Brian Leishman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  Since we rightly recognised the state of Palestine, I put it to the Minister that actually nothing has changed. The settlement expansions are ongoing, as are the land grabs and ultimately the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. The cultural, economic and educational genocide inflicted on Palestinians carries on regardless. For years, we have seen what drives Benjamin Netanyahu—what his ultimate goal and ambition is—and that is the eradication of Palestinian people and of Palestine. My fear is that diplomacy once again will fail. What will the UK Government do to stop the eradication of Palestine and the Palestinian people?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, 68 is far too late. When will prison officers achieve a fair, just and—crucially—lower retirement age?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State spoke about different political priorities and tough decisions being made, but today we have seen departmental budget cuts to fund an extra £15 billion for war preparedness. We talk a lot in this Chamber about defending our values, but what values are we actually defending when 14% of children in the UK are living in food insecurity? We are a nation with crumbling infrastructure, and we have more than 3 million people needing food banks to survive.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. Let me say at the outset that we should not rewrite history. We know that under the Conservatives there were mass job losses in the oil and gas industry. It was also interesting to hear in the last 20 or 25 minutes that, after decades of not having a plan for the industry, the SNP now does have one. I look forward to hearing more about that in due course. Then, of course, there is Reform. Its Members just want to carry on regardless and to hell with the environmental consequences. Their absence from this debate shows their contempt for workers and working-class communities. But in all honesty, I do not care about any of those parties, because I am a Scottish Labour Member, and there is no doubt that right now our oil and gas policy has left voters incredibly worried. My congratulations go to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden). It was an excellent victory last week, and I commend him and his party on it. That by-election result in the north of Scotland really was telling for the Scottish Labour party. Even though we had an excellent candidate, we finished fourth. As a party, we often say the right things: that oil and gas will be part of the energy mix for decades to come, that we must detach ourselves from relying on the volatile fossil fuel market and, crucially, that we want to provide a just transition for the highly skilled workers of this industry. So far, however, all of that is just words. Scotland judged Scottish Labour in the Holyrood elections and in Aberdeen last week. Put simply, if one set of jobs is lost and a new set of jobs is not available, that is the very definition of an unjust transition. That is clear and obvious. People want evidence of what a genuinely just transition would be and how we can provide it, but most importantly, what people really want is action. There has not been nearly enough of that. It was 16 months ago this week that the Prime Minister promised £200 million for Project Willow and a bold new industrial future to be homed at Grangemouth. So far, we have had the MiAlgae and the Celtic Renewables announcements, and I welcome them, but again, those jobs are for the future—they are not for the now. Workers need jobs. An unjust transition means an exodus of skills and talent, with workers and their families having to leave the local area—the place they grew up in and call home. That means that communities then become poorer. I do not how many times I have asked the Minister this, but I will ask again, in the hope that he will give an answer: when will we see these new industries come to Grangemouth? When will my people in my community, who I am here to represent, see the change that they desperately need? They need jobs and reindustrialisation. Will the Government take at least some form of ownership of these new industries, which they will definitely need for decades—centuries—to come? Finally, in a party political moment, I say to the Minister that the electorate in Scotland do not know what the Scottish Labour party is about any more. In providing a genuinely just transition for workers and communities, we have the chance to say exactly who we are and who we are for, and to re-establish ourselves as the political voice for workers and communities. My constituency needs reindustrialisation, and so do the constituencies of many other hon. Members and right hon. Members. We have a blank canvas in Grangemouth. We could create something special that would transform my community and Scotland for generations. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has to shape up and deliver that, and it has to do it quickly.