Douglas McAllister MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  The majority of young people not in employment, education or training in West Dunbartonshire want a job or training, but they are not getting the support they need. Does the Minister agree that one way to tackle the challenge of youth employment is through our youth hubs, such as the one in West Dunbartonshire that is opening this month, which is one of 10 across Scotland? Will he come and visit the youth hub in West Dunbartonshire?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Glasgow City Region Economy · Hansard source

  More

  One in eight local authorities in the Glasgow city region is in my constituency. The Clyde is more than just Glasgow; it is the towns and areas up and down both sides of the Clyde. Does my hon. Friend agree that UK Government funding, not least the £60 million local growth fund, has the potential to unlock two sites in my West Dunbartonshire constituency: the former Exxon site and the Carless site? Both have the potential to create thousands of well paid, highly skilled jobs in West Dunbartonshire.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government’s plan for defence technical excellence colleges in the east and west of Scotland will give the young people of my constituency training opportunities. Have the Scottish Government responded or agreed to match our ambition with their share of funding for our colleges?

• 20 May 2026 · Child Protection Online · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents are rightly worried about the harms that children face online, including exposure to self-harm content, online bullying and addictive platform design. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the Government’s consultation on banning social media for under-16s will result in decisive action, and ensure that any measures that are introduced are effective, proportionate and capable of keeping pace with rapidly changing technology?

• 20 May 2026 · Child Protection Online · Hansard source

  More

  1. If she will take urgent steps to protect children online.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Monday of this week the former MP for Clydebank and Milngavie, Tony Worthington, sadly passed away. He was the MP for my home town of Clydebank from 1987 until 2005. Over 18 years in this House, he championed many causes, not least the campaign to secure compensation for victims of asbestos-related illness and their families after the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings. He was victorious in that fight. He will be remembered fondly by my constituents, and he remains an inspiration to me. Will the Leader of the House to join me in commemorating Tony Worthington and offering our condolences to his wife Angela, his son Robert, his daughter Jennifer and his three grandchildren?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I have always been assured by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that the case of my constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained in India for eight and a half years, would continue to be raised at all levels, but I understand that the Foreign Secretary met her counterpart Jaishankar on two occasions recently and was unable to do so. Can I have the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that she remains committed to raising Jagtar’s case and is actively working to secure his release?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Our ambitious child poverty strategy puts more money into the pockets of families and working parents. Removing the two-child cap benefits 2,260 children in my constituency, and the Secretary of State is doing much more on top of that, which we are missing out on in Scotland. Does she agree with me that we need a Government in Scotland who are more interested in education than gimmicks?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Housing Needs: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  In December 2023, the Scottish SNP Government slashed their affordable housing budget by £200 million—a 26% reduction. We have record levels of children in temporary accommodation in Scotland—10,000—and under the SNP’s watch, rough sleeping has increased by 66%. Scottish Labour is promising 125,000 new homes to add to the UK Government’s ambitious targets. Does the hon. Member agree that that would surely tackle the housing needs of our young people?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House will have cheered on Rory McIlroy’s historic back-to-back Masters victory at the weekend. However, when 60 courses have closed across the country over the last five years, and when courses such as Dalmuir in my West Dunbartonshire constituency remain open only because of a community-led takeover, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the future of golf in this country, so that we can ensure that the courses, clubs and community facilities that will inspire and create the next generation of British champions are still there to do so?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Access to Work Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention the experience of one of my constituents, who has given me permission to provide this information. She is profoundly deaf—that is how she describes herself—and has relied on Access to Work for 25 years. Despite this, she was recently told, via a no-reply email, to telephone or risk losing support, even though email communication had already been agreed as a reasonable adjustment. She applied within the six-week priority window, yet is facing delays of more than 30 weeks. She has received repeated emails incorrectly claiming that she has not responded, and has no clear information or timescales or the support she will receive. Does the Minister agree that a scheme designed to support disabled people into work must itself be accessible, and will she ensure that agreed adjustments are followed, communications improved and priority cases are genuinely prioritised?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. The sorry state of Scotland’s roads proves that the SNP cannot get the basics right. The UK Labour Government funding to repair potholes adds to the significant Barnett consequentials falling to Scotland. Does the Minister agree that Scottish Labour’s pledge to establish a new roads repair fund, worth £350 million, to fix 5 million potholes is one worth voting for on 7 May?

