Plan for Small Businesses

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

On 31 July, the Government launched our plan for small businesses, changing the status quo in order to support small businesses.

Economic growth remains the Government’s foremost priority. The UK’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—are the backbone of our economy and the driving force behind growth in every community. SMEs are vital to the UK economy, making up 99.8% of all businesses, employing 60% of the private sector workforce, and generating £2.8 trillion in turnover. This underscores the importance of our commitment to supporting small businesses and ensuring they thrive.

While the UK is home to many outstanding businesses across sectors such as life sciences and the creative industries, too many SMEs have faced barriers to growth. Businesses seeking to grow report challenges ranging from access to finance and regulatory burdens to declining high streets.

Developed hand-in-hand with small businesses across the UK, Backing Your Business is our long-term strategy to break down barriers and unleash SME growth and productivity. This plan aims to transform the environment for starting and running a business, while placing SME growth at the heart of our growth mission

Key actions include:

Opening up opportunities

Launching a new business growth service to streamline access to advice and support, aligned with our vision for a modern digital Government.

Supporting under-represented entrepreneurs through improved data collection and initiatives such as the Lilac Review for disabled business owners.

Enhancing SME understanding of export opportunities by integrating export advice into the business growth service and expanding UK export finance by £20 billion to £80 billion, including a new small export builder insurance product.

Making it easier for SMEs to win Government contracts through a new procurement policy, an SME Procurement Education Programme, and a Defence SME Support Centre.

Supporting innovation through improved guidance on intellectual property and security, with resources from the Intellectual Property Office and Innovate UK.

Fixing the fundamentals

Introducing landmark legislation to tackle late payments, which cost the UK economy £11 billion annually and close 38 businesses each day. This will be the most significant legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years and will establish the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.

Cutting the administrative cost of regulation by 25%, freeing up time and resources for businesses.

Modernising the tax and customs system, including Al-powered tools and personalised digital services, as outlined in HMRC’s Transformation Roadmap.

Accelerating planning processes to address infrastructure gaps and support smaller housebuilders.

Helping businesses reduce energy costs and transition to net zero, with targeted advice and expanded training in retrofit and energy efficiency.

Unlocking access to finance



Expanding start-up loans to support 69,000 new businesses with finance and mentoring.

Committing to the British Business Bank’s growth guarantee scheme and increasing the ENABLE guarantee programme capacity from £3 billion to £5 billion.

Providing £340 million to boost early-stage equity finance for innovative firms.

Working with lenders to ensure fair use of personal guarantees, including a mandatory code of conduct under the growth guarantee scheme.

Backing the everyday economy

Introducing a new framework for local authorities and hospitality and night-time economy zones, following the Licensing Taskforce.

Supporting high street businesses through growth incubators, redevelopment of commercial space, and targeted investment.

Providing funding to up to 350 communities to support local regeneration.

Reforming business rates by introducing permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with rateable values under £500,000 from April 2026.

Banning upward only rent review clauses in commercial leases and continuing to promote High Street Rental Auctions and a new Community Right to Buy.

Supporting the growth of co-operatives and mutuals, including a call for evidence on how best to enable their expansion.

Enhancing community safety with 13,000 additional police officers, the Safer Streets initiative, and measures to tackle shoplifting and tool theft.

Future-proofing business skills

Promoting digital adoption through pilot schemes, industry partnerships, and expansion of the Made Smarter programme.

Supporting leadership development and mentoring through an industry-led Business Mentoring Council.

Encouraging youth enterprise through education, competitions, and a new Youth Entrepreneur category in the King’s Awards for Enterprise.

Ensuring SMEs benefit from the skills and apprenticeships system, including £1.2 billion of additional annual investment by 2028-29, and promoting access to T-Levels and apprenticeships via the Business Growth Service.

These measures are just the beginning. With over 200 actions, Backing Your Business will empower SMEs to grow, innovate and thrive in every corner of the UK. We are committed to delivering these actions over this parliament and will publish a delivery update in 2027. We launched this strategy in partnership with small businesses— and we will continue to work side-by-side with them to deliver real change.

One of the commitments in Backing Your Business is to increase the contingent liability for the ENABLE guarantee scheme administered by the British Business Bank to £5 billion. ENABLE guarantees are designed to encourage additional lending to smaller and medium-sized businesses. Participating institutions are incentivised by a Government-backed guarantee to support defined portfolios of debt finance in return for a fee. A departmental minute with full details of this contingent liability is being laid today.

[HCWS924]

Consumer Affairs

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to serve in my first debate as a Minister under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this debate. I would have felt cheated had the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not been at my first outing as a Minister. He mentioned that perhaps this work was different from the work that we had done together previously on human rights. I think there is a lot of overlap, because on human rights we are asking for people to be treated with dignity and to be treated fairly under the law, and I think it is the same with consumer protection. What there is also in common is that when those rights are not respected, that causes enormous anger, so I think there is considerable overlap.