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Apatura has submitted a planning application to Falkirk council for a 300-MW AI data centre just 500 metres from Forth Valley Royal hospital, 20 metres from a care home and next to a densely populated residential area. From the outset, it is worth noting that the council has received nearly 1,800 objections from local people. It is no wonder that the strength of feeling against this big tech project is so strong: the proposed site, which covers about 55 acres of land, is being labelled as “sustainable”, which is frankly insulting to my constituents. An environmental impact assessment shows that the proposed data centre would emit pollution that would rank it among the worst 10 polluters in Scotland. The data centre requires its own electricity substation and 200 diesel generators as back-up. Even if they are never run for operational purposes, the generators will have to come online as part of a regular maintenance programme. As we are here in Westminster Hall today in sweltering temperatures in the middle of a heatwave, let us also ponder the scale of the low-grade waste heat that the AI data centre would produce. The direct thermal exhaust creates hot air, which needs to be dispersed into the atmosphere. AI chips created by the big tech company Nvidia get so hot that they need liquid cooling, creating a warm liquid that must then be piped out. That intense thermal exhaust can raise temperatures by up to 9°. Surface warming can impact areas up to six miles away. As I said, the proposed site is just 20 metres from a care home, 500 metres from a hospital that serves approximately 300,000 people and is in a residential area full of families with children. The proposal is outrageous. The noise being produced by the data centre will be constant. It will include infrasonic noise, the long wavelengths of which travel vast distances and can penetrate walls and glass, even defeating ear protectors. That pollution can cause serious physical and psychological harm and distress. Surely there will be consensus in this Chamber when I say that technology should not come with a health warning to people, families and communities. I would like to think that legislators at every level of government consider that to be the baseline for any of their decisions. Of course, technology will play an increasing role in our society, but proposed developments like the one in Larbert rightly have people worried. Its proximity to the hospital, care home and many houses shows that people are right to be concerned. It is shameful that tech companies do not seem to be bothered about that. Technology cannot and must not be an industry that exploits people, communities and our environment for profit.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I give my thanks and gratitude, alongside those of hon. and right hon. Members, to those who serve and have served. In opening the debate, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked about putting politics to one side, but everything is a political choice. Decisions are based on ideology, priorities and one’s belief of what is the right course of action. I accept that my contribution to the debate will be an isolated one, but it is based on my personal ideology, priorities and beliefs. The bare minimum in any debate should be honesty. It is therefore important that, straight away, we address with honesty that any movement from the self-imposed strait jacket of the fiscal rules through an increase in defence spending will have to mean a cut to other areas. The Opposition has framed this debate specifically with welfare as the target. With that in mind, I will talk a little about welfare. Just under a fortnight ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I organised an evidence-gathering session in Grangemouth for the Right to Food UK Commission, which has toured the country investigating the state of food insecurity and poverty. In Grangemouth, we heard from fantastic local organisations that provide food to individuals and families who are living in such a dire, precarious position that they are reliant on the generosity of others. Those organisations laid out the stark reality: the reason that people are in that situation is low wages that have not kept pace with inflation all the way through the Conservative Governments from 2010 onwards. And let us not forget the Liberal Democrats’ part in the early days of the austerity coalition that created a new strata of society—that of the in-work poor. In 2010, 30,000 people used food banks. More than 3 million people use food banks today. It was not as if the Conservative Government of the day were investing in defence—quite the opposite. During those austerity years, the state gradually withdrew itself every year, cut by cut, until we were left with a social security system that is no longer a genuine safety net. People are falling through it; they will never escape poverty. Does no one here in this Chamber question why we have a national minimum wage, a living wage and a real living wage? Is it not absolutely absurd that we have three different figures that are deemed acceptable but are all, in all honesty, so low that they are nowhere near enough for people to live on? For heaven’s sake, we are one of the biggest economies in the world, yet we have 14% of our children going hungry, workers needing food banks to survive, low wages, decimated public services, poverty, inequality, and communities that have been asset-stripped for decades. If we want to talk about national security, let us acknowledge that all those things are killing our people right now. What kind of country do we live in when we allow that kind of poverty? What are we actually supposed to be defending here? National security is about more than defence spending. It is about creating a healthy, well-educated nation and about people having good, well-paid, secure jobs and adequate housing. As I say, it is always about political choices and about priorities, and I make no apology for those being mine.