Blair McDougall MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is infuriating when we see bogus businesses forcing legitimate, valued, independent retailers out of our high streets. The hon. Member will be aware of Operation Machinize, through which we have put significant resources into tackling the type of crime she raises. That is becoming a permanent approach under this Government. For my part, I am constantly meeting Companies House and the Insolvency Service to talk about how we can improve our enforcement efforts to force these bogus businesses out of our high streets and create space for legitimate businesses.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. These regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 1 June 2026, make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the transparency and operation of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE or the register from here. They also correct a separate technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. Hon. Members will be aware that the ROE was introduced in 2022 as part of the Government’s efforts to increase transparency in land ownership and combat economic crime. It is a public register maintained by Companies House that requires overseas entities that own or acquire land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers. The register plays an important role in shedding light on complex ownership structures and in supporting action against illicit activity. Information on the register has been used by law enforcement, journalists and other parties examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals. Appropriate safeguards are in place through a protection regime that includes the ability to apply to Companies House to have a home address removed from the register. As part of the application, individuals are required to provide supporting evidence to confirm that the address on the register is indeed their residential address. However, in most cases, the registrar is able to identify and verify that information internally. Furthermore, there is currently no requirement for applicants to provide a replacement correspondence address. This results in a gap in the information available on the public register.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank both Front Benchers for their constructive and helpful questions. They both eloquently set out why this matters. Turning to their specific questions, as of June, 29 applications had been received. Of those, nine were successful, 19 were rejected and one is currently being considered. With regards to worries about the abuse of trust in the service, we recognise the risks associated with trust structures, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The Government also recognise the important role that law enforcement and the public can play in helping to mitigate those risks through greater transparency. Access to trust information is subject to a £55 fee per overseas entry. That creates a deterrent for the type of misuse that the shadow Minister was worried about. When the original draft instrument was laid, as was said before, the structures were in place in Companies House for the recording of that information. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise—not least because of the huge volume of economic crime legislation that has been passed in this place—that there are very heavy burdens on Companies House, as was said by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, and many systems that must be in place. I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but Companies House is working at pace on that. On the question of looking backwards, the regulations do not have a retrospective impact. I would point to the review that is being undertaken by Dame Margaret Hodge, which looks at the wider issue of economic crime and our approach to transparency. Having responded to those questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to .

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  One of the hallmarks of our efforts through Pride in Place and other measures is recognition that there is not really a one-size-fits-all solution. In my constituency, we do not have one central high street; we probably have about a dozen separate ones, which sounds similar to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is clear from what everyone has said during the debate that high streets are facing real pressures, from changing consumer habits to crime and increasing costs. There is not a single quick fix—there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It will take determined effort and real strategy from the Government. A key part of that is our small business strategy, which was launched just short of a year ago and aims to cut red tape, cut costs and make things just a little easier in challenging times. We will build on the strategy later this year as we bring forward a cross-Government high streets strategy that aims to support the businesses that we have been talking about today and equip local authorities with the tools that they need to drive long-term regeneration. We are working really closely on that with businesses, representative organisations and, indeed, Members from across the House. We have already started taking significant action through, for example, our high streets innovation partnerships—a £301 million package that aims to help local areas to reinvent and reimagine high streets, to make them more attractive places to live and put more services into them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned a Woolworths that had been replaced by businesses of lower value over the years. There is a challenge for all of us within our areas, working with local authorities and health authorities, to make sure that we locate more services in our areas and drive more footfall to them. I will give an example of that type of action. I also oversee the Post Office, and as well as the Government making the decision to keep the Post Office network open at its current level, there are really exciting plans under way from the Post Office to create a new community hub model for post offices in towns across the UK. That will offer a place for commercial services and public services to be delivered, and enhance the role that post offices have as an anchor in the high streets. I will turn quickly to some of the issues raised by hon. Members and outline the areas that the Government are focusing on within each of them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of payment providers. That issue was raised with me by Kadir’s, a chip shop in Barrhead in my constituency. The payment services regulator recently carried out two market reviews in this area to look at those cost increases and is currently looking at what action to take as a result. Many hon. Members rightly raised the impact of business rates on high street businesses. They say that all of heaven rejoices more over one sinner who repents, so I welcome the acknowledgment by the shadow Minister that we inherited a system that was, frankly, a mess. It was chaotic; it kept changing. It did not give people any sense of stability. For high streets, we have to ensure that our business rates system is fair, stable and responsive to the changing economic situation that hon. Members have described. That is why, in the face of the cost of the first revaluation since the pandemic, we have put in the £4.3 billion support package. