Brian Leishman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Jan 2026 · Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete in Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I present this petition on behalf of my constituents from Tillicoultry who have had nowhere to call home for two years now, and for those people from across the United Kingdom who have also had their life impacted by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in their homes. This builds on a similar petition circulated locally, which gathered over 200 signatures. That shows the strength of feeling in Tillicoultry and beyond. My constituents deserve answers and accountability. All they ask for is fairness. The petition requests “that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold a public inquiry into the handling of RAAC by national and local government, to introduce legislation to require the maintenance of a high-risk building register, to mandate reporting of building defects by surveyors and other professionals and to introduce sixty-year liability for developers for building defects; and to consider compensation measures such as a ban on levying interest on mortgages on homes condemned after the discovery of RAAC, and the restoration of first-time buyer status for affected homeowners.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that many families across the UK face homelessness, bankruptcy and trauma after being forced from homes made unsafe by RAAC (reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete), particularly in former council homes purchased under the right to buy scheme. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold a public inquiry into the handling of RAAC by national and local government; to introduce legislation to require the maintenance of a high-risk building register, to mandate reporting of building defects by surveyors and other professionals and to introduce sixty-year liability for developers for building defects; and to consider compensation measures such as a ban on levying interest on mortgages on homes condemned after the discovery of RAAC, and the restoration of first-time buyer status for affected homeowners. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003158]

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Councillors across Scotland are preparing budgets and considering options, put forward by officers, that will mean cuts to vital public services. In Grangemouth, local residents are rightly worried about proposals to end maintenance of the beautiful Zetland Park, and for the closure of Grangemouth sports complex, which would removing swimming and leisure facilities. The proposed cuts would be awful for Grangemouth residents of all ages. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising my constituents as they stand up for our communities, and agree that the only thing that should be cut in Grangemouth is the grass at Zetland Park?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I will.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Good afternoon, Ms McVey. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate. I am a proud trade unionist, and I declare my membership of Unite the union. For generations, trade unions have fought for workers’ rights against right-wing Governments, which always have the richest and most powerful economic interests behind them and are often supported and propped up by a hostile media. Having an ideologically right-wing Government as one’s opponent is, in some ways, rather easy; working-class people can generally recognise that a Conservative Government will be diametrically opposed to their interests. But the British political landscape is changing. Now, working-class people also need to appreciate that any future Reform Government would be no friend of theirs. Reform was bitterly against the Employment Rights Act 2025, though its Members are not in the Chamber today—and when we look at its latest recruits, it is abundantly clear that they are no friends of working-class communities. But, as a trade unionist and as a proud Labour party member, what really devastates me is that the Labour party under the current national leadership is abandoning the bin workers of Birmingham. For a party born out of the trade union movement to imagine that it is okay for workers to receive an £8,000 pay cut is nothing short of a betrayal of what a proud Labour party should always stand for. As Gordon Brown once said: “Leaders come and leaders go”. But the mission remains the same. At one time in the dispute, Unite were making progress with the Birmingham city council managing director, Joanne Roney. Unite states that she met with general secretary Sharon Graham in ACAS talks last summer. They discussed a “ballpark agreement” that both sides could work with as the basis of a written deal, and agreed to meet again in two days’ time. Joanne Roney then delayed the meeting, messaging: “I need some more time to deal with the commissioners. I’ve asked the team to keep you informed and ACAS advised. Not clear on the issues but you know the discussion is not just resting with me...also the commissioners...it needs wider approval. Frustrating for us all.” Then she went quiet for three weeks. Finally, she messaged again: “Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. It’s been a challenge for me, it’s not how I usually do business and I share your frustration. However, I now have an offer for you to consider and will meet on Sunday, I am free after 5, I hope you know I fought really hard for this offer which is the closest I can get to what we discussed.” Finally, there was a second meeting, with a written offer agreed by the Government-imposed commissioners, but it was much lower than the ballpark deal, and was by no means a fair offer. Members should bear in mind that workers are getting a pay cut of up to £8,000. The council presented this as a “take it or leave it” offer, then stopped talks and sent out redundancy letters in July. It has not come back to talks since then. All this time, while thinking it is acceptable for working people to become poorer by thousands of pounds, Birmingham city council are spending millions on the dispute. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said, more than £20 million has already been spent on the strike, including on lost revenue and agency fees. How much does a fair deal cost, Minister? What farcical behaviour from Birmingham council, the commissioners and, frankly, any political administration at any level of government that claims to be left wing and socialist in its nature. The truth is that I do not care about the Tories or Reform. I know what they both are. I know who they represent in this place, just like I know what and who the Labour party should always stand for. As well as asking what a fair deal would cost, I put the following questions to the Minister. Does she think that working-class people should be £8,000 worse off? Does she agree with agency and contract workers being used to break a strike? Does she have any appreciation that the Labour party is facing electoral oblivion in Birmingham, and that the polling from Scotland and Wales before the devolved Parliament elections in May looks dire? Does the Minister not see that issues like this in Birmingham, cutting welfare to disabled people, letting down WASPI women, delaying the Hillsborough law, trying to limit people’s right to protest and removing citizens’ right to trial by jury are not the policies and actions of the real Labour party?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I might not be from Birmingham, as people can tell from my accent, but what I am is a trade unionist. This involves trade union disputes. I am also here to represent not only the communities of Alloa and Grangemouth but the wider working class, including the working class of Birmingham, and it is undoubtedly working-class people—the bin strikers and their families—who are being impacted. No one in this Chamber or in this place should have any doubt that they have my full solidarity. My final question to the Minister is this: will she tell the leadership that the grassroots members in constituency Labour parties up and down the country think that the commitment to socialist ideals and principles is something we should make and actually be proud of? History shows that Labour Governments do not come around that often, but when they do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) said, working-class people absolutely do benefit. I make no apologies. We have done good things in government, but I am greedy. After 14 years of Conservative austerity, I want more, and I make no apologies for that.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Food Inflation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his interesting, informative and considered contribution, especially in respect of food bank volunteers doing an awful lot more work than providing food. Since 2010, we have seen an unholy trinity. First came the cruel and wicked ideology of austerity, which impoverished communities from all four nations of the United Kingdom. Political decisions were designed to create the inequality that ravaged communities up and down the country so severely, and academics at the University of Glasgow have linked that to hundreds of excess deaths. Then we had a pandemic, which increased further the wealth inequality from the years of crippling austerity, as the few got richer and accumulated more assets at the expense of the many. We have witnessed eye-watering increases in life’s essentials—food, energy, fuel, shelter and insurance—but at the same time wages have fallen in real terms for most of us. That obscene reality has been neatly packaged and labelled as the “cost of living crisis”, and that phrase has now entered everyday language. Millions of people struggling has become an accepted, normalised part of life, but for the millions in that position, describing it as “living” is wholly inaccurate. Having to choose between heating and eating is no life; it is a battle merely to exist. I know that, because I have been in a similar position. Years ago, I had to tell my young son that he should have his tea on his own, “Because dad’s not hungry. I’ll have something after, once you go to bed.” But the truth was that we could not afford to eat. We went without, so he could have a meal. Those are the circumstances for hundreds of thousands of Scots today, right now. Hunger and hardship are on the rise. According to recent research by the Trussell Trust, more than 1 million Scots went hungry due to a lack of money to buy food, including more than 200,000 children. This winter, Trussell Trust food banks expect to provide an emergency food parcel every 10 seconds—a 40% increase over the winter period compared with five years ago. An increase in food bank use has been a long-term trend. More than 14 million people, including 3.8 million children, live in food-insecure households. True to form for the country of gross inequality that we are, there is a gulf in the risk of hunger, depending on where someone lives in the UK. Households in the most