Blair McDougall MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 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.

• 2 Dec 2024 · North-West Syria · Hansard source

  More

  My mind also turned to the former Member for Batley and Spen, my friend Jo, and the cry she made in this Chamber to do something to help the people of Syria. Back then, we saw the widespread use of chemical weapons in the last moment when Assad’s regime was under pressure. What steps are the Government taking to monitor any war crimes taking place in this moment? By way of deterrence now, will the Minister reaffirm that the British Government still believe there should be accountability for the use of chemical weapons a decade ago in Syria?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I join the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) in commending my hon. Friend for the way she has made sure that this binary debate has not been a polarising one. I started the debate where she is now, but I have moved to opposing the Bill by the stories I have heard of disabled people who have had “do not resuscitate” put on their medical records without their permission, or who have been stopped by strangers in the street and been told, “You would be better off dead.” I know she will say that we are voting on the specifics of her Bill, but we are also voting on a principle. Does she agree that there should be a precautionary approach, and does she honestly believe the legislative process gives us the time to be sure that we are making the right decision?

• 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

  Absolutely. Although first and foremost in our minds should be the impact on people in Taiwan of any crisis, it would also be felt by our constituents in their cost of living and everything that happens in this country. It is right that this is a worldwide debate, given the military incursions into Taiwanese territory, cyber-attacks, disinformation, interference with shipping and aircraft—all the things that make the headlines—and I welcome the new Government’s expressions of concern about aggressive moves in the strait. However, this needs to be a global conversation, because the People’s Republic of China is involved in an aggressive worldwide diplomatic strategy, especially across the global south. The strategy aims to secure international acceptance for its expansionist One China principle, which is to say that Taiwan is part of a single China and the PRC is the only legitimate Government of Taiwan, denying Taiwan’s democracy any distinctive international status. Of course, resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan at all, and it does not address in any way the political status of Taiwan. It does not establish the PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan, and it is silent on the participation of Taiwan in the United Nations and its agencies. Importantly, it has no force of impact on us as sovereign nations and the relationships we choose to have with Taiwan. The current strategy by Beijing is a distortion of international law, but it is also at odds with the long-standing policy of the United Kingdom. It is essential that that is contested, and this debate offers the Minister and the new Government the opportunity to make it clear that the UK opposes that effort by the communist Government to rewrite history, or to unilaterally decide the future of Taiwan. Debates about Taiwan are famously full of symbolism: which flag is flown, what nomenclature is used, and which seemingly synonymic words cause offence. It would be easy to write off discussions about the interpretation of resolution 2758 as yet another finer detail that distracts from a bigger picture, but that would be a mistake. This is not pedantry from Beijing; this is predation. Chairman Xi watched the near-unanimous diplomatic disapproval of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, and he is seeking to reduce the chances of a similar chorus of condemnation towards any move against Taiwan. If the PRC’s position that the UN resolution endorses its sovereignty over Taiwan were accepted, it would later use that consensus to argue that any future coercion of Taiwan through arms or other means—whether blockade or annexation—would be legal. Similarly, any acceptance of Beijing’s interpretation would be used to argue that moves to prevent such coercion by Taiwan’s democratic supporters were unlawful. This is not a technical issue but another source of increased risk for conflict across the Taiwan strait. Will the Minister confirm today whether, as has been reported, any assurances have been given to the PRC that the UK will not seek to counter internationally its efforts on the One China principle, and whether promises have been made privately that we will not make the case with third-party nations for UK policy, namely our position that Taiwan’s status is undetermined? Does she recognise that any UK Government acquiescence with the idea that the status of Taiwan is an internal matter for the PRC alone risks giving legal cover to any future aggressive acts? Does she recognise that distorting resolution 2758 to pursue the exclusion from international organisations of Taiwan—a democratic, self-governing people—undermines the legitimacy of the international rules-based order, not least as it appears to be inconsistent with the treatment of other disputed territories? Will the UK advocate for meaningful Taiwanese participation in all international organisations for which statehood is not a prerequisite? Past moments of crisis in the strait of Taiwan have flared up and subsided—in particular in 1996 and 2000 after presidential elections—but three things that have changed since then should make us more concerned. First, China is far more heavily armed. Already possessed of the largest naval fleet in the world, Beijing has been adding to it the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every two years. It will soon have the largest air force in the world. Secondly, people on both sides of the strait have grown apart. The Taiwanese now have more of a sense of their own identity, and their democracy is deeply embedded, while China’s populist nationalism has grown, and the PRC, which was hardly ever a free and open society, has moved even further in an authoritarian direction, from Xinjiang to Tibet and Hong Kong. Chairman Xi previously proposed to apply the “one country, two systems” approach to Taiwan. However, the systematic removal of Hongkongers’ civil liberties means that any promise from the mainland to maintain the freedoms that Taiwan enjoys could not be trusted. We know that Beijing does not keep its promises. Thirdly, if we are honest, the west has been found wanting. We have been less than united and less than determined in our defence of democratic allies and democracy around the world. Xi has learned from Putin’s years of slowly boiling the frog, dividing western opponents from each other, manipulating our populations and operating in the grey zone where a gradual increase in aggressive acts avoids a strong strategic response from the west. That mixture of Chinese armament, growing nationalism, increasing authoritarianism and western weakness is a potentially deadly combination. Indeed, the military exercises and provocations around Taiwan are a recipe for unintentional disaster. Last year, there were more than 1,700 occasions when PRC military aircraft deliberately entered the air defence identification zone of Taiwan. PRC jets turn away when they are just minutes from Taipei. During exercises, we see Taiwanese and PRC vessels in stand-offs on the edge of Taiwan’s nautical buffer zone. Meanwhile, we do not have agreed red lines around Taiwan with other like-minded countries, and worrying ambiguities remain. For example, a maritime and air blockade is normally classed as an act of war, but that is not clear in this case because of Taiwan’s ambiguous state. Will the Minister assure the House that the legal status of a blockade around Taiwan is being looked at? I worry that we could have a situation where Governments use that ambiguity as an excuse for inertia in the event of a crisis. Will she take the opportunity to say that a maritime and air blockade around Taiwan would be a red line for the Government? On so many occasions during the cold war, catastrophe was avoided due to essential de-escalation protocols that prevented the misinterpretation of either side’s intentions. I would be interested in the Minister’s assessment of whether there are sufficient procedures of the kind between the military commands of Taipei and Beijing, as in such a febrile and nationalistic atmosphere, a mistake could easily be misunderstood as deliberate escalation, and control of volatile public opinion could easily be lost. As was said earlier, let us not forget who paid the price for the collective failure of the international community to deter Putin’s aggression. It was first and foremost the Ukrainian people, but ordinary working people around the world also found themselves with unaffordable bills. If Bloomberg is correct, escalation across the strait would be, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, five times worse than the economic contraction post Ukraine. We simply cannot allow that to happen. When we discuss Taiwan, we talk a lot about protecting the status quo, but we must recognise that the PRC is already actively working to change that status quo. Beijing has not paid any price for that. Xi’s diplomatic offensive has not been met with a commensurate effort from western democracies. As the PRC isolates Taiwan within international institutions, we have not increased our engagement in response. Above all, there has been no sanction for the constant military intimidation or grey zone attacks. I recognise, of course, that careful diplomatic language is needed on this issue, but we live in a world where free and open societies are retreating in the face of authoritarian regimes who no longer recognise the old order or even international boundaries, and who are seeking to recreate the world in their image. I do not expect the Minister to depart from the delicate, long-established language that has defined the UK’s position towards Taiwan since diplomatic relations were established with the PRC, and the motion does not ask for such a departure. I ask the Minister to put on record the Government’s concern about Beijing’s distortion of the international law around Taiwan, and about the editing of historic UN documents by Chinese officials. I hope that is seen not as an outlandish or hawkish request, but merely as the least we can do when confronted with such troubling behaviour. Finally, putting all diplomatic language aside, the debate is an opportunity to acknowledge the truth: Taiwan is not China in one important way that no amount of economic, military or diplomatic bullying by Beijing can obscure. It is this: the people of Taiwan are free and the people of China are not. Now more than ever, we must stand with democracies and against dictatorships. We must stand up for freedoms that we claim are universal, regardless of where people live in the world, and we should stand with the democracy of Taiwan.