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) asked when we will take on the big online giants—the warehouses—and start to shift some of the burden on to them and away from high street businesses. That is exactly what we did with those lower multipliers. That was paid for by putting the burden on to the big warehouses. We are working in that area. Rather than tinkering, we are doing that big structural change. Let me turn to jobs, and particularly youth unemployment and the link to high streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said that he was a Saturday boy. I was a Saturday boy as well in Beveridge’s fishmongers in Giffnock. It taught me everything about how to talk to people. It gave me confidence. Every time someone came into the shop, I had to re-find my confidence—remake myself. I do not think that I would be where I am now had I not had that experience. Some Members raised national insurance contributions in that context. Businesses still have those reliefs for under-21s and for apprentices under 25. It is worth about £2.5 billion. In terms of national insurance, there is relief there for employing young people, but I absolutely take the point. Obviously, the Milburn review is working on the much bigger issue of the number of young people not getting that opportunity.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will know from talking to Alan Milburn that he is very much of the view that this is not something the Government can do alone; it will need to be done in partnership with industry and, as my hon. Friend says, with retailers in particular. Nothing in recent years has made people angrier than either experiencing retail crime or seeing videos and images of it on social media, in which shop workers are treated appallingly. Despite that, there are encouraging signs that our efforts to tackle retail crime are beginning to bite. Shop theft has started to fall, following really sharp increases under the previous Government. At the heart of that effort was the revitalisation of neighbourhood policing with 13,000 additional personnel being delivered, 3,100 of whom are already in place. My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Bolton West spoke, rightly, with some anger at how organised crime—as they correctly named it—has impacted the way that our high streets feel. We are seeing legitimate, independent and valued businesses having to compete with businesses that are not real, and that is simply unfair. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West was right to talk about his campaign and efforts, along with other Members, to deliver the high streets organised crime unit to bring about the system-wide response that he described—bringing together HMRC and local authorities, and working with Companies House, the Insolvency Service and the organisations that I oversee. As part of that, my officials have joined the Home Office in engaging with the Dutch Government to learn the lessons from their approach with the Bibob Act, highlighted by my hon. Friend, with a view to exploring whether a similar approach could be taken here. The Home Office will shortly launch a consultation on strengthening closure orders, with stronger powers for local authorities being considered as part of our work on the high street strategy. Importantly, this is all backed by funding for the organisations that we rely on to do this. This is about fairness, but it is also about the way people feel about where they live. It is one of those issues on which our constituents have been ahead of us; they have noticed that there is something wrong on the high street, and we need to deal with it. Finally on the point about that sense of where we live, many hon. Members referred to Pride in Place, and the nearly £6 billion invested to support hundreds of places around the country. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach and it is not directed from Whitehall; it is communities shaping for themselves how they want their high streets and local areas to be reimagined. Alongside that, hon. Members mentioned the perennial problem of empty properties. They are one of the most visible challenges facing our high streets. High street rental auctions are now beginning to bite, not just in terms of the number that have gone through the whole process; the very ability of local authorities to have that conversation is letting them engage with landlords, changing the nature of that relationship and changing things on the high streets. This week, we announced £10 million of funding to support the expansion of high street rental auctions to help councils to identify opportunities, deepen engagement with landlords and get properties ready for use. That is a practical and important step forward. Finally, hon. Members raised the issue of banking hubs and the loss of banking facilities in local areas. In Barrhead, a large industrial town in my constituency, we recently lost our last bank, so I get the frustration, particularly with the process of deciding whether an area gets a banking hub or not. As hon. Members will know, the Government commissioned an independent review into access to banking services. Alongside that, we are supporting the roll-out of 350 banking hubs, 235 of which are already open. That is alongside the work that we are doing to make sure that the Post Office network is sustained, invested in and able to provide the banking services that people rely on. I thank again the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for securing the debate. As I have said in this room before, we sometimes talk about high streets as being an important part of the community, but for me, as many hon. Members from all parties have made clear today, they are not just a part of the community but where community happens. They are where people get services, meet their friends and have fun, and where those who are otherwise socially isolated find companionship and community. That is why we have to do far more to support them, to ensure that all the places that we represent thrive and have a sense of pride.