deprived areas are three times more likely to be food insecure than households in the least deprived areas. Three in four people referred to food banks under the Trussell umbrella are disabled, and one in three children under five are growing up in food-insecure households. A key reason for growing food bank reliance is a social security system that is failing to protect people. The heightened cost of living has the largest impact on those with no savings, those already in debt or arrears or those on universal credit. In fact, just over half of the people on universal credit in the UK experienced hunger last year, and 87% of people referred to food banks in 2025 were in receipt of means-tested benefits. People on low wages are also impacted. I am 43 years old and when I was at school, if one of my peers was living in poverty, it was probably because their parents were unemployed. But nowadays, 30% of people referred to the Trussell Trust are working. Under a right-wing Government, the 2010s were a decade of wage suppression and wage stagnation. With austerity, wealth accumulation and cost of living pressures, working people have been plunged into deprivation, and politicians have allowed that to happen. Relentless campaigning by civil society outside this place, and inside this place by me and other Labour MPs, influenced the Government to abolish the biggest driver of hunger and hardship: the two-child cap. By removing that wicked policy, Labour has lifted just under half a million kids out of poverty and hardship. Actions like that are why I joined the Labour party and why I remain in it today, but they must only be the start. Food bank use is rising, and my party needs to be far bolder and more ambitious now that we are in power. Make no mistake: the country needs us to be. One measurement of what kind of country we live in is how our social security system functions, and whether it properly looks after the disadvantaged and the most vulnerable in our society. In government, we need to work with charities and with third sector and community organisations, which are heroically supporting people across the country who are struggling to eat and make ends meet. We must introduce a new programme like the essentials guarantee, which would embed in our social security system the fundamental principle that universal credit should protect people from going without the essentials of food, heating and toiletries. Giving people a right to food should be part of that. We must ensure that people can eat and that their children are not going hungry. That is why I am fully behind the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to introduce a “right to food” law, and why I will be helping to support his Right to Food Commission when it comes to Scotland to take evidence in May. Of course, we should have a policy with a minimum floor in universal credit—a safety net that no one among us should ever fall through. We live in the sixth largest economy on planet Earth and poverty is a political choice. Because it is a political choice, it can be eradicated. We just need the politicians and the Government that are willing to do that. We have to build a future in which people no longer rely on donations, charity and food banks, just to exist. We should start by implementing an essentials guarantee so that the basic rate of UC actually covers life’s essentials —that could be a Britain that we are all proud of.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  When we look at the popular things that this Labour Government have done since coming to power—and I am talking about raising the minimum wage, raising the living wage and abolishing the two-child cap—we see that these decisions are rooted in Labour party values. Eroding civil liberties, as seen in the proposals for jury trials and for digital ID, is not in keeping with Labour party values, and nor is it necessary or, indeed, popular. Will the Minister feed my thoughts back to the leadership at Cabinet level?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that the debate was on the wider UK refining sector. On that note, we talk about just transition—it is often mentioned in this Chamber—but job losses and no future jobs are the definition of a very unjust transition.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for his Westminster Hall debate. We sit on opposite sides of the Chamber, but I thoroughly respect how much he has stood up for his constituents and the wider oil refining industry in the United Kingdom, and I thank him for that. I will speak about Grangemouth and specifically the jobs that have been lost there—

• 8 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The legendary Jock Stein famously once said that football without fans is nothing, and of course he was absolutely correct. I invite the Leader of the House to join me in recognising the fantastic Alloa Athletic football memories group, led by John Glencross, which meets up regularly to talk about all things football. The meetings support people living with dementia and some who are experiencing loneliness and social isolation. It is an example of great camaraderie, friendship and community spirit.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Renewable Energy Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour Government did excellent work just before Christmas in saving 500 jobs in the chemical industry at Grangemouth. That was real Labour party values in action, but we need to do more. How about investing in or, to be really radical, owning a sustainable aviation fuel-producing refinery at the site? The infrastructure is there, the need for SAF is there, and my people need jobs.