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Islington North for bringing forward this urgent question. I do not think that anyone can possibly dispute that energy shortages will prove fatal, as will the disease that will inevitably follow, and hyperinflation for essential items will price millions of Cubans out of buying goods. Do the UK Government recognise that the American blockades are a lethal method of economic terrorism? Why on earth do the UK Government not call out internationally our counterparts in the American Administration for that?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. Ninety-seven homes in Coalsnaughton have been evacuated due to ground movement—that is hundreds of people enduring severe emotional and financial distress. This is absolutely life-changing. The Mining Remediation Authority is now conducting an eight-week investigation into who will ultimately be held responsible. In the meantime, my constituents are looking to the UK Government for help. Will the Prime Minister commit to working with the Scottish Government and Clackmannanshire council to ensure that affected residents receive whatever support they need for a speedy and fair resolution?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Transition from Fossil Fuels: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  Progress? Not when it comes to Scotland’s jet fuel supply, because yesterday there were fuel shortages at Scottish airports, meaning lengthy delays. Those on the Front Bench will say it was because of a tanker driver shortage—a logistics issue—and they would be absolutely right to do so. However, the fact is that 2,822 supply chain jobs were lost because of the Grangemouth oil refinery closure, leading to transport problems like the one we saw yesterday. Jet fuel shortages will happen again; what are the Government going to do to stop that happening?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Coalminers were the original victims of an unjust transition and, 40 years on, the Grangemouth oil refinery workers are the modern-day equivalent. PetroChina, the Chinese state-owned petrochemical company, and Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos ended a century of Scottish oil refining because they—a foreign Government and private capital—wanted to make even more money. The closure meant: 435 jobs on site—redundant; 2,822 supply chain jobs—gone; local businesses, which needed refinery workers’ custom— hammered; £400 million a year from the Scottish economy—lost; Scotland’s energy security—weakened; and Scotland’s national security—compromised. The previous Tory Government were uninterested and the SNP Scottish Government were negligent. We know that when essential national infrastructure is in the hands of a foreign Government and a private company, workers, their communities and our nation’s energy security will not stand in the way of shareholders getting their dividend. That is what private capital will always do. British Steel being taken into national ownership is great news, but I ask the Minister why the same did not happen for Grangemouth oil refinery. Last Christmas my Labour Government did step in and save the UK chemicals industry at Grangemouth, with 500 jobs secured and a profit-sharing agreement reached: positive Government action for Grangemouth and for all of Scotland. That was the right thing to do—it was the Labour thing to do—and the same goes for nationalising British Steel. Fifteen months ago, at the Scottish Labour party conference, the Prime Minister announced Project Willow, with £200 million for Grangemouth’s bold industrial future. Let us get these new green, clean future industries into Grangemouth, but let us do it more quickly. It has taken far too long. Workers need jobs and the local community must see the benefit of those industries coming to Grangemouth. Scandalously, for far too long private capital has exploited the local area, extracted profits and not put anything back into the town that has given it oh so much. Let us take public ownership of these new industries and reinvest in Grangemouth—in the town and the people. It is high time that we, the working class, started to reap the benefits of our labour.

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. I have concerns about recent reports that the Society of Media Lawyers, which opposes the reform of strategic lawsuits against public participation, has had significant access to Ministers and civil servants while lobbying against stronger protections for journalists, whistleblowers and campaigners. SLAPPs continue to be used by the super-wealthy and super-powerful to silence investigative reporting and public interest speech. Will the Government bring forward meaningful and undiluted anti-SLAPP legislation?