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

  More

  Yesterday’s announcement by the Government of an increase in the number of youth hubs, and the confirmation of the new locations, which include one in my constituency, is such incredible news. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this wonderful news for West Dunbartonshire? It will go a long way towards breaking down barriers to opportunity for the young people of my constituency. Will he also arrange for a statement on this matter after the recess?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In Scotland, one third of those living with EDS or hypermobility spectrum disorder are living with at least one long-term, serious condition. A number of my constituents contacted me in the lead-up to this debate to share their stories. They all repeated the same experience of delayed or overlooked diagnosis, which led to unnecessary pain and distress. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a UK-wide issue that requires earlier diagnosis, better awareness and integrated care to improve people’s outcomes and their lives?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  The visitor levy became law in Scotland in September 2024, allowing Scottish local authorities to apply a 5% charge on overnight stays. It is due to be implemented next year in my constituency and is estimated to bring in £1.7 million annually. Last month, I met Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Destination Group to hear their concerns about the tourist trade. While I suspect the right hon. Member disagrees with a levy, does he agree that, if a levy is to be introduced, it should clearly be invested in a manner that benefits and strengthens the local tourist economy, in consultation with trade—not just to fill a black hole in council budgets?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  The £379 million in Barnett consequentials announced by our Chancellor earlier this month is on top of the £370 million of extra funding announced in the Budget, and that is all in addition to the £19 billion funding settlement announced at the spending review. Does the Secretary of State agree that, with that record level of investment, it is now for the Executive to produce a balanced, multi-year budget that will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the spring forecast 2026 on Northern Ireland.

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

  More

  West Dunbartonshire is one of eight local authorities in Scotland fortunate enough to receive the UK Labour Government’s Pride in Place immediate impact funding, with £1.5 million to be spent this year, making a huge difference to local facilities, community groups and organisations right across West Dunbartonshire. One such recipient is Holm Park community ground, which received £240,000 of funding to make improvements. As a result, Clydebank football club received bronze award status yesterday. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Clydebank football club and wish the Bankies all the best for the rest of the season?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The organisation Surfers Against Sewage has just published its investigation of illegal dry spills by water companies in 2025. There were over 204,000 hours of illegal sewage spills in England last year. The situation in Scotland is no better: Scottish Water faces little accountability, with just 30% of overflows monitored and 70% unreported. Will the Government take tougher action to ensure that water companies are held properly to account?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Jobs: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome last week’s announcement of a £50 million defence growth deal for Scotland. It will make Scotland an engine for defence growth. Be it through building ships on the Clyde or new engineering and innovation facilities, it will create good, well-paid jobs for my West Dunbartonshire constituents and people right across Scotland, from the west coast to the east coast. Does the Minister agree that after two decades of SNP failure, it is time for a Scottish Labour Government who will actually back Scottish defence jobs?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Jobs: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he is taking to increase the number of defence jobs in Scotland.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006 · Hansard source