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I think my hon. Friend’s anger is shared by hon. Members around the Chamber when they hear the stories of people not just missing hospital appointments, but finding themselves with county court judgments and in other such situations that are entirely not their fault and due to failures of delivery. We have told Royal Mail it is not good enough, the Select Committee has told them it is not good enough, and Ofcom has told them it is not good enough. The seriousness with which we take this issue is exemplified by the fact that, as I said, the Secretary of State has convened that meeting. I have called in Royal Mail and, as I mentioned a moment ago, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise exactly the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the results of the “Future of Post Office” Green Paper. We published the Green Paper in July, starting a national conversation about the future of the Post Office, an institution that has served every community in every corner of the United Kingdom for generations. More than 2,500 people took the time to respond to the consultation, including postmasters, small businesses, service providers, community groups and members of the public. We also held dedicated discussion groups with postmasters and citizens across the country. I therefore start by thanking every respondent; their views provided a wealth of insight, and have been carefully considered. I am pleased to announce that we are publishing the Government response to the consultation today. Our response must echo the clear call we heard from respondents. They told us that they want a strong and convenient post office network, built around permanent, full-time and full-service branches that offer a wide range of essential postal, banking and Government services. They want a Post Office that is reliable, modern and transparent, and that puts postmasters at the heart of decision making. As such, I can confirm today that the Government will keep the minimum network size of 11,500 branches and will retain all six geographical access criteria, ensuring that communities across the UK continue to have local and reliable access to postal services, including rural and remote areas. Alongside maintaining the network requirements, we are introducing a new requirement that at least 50% of the network must be full-time and full-service branches. This requirement sets 50% as an absolute minimum, and we expect the Post Office to continue to operate substantially above it. We are setting this requirement to ensure that the full-time, full-service branches remain the backbone of the network for the foreseeable future, as those are the branches that deliver the greatest social value and the strongest customer service. At the same time, we are not blind to the challenges facing the Post Office, and have built in an evidence-based process so that we know when it is the right time for Government to look at the post office network again. However, stability requires investment. That is why over the next two years, the Government will provide up to £483 million to support the transformation of the Post Office, on top of network subsidy funding to support the costs of delivering Government policy, which will be £70 million in financial year 2026-27. This investment funding will modernise branches across the country. It will support new in-branch technology and the delivery of new products and services that will make sure the Post Office can do what its customers need it to do, while keeping its identity and its role at the centre of so many UK high streets. The funding will also enable a major technology transformation programme within the next five years that will transition operations away from Fujitsu and ultimately replace the Horizon system. Postmasters must be able to trust the technology that they use; it should make their jobs easier and help them spend their time doing what they do best, which is serving their local communities. The days of the Post Office relying on outdated systems must end, and this programme lays the ground for a modern, resilient and fit-for-purpose organisation. The consultation reinforces the importance of the Post Office for post, of course, but also for banking and access to Government services. I would like to address some specific points about each of those areas. First, on postage, respondents told us that they value the Post Office as a multi-carrier parcel hub and want more choice and convenience in how parcels are sent and received. We will support the Post Office’s efforts to innovate in this space while ensuring that essential services remain accessible. Secondly, on banking, the public were clear that the Post Office plays a critical role in ensuring communities have access to cash and in-person banking. Being able to access essential banking services such as cash withdrawals and deposits is valuable to many Post Office customers, in particular small businesses, and respondents expressed an appetite to increase their offer. Last month, the Government held discussions between the Post Office and the banking sector to explore where they may be able to work together on a commercial and voluntary basis to better meet the needs of individuals and businesses. Those discussions were based around areas of mutual interest such as banking services, financial inclusion, modernisation, and the importance of continuing to improve financial crime safeguards. Those conversations are ongoing. Finally, on Government services, colleagues will know that many services have moved online. However, respondents told us strongly that vulnerable, digitally excluded and rural customers continue to rely on the Post Office for in-person services. In that spirit, we have established a cross-Government group to look at developing a common physical front door for Government services, expanded assisted digital support, and new propositions such as prescription collection and identity verification. At the heart of the Green Paper and of today’s Government response is the need to strengthen the relationship between the Post Office and postmasters. The Horizon scandal was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in modern British history, and while the Government remain focused on delivering redress to victims as rapidly as possible, we must also ensure that the culture that enabled those wrongs can never return. The Post Office has already taken steps to rebuild trust, including the postmaster panel, a new consultative council, embedding postmasters in key teams at the Post Office’s head office, and the election of postmaster non-executive directors to the