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  From the outset, I wish to state my support for the delivery of justice for all the people who were harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and those involved with him who committed such despicable violations and crimes, and who must be held responsible. The people who were exploited should be at the front of all our minds. It is my opinion that this motion does not come from anything noble or a deep concern for those who were trafficked or abused; nor is it about the protection of democracy or anything of that nature. Of course, the motion is designed to embarrass the Prime Minister and put Labour MPs in an awkward position. Not for the first time, we Labour MPs are in an awkward position, and not for the first time, it is because of the Prime Minister’s actions, not those of the Opposition. The accusations of secrecy and goings-on in this place are serious political issues that mean the world to a whole host of our constituents. Sometimes that relates to the traditions and protocols of this place, which to many people seem archaic, arcane and totally unrelatable to how they lead their daily lives. People are regularly frustrated by Ministers not answering questions at the Dispatch Box, and, equally, by shadow Ministers’ amnesia about their own record when in power. People are infuriated watching politicians do the media circuit, slavishly going through the party lines, no matter how illogical they may be. All of it just breeds utter contempt in politics and for politicians. People are sick to the back teeth of it all. When I am out campaigning and knocking on people’s doors, they tell me just how irritated they are with politicians who endlessly try to deflect and defend the most absurd and wrong decisions, just because of the party they represent. Of course, this is not unique to the Labour party—all parties indulge in this. The Conservatives defend their record of austerity that ripped the heart out of communities up and down the United Kingdom. Many in the SNP refuse to take responsibility for failures in housing, education, health, local authorities and vital public services, but credit to the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) for alluding to, with a lightness of touch, some of the travails that his party has experienced. I just want my Labour Government to be better than that. It really is a low bar that we have been set, but people genuinely think that we are all the same—they see no real difference. To echo other right hon. and hon. Members, I think that the Prime Minister should refer himself to the Privileges Committee. It would say to Parliament—and, more importantly, to our voters across the country—that he knows that he will be proved innocent, that he will be vindicated, that he has got nothing to hide, and, importantly, that transparency and accountability really are at the heart of our democracy. I say to my colleagues on the Labour Benches that we were elected based on the promise of providing change—an end to the scandals and the cover-ups that people are so disgusted with. Whether it be Tory lockdown parties or trips to castles hundreds of miles away to test eyesight, the SNP abandonment of care homes and the “do not resuscitate” notices placed on patients without their consent during covid, we need to be better than all of that. But truthfully, in our first 20 months in government, the public do not think that we are. Because of the mistakes, the decline in standards, the secrecy and the lack of accountability, we are paving the way for a hard-line, far-right Government to come next. And let us be under no illusions: that Government would set the country back to the days of mass unemployment, dire poverty and inequality. They would want to create a society that is as intolerant as it is unfair, and it absolutely terrifies me. In finishing, I say to any colleague who thinks I am wrong: please do have a look at the polls—look at the by-election results that we have had. The Prime Minister said that we would put country before party. Today, with this vote, he has the perfect opportunity to do just that. The Prime Minister needs to stop putting Labour MPs in awkward situations. The open and honest thing would be to refer himself to the Committee of Privileges. If he will not do that, then I am afraid that he has left me with no choice: I will have to vote for the motion this afternoon.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Increasing the uptake of bowel cancer screening improves rates of early diagnosis and saves lives, but about a third of people eligible for a FIT test—a faecal immunochemical test—do not complete one. That figure rises in the most deprived areas of Scotland, where up to half of people are not completing the test. What collaborative work are the Government undertaking to improve participation rates and reduce such health inequalities across the United Kingdom?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for bringing this very important debate to Westminster Hall. Even though the prison system is largely a devolved matter, I would like to speak about things from a Scottish perspective. I regularly speak about prison officers’ working conditions in this place, in both Chambers and as a member of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group. I am fortunate to know many serving and recently retired officers from HMP Glenochil in my constituency. Officers at Glenochil and every other prison in Scotland do remarkable work every day for pay and conditions that, in all honesty, do not match their skills, commitment and efforts. The 3.5% pay award that officers are due to receive this coming year is just not enough—not when inflation is sitting at 3% and is projected to rise with ongoing global war