This has been a fantastic debate, with many different issues raised. I will refer to as many of them as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I had hoped, as a matter of professional pride, to get through the whole debate without the ministerial get-out of “I will write to you about that”, but she asked me to write to her, so I thank her for saving me.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made similar points about ensuring that innovation is balanced with consumer protection. I am quite encouraged, in my first few days in this job, by the approach of the leadership of the CMA as a watchdog. It is very clear that it will bare its teeth at the most egregious abuses of consumers, but where having a lighter touch and some guidance would be better, it is doing that, so that the innovation that was mentioned is not lost.

I am looking forward to working on the licensing review—particularly because it means I get invited to a night out in Hackney. We will add that to the diary pile in the office. My hon. Friend gave the example of Meta and asked about acting quickly online. I think the CMA now has the online interface orders, which allow it to quickly ask companies to change or to take down content. We are looking forward to seeing how that operates in practice.

My hon. Friend and a couple of other Members mentioned algorithms and AI. I am really interested in how AI functions here. There was a case in Atlantic City in which there was some suggestion that algorithms were being used to fix hotel prices and operate a cartel, but human beings were involved in that decision making. One of the interesting questions is how we regulate things when AI might be making decisions to breach consumer law, without a human being involved in that.

To come to some of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, it will come as a shock, in a debate talking about the size of Mars bars, that I am no stranger to the confectionery aisle. [Laughter.] In case Hansard did not pick that up, everyone cried, “No!” there. My ire, when a Back Bencher, was actually directed towards the changing size and shape of Easter eggs from last year to this year.

My hon. Friend was right to mention the changes to the price marking order that are coming in in April and which will require consistency in unit pricing, so that people, when making consumer decisions, are able to compare different goods. We are also putting in place more clarity for consumers on multi-buys and things like that, but we need to keep an eye on this. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to monitor it, and that he will make that case very strongly in years to come. In relation to his point about a consumer champion, I think that my ministerial colleague who will be primarily responsible for consumer affairs will hope to feel that that is their role, but I will take the suggestion to the Department.

Many Members spoke about concerns around variable pricing models, such as dynamic and algorithmic pricing, and a broader sense of a lack of transparency in pricing. It is a frontier for regulation—things move very quickly—but we do believe that it is our job to ensure that consumers have protection so that they can easily and accurately compare prices.

As the shadow Minister for business, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, rightly said, pricing flexibility, when used responsibly, can be good for consumers and business. It can manage demand, improve access and support innovation. We all love a bargain; we all love the January sales. We like discounts for different groups, but against that evolving backdrop, the Government are actively engaging with regulators, industry and our watchdogs. The CMA’s dynamic pricing project is a recent example of that work.

We will strengthen the law where necessary to uphold transparency, as evidenced by the recently implemented ban on drip pricing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to as a particular bugbear, to ensure that the price presented at the start of the shopping process is the price that consumers pay at the checkout. The principle that underlines that, and that underpins consumer law, is that consumers must know the price that they will pay, and can make an informed decision about whether that price is right for them. Where that is not the case, the Government and our watchdogs will look to take action.

Dynamic and algorithmic pricing have been spoken about, and they are a growing concern for many Members’ constituents. We know that changing prices in response to demand is an essential part of any market economy, but it needs to be done responsibly and within consumer law. It should not be the case that businesses use technology to rapidly change prices in a way that misleads customers or is otherwise unfair, resulting in them overpaying. That would be wrong in any circumstances, but particularly when so many of our constituents are struggling to make ends meet.

Let me be clear: when consumers are misled or pressured into paying a higher price, that is unlawful. The law, including the recently introduced Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, requires that businesses provide clear, up-front pricing so that consumers understand what they are paying for. Additionally, consumers must be able to evaluate that information in the absence of undue pressure. Aggressive tactics and pressure selling are illegal. When price fluidity or instability puts customers in an unfair position—for example, as we mentioned, in ticketing, when consumers feel that they have to immediately accept a high price for fear of it going even higher—that is unacceptable.

The CMA is acting when businesses fail to comply with those laws. For example, last year, it took enforcement action against Wowcher, which agreed to change its selling practices after concerns were raised about its use of a countdown timer to pressurise customers, among other marketing claims.

Before moving on to Oasis, I should declare an interest, which is that in the late-1990s fight between Oasis and Blur, I was very much Team Blur, so that may inform my attitude towards these matters. The CMA is seeking to make changes to the way that Ticketmaster labels tickets and provides pricing information to fans, in response to concerns about last year’s Oasis sale. Obviously, that investigation has yet to conclude. We will continue to work with the watchdog to ensure that pricing practices are transparent and proportionate, and that consumers have the right safeguards.