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Less Survivable Cancers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate. Even though health is a devolved matter under Holyrood control, my contribution today will be from a Scottish perspective, because I want to speak about the situation of health inequalities that we have in Scotland and how it comes down, like everything does, to a class issue. Shockingly, 61% of people in Scotland who are diagnosed with a cancer of the lung, liver, brain, oesophagus, pancreas or stomach die within a year of diagnosis. That is the poorest survival rate anywhere in the United Kingdom. In 2023, the Scottish Government implemented the 10-year Scottish cancer strategy, which outlined 11 ambitions designed to reduce cancer risk, provide faster and earlier diagnosis, improve cancer treatment, make cancer care fit for the future and reduce the differences exacerbated by health inequalities. The most disadvantaged Scots suffer dire health inequalities. The most deprived areas face higher incidence. The largest gap relates to lung cancer, with risk almost four times higher in deprived groups. They also face later diagnosis, often at the emergency stage: people living in deprived areas are 50% more likely to be diagnosed via emergency admission and are thus far more likely to miss the earlier—and statistically the most successfully treatable—stages of cancer. There are also considerable economic barriers. Socioeconomic conditions often contribute to lower symptom awareness and knowledge in the first instance, greater issues with accessing and attending appointments and a higher likelihood of exposure to harmful factors such as smoking, alcohol and obesity. Smoking is the biggest cause of cancer in Scotland, and we know that it is more common in the most deprived populations. In 2019, 32% of people in the most deprived populations smoked, compared with 6% in the least deprived. If we take being overweight and obesity together, it is the second largest preventable cause of cancer in Scotland. As with smoking, obesity rates are higher in more deprived areas. I appreciate that it will take a huge joined-up approach across several Departments and cross-governmental working to reduce the shocking health inequalities in Scotland, but if the Minister could give an indication—either in her speech or perhaps in greater depth in a letter to me after the debate—of how the UK Government plan to do so, I would be very grateful, as would my constituents.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, he is an absolutely fantastic representative for his constituents. Will he join me in thanking the family of Aiden Joyce from Clackmannanshire? Aiden was a serving police officer and a keen sportsman, and he tragically passed away in 2023 from an undiagnosed coronary artery anomaly. His family set up a memorial fund that funds the screening of young people in Clackmannanshire at Alva academy, a local secondary school. There is absolutely no doubt that it has been crucial in saving tens of lives.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  In the Budget, defence received £25.9 billion for capital expenditure. In comparison, health and social care got £14 billion and housing got £9.6 billion. In the interests of democracy, I am going to put forward a different viewpoint from those we have heard so far. It is a fact that UK citizens are dying because of inequality and poverty, not the threat of another nation launching a nuclear attack against us; should that not be reflected in the prioritising of Government expenditure?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this highly important debate, and I draw everyone’s attention to my membership of Unite the union. Since coming to this place, I have repeatedly raised the issue of the Grangemouth oil refinery closing, with 435 jobs lost on site and 2,822 lost in the wider supply chain. Closure means an end to a century of oil refining on the site and to a generational employer for Grangemouth people. Nearly every family in the town has had someone, or knows someone, who worked at the site. There is no doubt about it: local businesses will feel the pain of the closure. The hairdressers, barbers, small independent retailers, hotels, restaurants, pubs and garages are the very businesses that make up the heartbeat of the local community and the town’s economy. They are all negatively impacted. The closure is more than just a local constituency issue. It is Scotland’s biggest industrial issue in four decades, it is safe to say, since the end of the coalmining industry. To put the matter into the national context, the Grangemouth refinery was worth more than £400 million per annum to the Scottish economy, according to both Scottish Enterprise and PwC. While conflict rages on in Europe, British people have been susceptible to the resulting price shocks and disrupted supply chains that have impacted the oil industry in Europe. At this perilous time, with refining ending at Grangemouth, Scotland is now in the ridiculous position of importing our own oil. The energy-abundant nation of Scotland is reliant on global logistics and outside influences for our oil products. It is incredible that we have lost our self-sufficiency. Why has this happened? Why did the refinery close? I will say something different from what right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned so far. Let me be clear: the idea that the Grangemouth refinery closed as part of