and conflict, increasing energy costs and a cost of living crisis that shows no sign of stopping. Prison officers deserve better—all workers deserve better. No one should become poorer. When we factor in the fact that those officers are expected to work until they are 68, which is ludicrous for any worker, and when we look at the mental and physical demands of being a prison officer, we see that it is unrealistic, unjust and utterly unacceptable. Let me talk briefly about the psychological strain of the profession. No amount of body armour will assist an officer who has to deal with criminals who are looking to gain psychological advantages over them and trying to ingratiate themselves, ultimately to manipulate the officer and to garner information. It is a relentless mental attack, all done to assert power, control and dominance over the officers. Many officers have said that the mental strength and fortitude necessary to be always in a heightened state of alertness is incredibly exhausting. There is also the physical element of working on landings. It is absolutely ridiculous to ask someone in their mid to late 60s to cope with the demands of going up against a prisoner who could be 40 to 50 years younger. Common sense says that that just should not happen. Why are we considering body armour provision as a solution? Scotland’s prison population is the largest we have ever had. Overcrowding is making everything much more difficult. It has an impact on officers’ ability to look after prisoners safely, and a negative impact on the likelihood of effectively rehabilitating offenders. We simply do not have enough prison officers to safely manage a prison population of this size. Alongside the record numbers, the complexity of the prisoner demographic means an urgent need for extra prison spaces, increased investment in staff training, a staff recruitment drive and an overall longer-term strategy that will define the purpose of our prisons. With much of our prison estate in dire need of investment, many facilities are not at the standard necessary to keep officers and prisoners safe. Facilities that are outdated and unhygienic must be addressed. No one should go to their workplace if it is in a decrepit condition. Our prison officers pride themselves on their professionalism. They are rightly concerned about conditions for the prisoners that they are tasked with keeping safe, but also with helping to rehabilitate. If these issues are not tackled, the strain on our prison system and on the officers who staff it will only keep growing, leaving our prisons much more dangerous and rehabilitation much less likely. Overcrowding, squalid conditions and increases in prison violence can be attributed to the political cuts of austerity. Rising numbers of assaults on officers have led to retention issues. With so many officers leaving the service, that means an exodus of vital skills and expertise. This is no anecdotal tale. The Prison Officers Association has stated that since 2010, over 116,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have left the UK wide service. Time is pressing, so I will lay out some questions for the Minister to address either today or, if it is more convenient, by letter. On body armour, does he agree with the POA that stab-proof vests should be mandated across the entire closed adult male estate, not just separation centres and close supervision centres? Does he agree that slash-proof vests should be available to all prison officers, wherever they work? Does he accept that one of the drivers for increased prison violence is the amount of experience that has left the Prison Service? Can he name another profession that encounters such high levels of violence, where it is so normalised and where workers are expected to work until they are 68 years old? Does he accept that prison officers working until 68 is unrealistic and that the unjust retirement age is a factor in the staff recruitment and retention issues in the service? Finally, will the Government do the right and sensible thing and lower the retirement age for prison officers?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When I went campaigning with Paul Godzik, Suzanne Grahame and Siobhan Paterson, three outstanding Scottish Labour candidates in the Holyrood elections, I was often asked, “What’s the difference between Scottish Labour and the SNP?” Well, let us try this one on for size. I joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Grangemouth in December as she announced £120 million to save 500 jobs on site and the future of the UK chemicals industry. Let us compare that with the SNP Government announcement yesterday. They have decided that they are going to buy more buses built in China than in Larbert and Falkirk. I know how I feel, but what does the Leader of the House make of the SNP abandoning Scottish workers, communities and industry?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  It is expected that food inflation will hit 4%. That means that a typical family’s annual grocery bill will increase by approximately £240. In Scotland, approximately 1 million people experienced food insecurity in the last year, and food insecurity is closely linked to access to and consumption of fruit and vegetables. The Chancellor said that she will meet with supermarkets, but what will the asks and demands be so that people can access nutritious and affordable food?