• 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?

• 26 Nov 2024 · “Get Britain Working” White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  If we search the record of this place, we see the phrase “no child left behind” mentioned over and over again, but during the pandemic, children were left behind. They have been washing up on the shores of social work, of the police sometimes, and of childhood mental health services, and I know from visiting my jobcentre in Barrhead that they are now washing up on its shores as well. What will this White Paper do to help that covid generation who were left behind?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Georgia Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his actions. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to the work I have done in the past with democratic activists in Georgia. Those activists are terrified that Georgia is now at a turning point. Will the Minister join me in calling for new elections under international oversight and an end to the attacks on civil society groups, especially the heroic LGBT groups who are under attack there? If those things do not take place, will the Government keep open the option of sanctions on the individuals who are responsible for democratic backsliding in Georgia?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Georgia Elections · Hansard source

  More

  12. Whether he has made representations to his counterpart in Georgia on reported irregularities in parliamentary elections held in that country on 26 October 2024.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I thank Ministers for their efforts and recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister. However, after nearly four years in solitary confinement for Jimmy Lai and with a trial beginning in a court that we know will only ever find him guilty, at what point does the delicate diplomacy have to give way to something more like a demand for his freedom?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Ryan Cornelius: Detention in UAE · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and pay tribute to him for his work, not just on behalf of Ryan Cornelius but on political prisoners and the rule of law more generally. Does he agree that it seems we live in a world where increasingly autocratic countries will take citizens of other nations into arbitrary detention, and that when it comes to the toolkit that was normally available to countries such as ours, options such as having consular access that makes a difference, and making representations, have been eroded? Does he feel that we need a new toolkit for this different landscape?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. As we meet today, EU Foreign Ministers are reportedly discussing that Chinese manufacturing is now providing drones to the Russian war machine, specifically drones made in Xinjiang. Does that not further the need for Europe to deepen its own defence industrial base, and specifically, should we be securing an administrative arrangement with the European Defence Agency to that end?

• 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.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Chinese Communist Party: Threat to Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency is also home to a new and growing population of Hongkongers who, although they are now in a free country, live in fear of the repression that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) described. That is not least because of the reported presence until recently of a secret police station in Glasgow, run by the Chinese Communist party. Will the Minister join me in sending a clear signal to the Chinese state: “hands off Hong Kong Scots”?