  More

  I have called this Adjournment debate on the subject of the Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos-related lung cancer because I wish to bring to the attention of this House an injustice in the way the law treats victims of asbestos-related disease, and to urge the Government to review the operation of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 to ensure that it supports sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer. A simple change in the law will ensure that all victims of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work are treated equally to those suffering from mesothelioma. Although asbestos has been banned in the United Kingdom for more than 25 years, its deadly legacy continues. Each year, around 5,000 people in Great Britain die from cancers caused by asbestos exposure at work. It remains the single biggest workplace killer in the country. In my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, this issue is particularly prevalent. My constituency is among Europe’s worst hotspots for deaths linked to a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work, with more than 340 deaths since 1980. I have lived in Clydebank all my life and have seen at first hand the devastating effects of asbestos. This issue is deeply personal to the community I represent. For a number of years I have worked closely with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, an organisation that does so much to fight for truth and justice for sufferers of asbestos-related illness. Towns like Clydebank, Dumbarton and the surrounding villages were built on heavy industry and, above all, the proud tradition of shipbuilding along the River Clyde. Generations of local men and women worked in the great yards, such as John Brown & Company, and in the engineering works, factories and power stations that supported them. Those industries built ships that sailed the world and powered Britain’s economy, but they also exposed thousands of workers to asbestos without adequate protection. They trusted their employers to keep them safe and, in too many cases, that trust was betrayed. To give a bit of background, the origins of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 lie in a series of court decisions that exposed a serious problem in the law for victims of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. In the case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, the House of Lords recognised the unique position that these victims face. Asbestos diseases can develop decades after exposure, and because it is impossible to identify which particular fibre caused the illness, the court accepted that it should be enough for a claimant to show that an employer had materially increased the risk of the disease. However, a later ruling in Barker v . Corus UK created a new difficulty by deciding that employers should be liable only for their share of the risk. In practice, that meant victims could lose a large part of their compensation if some employers or their insurers could no longer be traced. Parliament recognised that this outcome was deeply unfair and rightly acted quickly to unanimously pass the Compensation Act 2006, ensuring that people suffering from mesothelioma could recover full compensation from any one negligent employer. Section 3 of the Act therefore created a crucial protection. It allows victims of mesothelioma to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer, even if other former employers or their insurers cannot be traced. That reform was passed with unanimous support because Members recognised that people diagnosed with a terminal asbestos-related cancer should not be forced to pursue complex claims against multiple employers while facing an extremely limited life expectancy.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006 · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is correct to recognise that point. This issue cuts across all nations in the United Kingdom, not least Northern Ireland, with its rich and proud shipbuilding past. I thank him for his considered intervention. The difficulty is that the principle relating to mesothelioma does not apply to sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer, despite the fact that the diseases are strikingly similar. Both are caused by asbestos exposure and have incredibly similar symptoms, to the extent that medical professionals struggle to differentiate the two. Both are devastating and often fatal—in fact, around 60% of people diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer die within a year, which is a higher proportion than those diagnosed with mesothelioma—yet the law treats the victims of the two diseases very differently when it comes to compensation. That difference is not based on medical evidence or moral principle; it exists simply because asbestos-related lung cancer cases were not considered when the legislation was introduced in 2006. Does the Minister agree that this situation is irrational and unfair? I emphasise that this debate is not to do with the legality of proving whether the cancer is asbestos related or not; it relates specifically to cases where the patient has been formally diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer. For people with asbestos-related lung cancer, the current legal framework creates a significant and deeply unfair obstacle. In many cases, individuals were exposed to asbestos by multiple employers over the course of their working life. Under the current legal framework, compensation must be apportioned between the different employers responsible according to the extent to which each contributed to the risk of the disease. Victims must therefore bring claims against every employer responsible in order to recover full compensation. Of course, the problem is that these illnesses often develop 30 or 40 years after exposure. By that point, many employers no longer exist. Companies have closed, industries have declined, and insurance records have been lost or destroyed. As a result, victims are frequently unable to trace every employer who exposed them to asbestos, or their insurer. When that happens, they are able to recover only the proportion of compensation attributable to the employers that can be traced. That means that people suffering from a terminal disease can lose substantial amounts of compensation simply because some negligent employers have disappeared over