trying to achieve net zero, or as part of some woke green agenda or an environmental campaign, is utter nonsense. The real reason—the heart of the matter—is Petroineos. It is made up of private capital, Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and a foreign Government in the form of Chinese state-backed PetroChina. It controlled the Grangemouth refinery, a key piece of Scottish and British national infrastructure, and closure was a commercial decision. Closure happened because it was more profitable for a private company to make hundreds of workers redundant and operate Grangemouth as an import terminal. It was international capital concerned with the corporate greed of a billionaire owner, with shareholder dividends their priority. That is the ruthless nature of how international capital works. Ratcliffe has massively weakened Scotland’s national economy and jeopardised our country’s energy security for his own needs. I am disgusted by Governments allowing that to happen, and by the pandering to Ratcliffe in spending billions of pounds to help with the regeneration around Old Trafford and hundreds of millions of pounds to provide a loan guarantee for his plant in Belgium. I make absolutely no apologies for being ideological. As the country sacrificed state ownership of vital infrastructure, we lost control of our own refinery. We have seen job losses, an exodus of skills and talent, local shops closing and all the social consequences that follow deindustrialisation. That is what has happened to former industrial towns the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. For goodness’ sake! The country needs a different industrial direction, to bring an end to being at the mercy of private capital and foreign Government influence. There is a clear, coherent case for Government ownership. It is in the public interest. In questions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and to the Treasury, I have asked what ownership stake the UK Government are willing to take in future industries at Grangemouth. I put the same question to the Minister this afternoon. Just as I make no apologies for being ideological in my opinion of public ownership, I make no apologies for criticising both the UK and Scottish Governments. We know that oil will be part of the energy mix for decades to come, so it is time for both of Scotland’s Governments to be bold. The existing infrastructure of the Grangemouth refinery is largely still in place, and there should be a conversion to sustainable aviation fuel there. We have signed up to highly ambitious mandates, so let us try to meet those targets. Successful conversion of refineries is there for everyone to see—at La Mède in France, Eni’s Venice refinery in Italy and Phillips’s Rodeo refinery in the US. I say this to the Minister today: what happens at Grangemouth will go a long way in deciding how we shape our future economy, who controls it and who this Government actually serve and work for.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I don’t know what you mean. [ Laughter . ]

• 8 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Injury Time campaign wants to classify brain injuries in football, such as dementia, as an industrial injury. The campaign wants former players to receive Government support and benefits and wants an increase in funding for research. Will the relevant Minister meet me and PFA Scotland to discuss this important topic?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but she needs to exercise just a smidge of patience; I was coming on to that. Introducing digital ID means the likelihood is that millions of people, including those living in poverty, many disabled people and older people, will end up facing digital exclusion. That will add to inequality, and I therefore cannot support the policy. Inequality is impacting people from all over the UK, and the cost of living crisis is creating deeper poverty for millions of people. The truth is that introducing digital ID is a distraction from what the Government really should be doing. We need to redistribute power, wealth and opportunity to the millions who have been victims of chronic austerity—to those most impacted by the deterioration of public services and by the social cost of political decisions and what they have meant for their communities. I have said who will not benefit from introducing digital ID, but who will? It is obvious: it will be corporate interests, shareholders and their dividends. Realistically, it could also be a future Government with an ideological agenda of selling data to private capital.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My assessment is that the most important issue facing this country is inequality. Will mandatory digital ID help to close inequality?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. The minimum baseline of what the Government should be doing is listening to our constituents. After all, whichever party we represent—or do not represent—that is why we are here. I touched on the possibility of a future Government with an ideological agenda. There is no doubt about it: that would create further inequality. Perhaps they could even be a Government whose reason for being is scapegoating people. Let us not kid ourselves that it is beyond the realms of possibility to have some sort of dystopian future Government in power, one that looks to use such technology for its own end, which is the exclusion of people from services or even—dare I say it—our country. If digital ID is introduced, it will be a big step in that awful direction.