board. However, we agree with respondents that more is needed. As such, I can confirm today that the Post Office will develop a culture strategy with measurable objectives that covers employees, postmasters, strategic partners and customers. The Government expect that plan to be in place by this summer. To ensure that these reforms genuinely meet the needs of postmasters, the Government have commissioned an independent external evaluation of the initiatives the Post Office has implemented to strengthen postmaster engagement, which will report later this year. Our long-term goal is a Post Office that is financially sustainable, adaptable to changing markets and less reliant on Government funding, but this transition must be responsible and realistic. Respondents were clear that stability comes first, particularly while the Horizon inquiry continues. That is why the Government will provide £37 million of funding to the Post Office in the next financial year to support with the costs of administering redress and responding to the inquiry. While the Green Paper explored long-term governance ideas such as mutualisation or a charter model, the Government will not make any decisions on structural reform until after the final report of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry. In the meantime, we will work with the Post Office to ensure that the organisation demonstrates financial discipline, generates a trading profit by 2030, and continues to reduce reliance on taxpayer subsidy while protecting access for communities that depend on it. This Green Paper process and the thousands of responses we received show the enduring importance of the Post Office to the life of this country. The Government’s response sets a clear direction: we are maintaining a strong and accessible network, backing postmasters through major investment and cultural reform, modernising services for a digital age, and setting the Post Office on a path towards long-term financial and operational stability. The Post Office must be modern, resilient and trusted, shaped by the communities it serves and built around the people who run it. With today’s response, we take a major step towards that future. I commend this statement to the House.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue, and I know that he is a constant campaigner for small businesses in his constituency. In addition to my answer a moment ago about the measures within the business strategy, it is important to note that this has to be a cross-Government effort, including tackling issues such as bogus businesses and retail crime that have such an impact on the character of our high streets, as well as the footfall that ultimately leads to profitability for those small businesses.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  The cost of the Employment Rights Bill is around 0.4% of wage costs across the country, and the additional help that the Bill provides will have a huge impact on small businesses and high streets. Many Members raised the issue of crime, but let me reassure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who spoke of the character of local areas, and suggested that there should be greater local powers to control the spread of gambling shops. We intend to deal with that when time allows. For 10 years we waited for a small business strategy, and in July we introduced one. We are taking action on late payments for businesses, on access to finance and on cutting red tape. Across this Government there is an urgency—it is there today, and I wish it had been there before—to support small businesses and help to get our high streets back on their feet. Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. One of my constituents is in a similar case, and it is devastating. For a large business, fraud and economic crime is an inconvenience; for a small business, it can be existential. That is one of the reasons why, this week, we are communicating with small businesses to ensure that they up their cyber-security. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Georgia: Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  May I join you, Mr Speaker, in congratulating the Minister on his nuptials? I thank him for the lead he has taken on Georgia. He will know, because he has recently been in Georgia, that over the summer the situation has dramatically worsened: opposition leaders have been jailed, young democracy activists have been given life-changing prison sentences, and the civil society organisations that are trying to protect democracy have been threatened with prosecution. The complaint of the democracy activists I used to work with is that all of this brutality is happening while the regime’s money is washed through business associates in London. Will the Minister target the people who are responsible for this brutality and hold them accountable?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Crown Immunity (Prisons) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to remove Crown immunity as it applies to prisons for the purposes of health and safety legislation. Katie Allen lived in Clarkston in East Renfrewshire. She had a loving family and a very happy childhood. She was bright and did well at school. She took herself off to Malawi to volunteer, and she returned from Africa determined to help people. Instead of studying geology at university, as she had intended, she switched to study human geography, because she decided and realised that it was people whom she cared about and not rocks. She was excited about the future. She had moved into her own flat. She was full of life. She was beautiful and she was loved. She was found hanging in a cell at 5.50 in the morning on 4 June 2018 at His Majesty’s Prison and Young Offender Institution, Polmont. The problem of prison deaths is UK-wide, but these losses are a particular problem in Scotland, and the loss of young people in prisons is felt especially. Research in April by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research found that our prison death rates are akin to those in Azerbaijan. An earlier study by the Council of Europe found Scotland’s prison suicide rate was more than two-and-a half-times higher than the average and about double that of England and Wales. I begin with Katie’s story because focusing on her case helps makes sense of why this problem is so alarming, so acute, and so avoidable. In 2017, after a night out, Katie drove home after drinking, clipped the kerb, and lost control of her car. She had not realised it, but she had hit and injured a pedestrian. She had no previous convictions. Her victim asked for her not to be given a custodial sentence, but she was jailed for 16 months anyway. If anyone deserved a second chance