time. That double standard of sorts has had profound consequences. In numerous cases, victims have lost tens of thousands of pounds in compensation because former employers could not be traced. The shortfall in compensation payments can be seen clearly. In one case in England and Wales, compensation that should have amounted to £112,000 was reduced by more than £76,000. In another case, a victim lost almost 70% of the compensation that would otherwise have been awarded. Across 33 documented cases concluded over the past seven years, the total compensation lost in this way amounts to less than £900,000, so this is not a vast sum in the context of the wider compensation system, but for the families involved it would make the world of difference to their quality of life at a time of immense hardship. One case that illustrates the human impact particularly clearly is that of James Leo Heneghan. Mr Heneghan was born in 1938 and spent much of his working life exposed to asbestos dust. He died from lung cancer in 2013. After his death, his son, Carl Heneghan, pursued a claim for compensation on behalf of the family. Six of Mr Heneghan’s former employers were successfully traced and admitted liability for exposing him to asbestos. However, several other employers who had also exposed him to asbestos could not be found, and neither could their insurers. As a result, although the full value of the claim was £175,000, the family received just £61,100. Nearly two thirds of the compensation was effectively lost. Had Mr Heneghan been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer strikingly similar to asbestos-related lung cancer, his family would have received full compensation. The disease did not affect Mr Heneghan any less severely because some employers could not be traced. The suffering endured by his family could have been eased, but because of the specific terms set out in section 3 of the 2006 Act, their rightful compensation was slashed. The solution to this problem is simple and not unprecedented. Parliament has already established the appropriate legislative model. Extending the principle contained in section 3 of the Act to asbestos-related lung cancer would allow victims to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer or insurer. The responsibility would then fall on that employer or insurer to pursue contributions from other responsible parties. This approach ensures that compensation is delivered quickly and in full to the person who needs it most, while still allowing the costs to be shared appropriately among those responsible. It is important to emphasise that the scale of this reform would be modest. Specialist practitioners estimate that fewer than 100 asbestos-related lung cancer claims are brought each year, and only a portion of those would involve missing employers. The number of people affected is therefore relatively small, but for those individuals and their families the consequences would be great. Beyond giving compensation to those who rightly deserve it, this small change to the Act would have wider benefits beyond the individual claimants. Patients with asbestos-related lung cancer often need a lot of care and support. With adequate compensation, they can afford additional care, specialist equipment, or medical treatments that may not be immediately available through the NHS. This gives patients the dignity and choice they deserve and eases the pressure on already stretched public services. Making sure negligent employers and insurers pay the full compensation would also prevent the burden from falling on the state through the benefits system. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the financial consequences of workplace negligence. The Compensation Act 2006 was a great piece of legislation brought in under the previous Labour Government. It just contains an unintentional oversight, and one that is easily rectified. Parliament did not deliberately choose to treat victims differently; asbestos-related lung cancer was simply not considered when the law was changed in response to legal developments concerning mesothelioma. There is a gap in the legislation. Closing that gap would not require a fundamental overhaul of the law; it would simply involve extending an existing and widely supported principle to a closely related group of victims. It is a simple solution, and it comes down to fairness. There is absolutely no justification for treating sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer any differently from sufferers of mesothelioma. When compensation cannot be recovered from some employers because they have disappeared, who should bear the financial burden? At the moment, that burden falls on the victim suffering asbestos-related lung cancer. The law should allow those people to recover full compensation from any one employer who is responsible. That employer can then seek a contribution to the damages awarded from other responsible employers or insurers. In my frequent meetings with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, I have heard personal stories about how this has affected people in my community and across the UK. It is outrageous that victims and their families are not being given the support, dignity and rightful compensation they deserve. The time for sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer to receive the same recognition as those with mesothelioma is long overdue. It is incredibly significant and appropriate that we debate this today because 2026 marks 20 years since the last Labour Government introduced the Compensation Act. That is 20 years of sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer not getting the compensation they rightly deserve, and it is time to make that change. Will the Minister agree to meet me and to work with me and the relevant organisations involved with this issue to review the Compensation Act 2006 and discuss how we can make the necessary improvements by way of amendment, so that people suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer and their families can finally access the full and fair compensation that they deserve?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is correct, and I recognise his obvious expertise in this matter. I believe that he practised law, and in particular personal injury law, prior to being elected to this House. I thank him for his intervention and for all he does for his constituents in Wolverhampton West.