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will be a tough enough listen for many in the Chamber to hear it just the once—I do not need to do it three times. In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock forward. We are currently sitting at 85 seconds to midnight: the closest the world has ever been to ending. We live in a time of great political turmoil—of that, we are all certain—but the debate about ramping up defence spending, and making cuts to public services to do it, has been going on for decades. The suggestion of reinstating the two-child benefit cap so that we can have more bombs and weapons is against everything that I believe in. We have seen austerity that has created immiseration and poverty up and down the United Kingdom. Then we had a pandemic, with an explosion in wealth inequality. Now, a cost of living crisis has taken hold to the extent that most of the public think it will never end. All of that means deteriorating living standards. The social fabric of our country has been ripped apart—this is life in the world’s sixth-largest economy. Pursuing economic growth and improving people’s living standards are the right thing to do, but thinking that militarism is the way to achieve that is at best misguided; at worst, it will further jeopardise global security. It also makes little economic sense. Military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories: it is 70th out of 100 in terms of the employment it generates. Energy, agriculture and food, chemicals, iron and steel, and construction all have far greater employment multipliers than military spending—for example, health is 2.5 times more efficient than military spending for job creation. British military spending supports less than 1% of the UK workforce. So let us not kid each other: it will not be working-class communities who benefit; it will be weapons manufacturers. Defence is neither a UK-wide industry, nor does it massively help small or medium-sized businesses, as they only secure approximately 5% of all orders. Ministry of Defence figures highlight that defence employment is densely concentrated in specific geographical pockets of the country. Instead of bombs and weapons and talking about a defence dividend, what about what Tony Benn called a “peace dividend”? That is all about making political choices.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I have been very clear—I have said it outside the Chamber, and I will say it inside—that I do not want Scotland or the United Kingdom to have any nuclear weapons. What is the hon. Gentleman’s personal opinion?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I do. But when I look at the threats that we face in this country, I have an inbox full of constituents who are saying that they have to make the incredible decision of whether to feed their family or put the heating on. That is actually killing people. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about perceived threats, but those are the actual threats that I am dealing with in my inbox. As I say, there is a choice. We can build hospitals to save lives and schools to educate our children, and upgrade infrastructure—we all know that local authorities most definitely need that, as they need investment in public services. These are the things that really will improve people’s living standards up and down the United Kingdom.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman focuses on the constitutional question that is such a huge part of Scottish and UK politics. I honestly have no issue with people who voted yes and I have no issue with people who voted no. The politics that I try to bring to this place is not based on nationalism versus Unionism; it is about class, which I think is the overriding political force in this country and has been for centuries, regardless of whether that is north or south of the border. I mentioned the choice that I would want. The other choice is to spend tens of billions of pounds on military hardware, with that money inevitably flowing to private capital and corporate shareholders. For me, that will only serve to create even more inequality. It is very much an either/or. Do we build or do we destroy? I feel that workers and communities, certainly in my constituency of Alloa and Grangemouth, need the former and not the latter. It is my opinion that militarism will not make the UK a more equal country or, indeed, the world a safer place. I fear that, given the way that we are going and when we look at geopolitical forces, in January next year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists will move the second hand closer to midnight once again.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists —

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to draw the House’s attention to my membership of Unite the union. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds): the framing of this debate is somewhat misleading. The Conservatives and Reform have no real desire to lower people’s bills; nor are they interested in saving jobs or the prosperity of working-class communities. We can see that from looking at history. Let us look at the coalmines: right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative and Reform Benches would have been on the side of Thatcher, MacGregor, Ridley, Walker and Heseltine. This debate is really about Tory and Reform Members revelling in the free market. The only extraction they really care about is that of corporate profit and shareholder dividends. I am ideologically opposed to the Conservatives and Reform UK, but what really pains me is being at odds with my own party. I have been clear that there should be no ban without a plan, and there really must be a plan, because the danger is that oil and gas workers will become the modern-day coalminers. Thousands of workers are nervous about what the future holds, and they are right to be—they have seen billionaire Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and the Chinese state company PetroChina close the Grangemouth oil refinery, ending 100 years of Scottish industrial history. The Conservative Government did not want to know about the issue, and the SNP Government refused to engage with Ratcliffe, the Chinese and the trade unions that represent the workers even, though they knew about the planned closure for three years. The SNP abandoned the workers in the Grangemouth community. Some £434.5 million has been committed for Grangemouth’s industrial future from this Labour Government—I have had to fight tooth and nail for it. The excellent news is that 500 jobs in the chemical industry have been saved, and that Project Willow is starting to deliver new jobs through the MiAlgae and Celtic Renewables announcements. However, I say to the Minister that the Government must match their ambitions with much more action. That means providing thousands of good, well-paid jobs and getting the new industries we need into Grangemouth and other industrial towns like it. There is still more than £190 million available in the National Wealth Fund for my constituency—we should start using it. I also say to the Government that it is common sense to take at least some form of ownership in these new clean, green industries. They should break the cycle of reliance on private capital, foreign ownership and volatile fossil fuel markets and do more of what a Labour Government should.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, which is generous of him. I have been very critical of my Government in relation to the closure of Grangemouth refinery, but I will give you the opportunity of being critical of your Government’s inaction on the issue.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  US military aircraft departed from the Scottish Government-owned Prestwick airport up to 32 times in the 10 days before American and Israeli strikes started on Iran. Like many of my constituents, I am worried about the prospect of a Scottish airport being used in an illegal war. Will the Secretary of State definitively say today who has the authority to stop the US military using Scottish civilian infrastructure? Is it the Prime Minister or is it the First Minister of Scotland?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Social Enterprises and Community Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate. When it comes to recognising what communities need, no one knows better than local folk. I am lucky that there are so many special organisations and inspirational people positively impacting all the communities across Alloa and Grangemouth, and I would like to highlight a few today. The Newlands community hall in Grangemouth has been taken over by SeaLock Infinity, which has increased community use of the facility with various clubs, exercise classes and social activities taking place. That will improve health and wellbeing enormously. Also in Grangemouth, the local community council successfully campaigned against the cuts to Zetland Park maintenance. In the beautiful Zetland and Inchyra Parks, the Central Football Foundation has taken on the pavilions. Extensive repair works that will make the pavilions more energy-efficient are scheduled, and alongside the Young Portonian Theatre Company, they will be excellent venues for sporting and cultural community activities. Another local football club doing great things is Gairdoch United, which has taken on the Glensburgh pavilion in Carronshore and the Letham pavilion, for the advancement of public participation in the beautiful game. Across the constituency in Clackmannan, the development trust has secured the future of the town hall, where I had a ball playing indoor bowls—badly, I must admit. The trust has also taken on the library, and it plans to expand the range of activities that it offers to local people—congratulations to everyone involved. It was great to meet Janette from the Tullibody community development trust, which promotes social inclusion and healthy living, and is instrumental in creating community spirit and a sense of tremendous local pride. I also met those involved in the Tullibody Heritage Centre. Its history group has amassed an incredible collection that celebrates life in the ancient village—a fantastic way to spend a morning. Last Saturday, I popped into the Ben Cleuch Centre in Tillicoultry for World Book Day, where some of the trustees were dressed up as famous literary characters. Whether it is providing libraries, meeting rooms, workspaces, kids’ play areas, community gardens or warm spaces for socialising and catching up, the Tillicoultry, Coalsnaughton and Devonside development trust is doing so much good. Community asset transfers are so much more than just taking on a building: the feeling of belonging that they often provide is invaluable, and the people involved deserve every bit of credit possible.