team in its analysis of the Tories’ record on growth. There is a record on growth that the Tories deserve to have their names attached to: the number of food parcels given out in this country grew to 3 million; the number of workers on zero-hour contracts grew to more than 1 million; the number of patients on waiting lists grew threefold; the number of people having to pay for private treatment reached almost 1 million; the average heating bill grew by more than 100%. The problems grew and grew under the previous Government and the response became smaller and smaller. They shrank from the challenge, refusing even to acknowledge the problem, and even hiding it in their own Budget. A number of hon. Members have fondly mentioned Alistair Darling today. Everyone who knew him and who was friends with him will be thinking about him today. The worst insult that Alistair had for someone was that they were not serious. The right hon. and gallant Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) impressed the House by quoting some Swahili. My Swahili was learned from “The Lion King”. That idea of Hakuna Matata sums up the whole economic attitude of the previous Government. It is clear from listening to Conservatives today that, if the voters had not intervened, they would have kept on for year after year with cuts, under-investment and austerity. Thank goodness that we have serious leadership again and a Budget that moves us on from that failed project. There will be debate about how public debt is registered within the public finances, but these are not technical details. That we took such strict view of investment in this country is why we have so few scanners in hospitals, why kids in my constituency spend their whole childhood in crowded homes, why families are waiting for social housing, and why kids are in classrooms that should have been rebuilt. What a relief it is to see that investment today. In my constituency of East Renfrewshire, I welcome the investment in hydrogen, building on the advantage that we already have there. Values are, as others have said, about choices. We have seen the choices of the Opposition. They choose to stand with the 1% who pay capital gains tax over the 99% who do not, with the 0.1% of the population who are non-doms over those who are not, and with the private jet-setters over the masses. If they oppose the revenue raisers, they are also setting themselves against the spending and investment. Speaking of being serious, as a Scottish MP I am delighted that the adults are in charge here, although the clowns are still in charge of the circus in St Andrew’s House—and it is not surprising that SNP Members are not here today. With the largest ever settlement of the devolution era, they are left naked. The last fig leaf covering their embarrassment is gone, their own inadequacy is exposed, and what it lays bare is not very impressive. Today offers the chance for Scotland to deliver change based on the investment that has been made available by Labour, but it cannot go down the same drain that everything else has in Scotland. This Budget offers the opportunity to grow the economy, incomes and industries, but there is something else stirring today that other hon. Members have mentioned, and it is an unfamiliar feeling: we can begin to hope again. We can begin to hope, to feel proud and to look forward to the future of our country once again.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may have seen that the Scottish Trades Union Congress has said that, for the SNP, “The Westminster blame game is finished. They have the money. They have the powers.” Will he acknowledge that this Budget ends austerity and that the Scottish Government now have no more excuses for their failures?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Unforced?

• 28 Oct 2024 · China: Human Rights and Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Foreign Secretary for making it clear that Jimmy Lai’s release is a priority, and I join hon. Members in saying that the issue is urgent, not just because of his failing health, but because once the trial restarts on 20 November, it will be more difficult to bring the situation to a positive conclusion. The Foreign Secretary mentioned the need for a consistent strategy towards China—consistent not just from him, but from the whole of Government. China reacts to naked economic self-interest, so can he make sure that the matter is raised across Government—by the Business Secretary on issues of trade, by the Net Zero Secretary on issues of green energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) mentioned, and by the Education Secretary when it comes to education, so that we appeal to that self-interest?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Paternity Leave and Pay · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for calling me to speak in this debate. I want to talk about the vision for the role of fathers in society, which other hon. Members have spoken about, and about how achieving that takes not only personal choice by fathers, but cultural and economic change. I feel that point about personal choice very acutely: at a very young age, my father chose not to be part of my life, and I am determined that that should not be repeated in my own family’s upbringing. I am not unusual: for example, nine out of 10 dads will now go to antenatal scans and the birth. Fathers want to be part of their children’s life and they want to be better fathers, but the culture and the economics make that difficult. On the cultural point, when I was established in my own business, I made the choice to be a stay-at-home father for a period. However, such fathers are excluded from the coffee with the mothers after nursery pick-up and are not part of the “mum bus” WhatsApp chat. That culture continues, however, because of the economics behind it. The gap between average pay and statutory paternity leave is about £1,000, which is something that parents cannot afford. There is a class element as well, with nine out of 10 households earning more than £60,000 a year able to take their paternity leave, while only two thirds of those earning under £25,000 a year can do so. If we want the cultural change, and that personal choice, to be taken advantage of, we need to deal with the economics and create more generous arrangements for paternity pay. In particular, I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) that, as well as looking at paternity leave, we also have to give people the ability to take crisis leave. This does not end with those first couple of weeks of changing nappies and going to the pharmacy; we need to have that ability as fathers throughout childhood.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House make time for the House to debate, celebrate and accelerate the roll out of life-saving defibrillators across the UK? As part of that debate, we could discuss the growing campaign to remove VAT from defibrillators so that the money raised by voluntary organisations in many of our constituencies might go a little further. Finally, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Mary Montague, the indefatigable provost of East Renfrewshire who has turned personal tragedy into a determination that defibrillators should be available to everyone who needs them in their time of crisis?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services · Hansard source

  More

  We do. Thirdly, those Hongkongers say that, although they are now living in a free country, they are not living free from fear. It is little wonder, given that in Glasgow we had a similar story to the one the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington recounted: there were reports of a secret police station being run in the basement of the Loon Fung Chinese restaurant. Like the previous Government, this Government have made it clear on many occasions that such oppression on British soil is not acceptable, but I would be interested to hear what more can be done and whether we can keep under review the diplomatic privileges given to organisations such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office to ensure they are not used as organs of transnational repression. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked what extra support can be given to make diaspora groups serving Hongkongers in the UK more resilient to that repression. In addition, can work be done to come up with an accepted definition of “transnational oppression”? This debate is about Hongkongers, but autocrats are increasingly reaching beyond their own borders, so this issue affects many other diaspora groups. Other Members mentioned Jimmy Lai, and his case rests on all our consciences. He is a 77-year-old man whose health is failing, and he is in solitary confinement in a Hong Kong jail, in the baking heat. He has been denied independent medical access and consular access, and is facing a life sentence after a trial without a jury. That case rests heavily on the minds of Hongkongers, who are unsure whether they will be able to access consular assistance if something goes wrong. I urge the Minister to address that and assure Hongkongers, including BNOs, that by default they will be treated as British nationals for the purpose of consular assistance. I echo the concerns other Members have mentioned about electronic travel authorisation. The assumption that if someone has had a custodial sentence of more than 12 months they would be refused such an authorisation particularly worries Hongkongers, because if someone has been a political prisoner—or they are one of the more than 1,000 political prisoners still in Hong Kong— the average sentence is far longer than 12 months. It would make it far harder for them to flee here if they needed to. What I and other hon. Members are asking the Minister today is about the principle that Hongkongers are British, and because they are British they deserve the same protections, privileges and opportunities as any British citizen. That has a wider symbolic importance for us, as well. We are engaged in a global struggle between autocrats and liberal democracies. The people of Hong Kong stood up and said what side of that battle they were on. For all the brutality and repression they face, we have to show that we as a country will continue to stand beside them, and that we have clearly chosen a side in that global struggle.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Scotland’s Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?