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

  More

  It is Family Business Week. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Natalie Couper Dance Academy? Whether it is for jazz, hip-hop, lyrical, freestyle, acrobatics or any kind of dance, those who come to the academy are treated like family by Natalie and Korrie. It is fantastic that they are expanding their business again in January 2026, and I loved visiting them and taking part in a dance session—even though Natalie’s granny Maggie said I had two left feet, which was correct.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  Are the Government concerned that the judiciary tend to be privately educated and white, which is very different from the composition of juries and not representative of the modern-day United Kingdom?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I have residents from Tillicoultry who have not had access to their homes for two years because of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Their lives have been turned upside down. A year ago, the Scottish Government were given the largest settlement figure in the history of devolution, but they have not helped my residents. Will the Secretary of State inform me what discussions his Department has had with regard to residential RAAC with Scottish Government counterparts?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate, and I thank hon. Members for their interesting, and sometimes heartbreaking, contributions this evening. Once upon a time, a third of the globe was pink, signifying lands that were part of the British empire. Of course, some will say that empire was a civilising force—a moral and noble mission, even—but there are others, like me, who say that those who defend imperialism are attempting to justify the exploitation of people and resources, and airbrushing from history the violence committed with the aim of expanding British capitalist influence across the globe. To analyse accurately the current dire humanitarian situation in Palestine, it is only right to acknowledge, first, Britain’s historical role in the region; secondly, Britain’s current role; and thirdly, ongoing imperialism and its indivisible relationship with capitalism. Britain owes a historical debt to the Palestinian people. With the Balfour declaration, the British mandate of 1922 to 1948, and the confiscation of land and the suppression of freedom and human rights that followed, Britain paved the way for today’s apartheid living conditions. Now, our current role is to perpetuate and normalise the ongoing occupation and colonisation of Palestine. I am afraid that Britain cannot truthfully say that we are fulfilling our humanitarian obligations when we continue to sell arms to a state that commits genocide. We are in the scandalous position where we train IDF soldiers—soldiers of an army that commits war crimes. We will not tell our people what we are facilitating from RAF Akrotiri, hiding behind the veil of national security and secrecy. The military support we continue to give Israel makes a mockery of our humanitarian obligations. By continuing to trade with Netanyahu’s murderous regime, we serve to boost their economy. Netanyahu’s Government have, by design, crippled the Palestinian economy by impacting its ability to trade, thus making Palestinians reliant on Israel for goods, for produce and ultimately for survival. Israel consistently uses economic terrorism as a tool of subjugation. The reality is that there is a concerted effort to normalise Palestinians’ reliance on Israel as the provider of life-saving aid while making it near impossible for Palestinians to be self-sufficient. As well as that collective punishment of Palestinians, another goal of the broader plan is to impose capitalism through the imperial project that the Israeli Government promote, wilfully aided by western democracies. Let us look at what has happened to Palestinian agriculture. Israel has seized farmland, killed crops, destroyed livestock, stopped farmers from trading and prevented their produce from reaching markets by erecting roadblocks. That has led to mass unemployment as farms have become unsustainable. It has reduced agriculture to around 4% of Palestine’s GDP; once it was 52%. By continuing to trade with Israel, we are complicit in the ongoing colonisation of Palestine, and in making Palestinians reliant on Israel. What of education as a method of improving Palestinians’ life chances? We are fortunate in this country to consider such education a right, not a privilege. A fortnight ago, I was in the west bank. I heard about the slow strangulation of education. Israel continues to segregate Palestinian education by way of armed checkpoints: roadblocks that stop children and students from going to school, college or university in the west bank. Meanwhile, in Gaza, school often consists of teachers taking classes in tents, which are used as makeshift classrooms because schools have been relentlessly bombed. In trying to fragment and ultimately eradicate education, Israel is trying to suppress Palestinian national identity and suppress the ability of people to organise and resist the occupation of their land. By allowing that to happen, Britain and others are not fulfilling humanitarian obligations. We all know that there are players in the international community who will always strive to maintain a capitalist and imperialist agenda at the expense of humanitarian needs. The stark truth is that Britain is both complicit in and guilty of that. Parliamentarians often try to convince themselves and others that Britain is doing everything that it can, that we are on the side of humanity, and that we are decent people, part of a civilised society. But I am sorry, if anyone really thinks that Britain is achieving that—actually doing what is right, and doing everything that we possibly can—then they are either blind or an obedient fool.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Clean Energy: Private Sector Investment · Hansard source

  More

  The breaking news that the Mossmorran chemical plant is to close is yet more industrial vandalism put upon Scotland. Like what happened with Grangemouth, hundreds of on-site workers and their communities will be plunged into chaos. Why will the Government not take a future stake in what comes next at Grangemouth to give workers and communities prosperity and security?