after a stupid, youthful mistake, it was Katie. That second chance was taken away because of failings by the Scottish Prison Service. We cannot mention Katie without also mentioning William Brown, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) represents. William also died from suicide in Polmont. The fatal accident inquiry into the loss of both those precious young people found their deaths to be preventable. Thanks to the sheriff’s findings, the failings of the prison service in these cases are now well documented, detailed and damning. One thing out of the 400-page report, with its many findings and recommendations, especially sticks in my mind. When we look into prison suicides, we learn an awful new vocabulary. We come across terms such as “ligature anchor”. For William, the ligature anchor was a bunk bed that the inquiry found could have been removed and, worse, had been used previously for suicides in the prison. In the case of Katie, the ligature anchor was a simple doorstop high up on the wall of her cell. A doorstop that would have cost a few pounds to replace—a small cost for saving a young life, but it was not believed to be worth it. Years after both deaths, nobody in the prison or the prison service had thought to remove the doorstops, or to replace them with safer, sloping alternatives. The bunk beds had not been removed. The fatal accident inquiry into the deaths found that internal reviews carried out after both deaths had not even mentioned the possibility of removing fixtures in cells that could have been used again for further suicides. For me, nothing signifies the institutional lack of care more than these failings for which somebody, somewhere should have been held legally responsible. Before a fatal accident inquiry, there is an investigation. The police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service concluded at first that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The families of Katie and William challenged that conclusion, and eventually the authorities said that, yes, there was enough evidence to charge the Scottish Prison Service with breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. However, there was no prosecution. Why? Because of Crown immunity. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act places duties on state-run prisons, but Crown immunity means that they cannot be prosecuted for breaching those duties. If the two people had died in a privately run prison, there would have been a prosecution. In theory, individual prison officers can be prosecuted, but in practice they rarely are when their employer is not also prosecuted. Indeed, the reason those prosecutions do not happen is that it is argued that individual shortcomings happen in the context of systematic failures. In theory, the prison services can also be prosecuted under corporate manslaughter legislation, but in practice they are not because the systematic failings are often judged to take place at the prison level, rather than at the senior management level of the overall service. Those at the bottom pass legal responsibility upwards; those at the top pass it back. Even with the support of the dogged campaigners at the charity Inquest, which focuses on state-related deaths, nobody is found legally responsible. The best that the families of the lost can hope for in such circumstances is a censure by the Health and Safety Executive, but even that toothless sanction is almost never used—in a decade, only one prison has received a censure. We have been here before. Three decades ago, Crown immunity was removed from the NHS and it has had an impact. To take one grimly comparable case, the Essex partnership university NHS foundation trust was fined £1.5 million for allowing suicides after failing to manage the risks caused by ligature points on its estate. Our prisons are responsible for many more such deaths, but they are untouchable because of Crown immunity, and an untouchable service remains unaccountable. Institutional impunity removes the incentives for institutional change—institutional change that is needed at the local Scottish level and the UK level. Locally, a review of mental health at Polmont warned that it needed a suicide prevention strategy, but instead it opted for another review—a review that was never finished. In Scotland, the Human Rights Commission has warned that recommendations agreed decades ago have still not been implemented across the Scottish Prison Service. Just last week, the inspector of prisons for the whole UK issued an urgent indication warning about conditions at Pentonville and a failure to address repeated concerns following recent suicides. Without legal consequences, prisons across the country appear to be incapable of learning lessons or making changes. Every day of immunity brings the risk of more avoidable deaths. The Scottish Prison Service and the Government in Edinburgh have called for Crown immunity to be removed, but they need us in this place to do it. I want to be very clear: this campaign should not be used as an excuse for inaction now. These places should not have to wait to be prosecuted to fulfil their responsibility to protect lives, but if those running our prisons will not act—and they have not done so—they should lose their protection from legal consequence. In conclusion, I remember a friend of mine who lost a child saying how a parent grieves twice for such a loss: once for the young person known and loved, and a second time for the life that they would have gone on to live. For Katie’s family, the knowledge that she wanted to live a life devoted to helping and serving others invites them to imagine all the change that she would have made as she grew into adulthood. Instead of a life that would have changed the world, we in this place are left with the tragic responsibility of making sure that it is her death that changes things. Katie’s extraordinary mother, Linda, told me that she said of her experience in Malawi in Africa: “you know mum, prayers are great, but what people really need is practical help.” Katie’s family, William’s family and the others who have lost dear loved ones due to these institutional failings do not need our prayers, our sympathies or our condolences. They need action. They need us to provide the accountability that will avoid future tragedies and change the culture that allows these deaths. That is why it is time to end Crown immunity in prisons in Scotland and across the UK. I urge Members to support my Bill. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Blair McDougall and Martin Rhodes present the Bill. Blair McDougall accordingly presented the Bill. B ill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September , and to be printed (Bill 294 ).