The CMA recently examined the use of dynamic pricing across different sectors of the economy, and its report sets out all sorts of conditions that may make dynamic pricing problematic, and the information that businesses should provide to consumers when it is in operation.

[Matt Western]

I should have congratulated my hon. Friend at the very beginning on his appointment—a very warm welcome, Minister, to the role. He talks about dynamic pricing and ticketing. He will probably be aware that in the Business and Trade Committee we looked at Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) made some comments about smaller venues. What was striking was the scale of dominance that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have—their control over this entire market.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. He referenced the comments made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) on the impact on venues, big or small. It is important to say that there are ways of doing this that are advantageous to everyone. An example that was mentioned to me is Radiohead’s practices in selling their tickets to make sure there was not widespread industrial buying and reselling. There are ways of doing this. The Government really welcome the CMA’s guidance on dynamic pricing, and it has been clear that it will continue to actively review those practices and will tell us if it feels there is a need for changes in the regulatory environment and the law in future.

Another issue that has been raised is personal pricing, where technology is increasingly enabling online businesses to use personal data to set different prices and tailor them to different groups of people. It is not against the law, as with dynamic pricing, to change prices for different groups in a free market; that is part of the functioning of the market. As with dynamic pricing, it can offer consumers benefits, such as tailored deals based on regular purchases, but we know that customers worry about their data being used in more targeted and less transparent ways to set personalised prices that are higher than those they would otherwise see.

The watchword on this is transparency, in accordance with consumer law. It is an evolving issue, and the Government will keep a close eye on developments on this frontier. We will, of course, look to the watchdog to act on any suggestions that consumers are being disadvantaged.

I want to turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington on the pricing of food and essential goods and services. Other Members made these points too. The difference between the smaller high street supermarkets and the hypermarket is one that I feel very personally. I grew up in a household without a car, so we had to go to the local shop, where there was much less choice and fewer bargains. It is not an easy issue to solve, but it is one that I feel particularly personally.

It is really important in those situations that there is transparency and fairness in pricing. Our role in Government is to protect consumers and ensure minimum standards, including on pricing. Sector regulators build on the framework that we set by introducing targeted regulations to support consumers in their sectors, particularly in essential services such as energy, financial services and telecoms, where affordability challenges are most pronounced for our constituents at the moment.

[Matt Western]

Several hon. Members around the Chamber raised the differential pricing between in-town and out-of-town stores. The points the Minister made are totally right, but when retailers were asked about this at the Business and Trade Committee, they just said that it was due to a different cost base. A corporate has a big cost base. It cannot make the case that there is a different cost base for in-town versus out-of-town stores. It may as well say that it has different cost bases for Cromer and Shoreditch, or wherever—it does not wash. Consumers in different parts of the country, wherever they may be, should be offered, I believe, a uniform price. Pricing should not be to the detriment of those who do not have access to out-of-town stores.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. The argument that the Government sometimes hear from business is that it is about the cost of the property. He is shaking his head, and I will try to transmit the shaking of his head throughout the system on his behalf. He makes an important point.

I reiterate my thanks for all the contributions to the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. I assure him that we will not be complacent on this issue. Using the DMCC Act and the CMA’s recent work on pricing, we are working to take tangible steps to ensure that pricing practices are fair and transparent, and that businesses across the economy are held accountable.

Where specific markets require more targeted interventions, the Government have been willing to do so. We have seen that recently with the regulation of buy now, pay later arrangements and ensuring that customers continue to pay fair prices for energy. Our work will not stop there. We are always testing the case for going further, working in partnership with regulators and enforcers to ensure that consumers are adequately protected as pricing practices evolve. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.

Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

That is a very important point. Consumers see the petrol prices every time they leave their home in their motor vehicle. There is a disparity there that sometimes needs explanation, and certainly needs transparency, so I will take that issue up on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, and will come back to him on it.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

My constituents, particularly those living in Crookfur, have terrible mobile phone signal. How can the CMA progress the merger between Three and Vodafone, so that we get the investment in transmitters that we need to improve the mobile phone signal in Crookfur and around the country?

[Justin Madders]

That is certainly something that the CMA has been dealing with, and I am sure that we will be able to provide my hon. Friend with an update shortly.

Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK supply chains and Uyghur and Turkic Muslim forced labour in China.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Dowd, and for the opportunity to highlight the issue. I thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), for being here to respond to the debate: in his last period in office and during his sabbatical from this place he was a consistent advocate for the dignity of people all over the world.

That human rights have never been respected by the People’s Republic of China is a given, but the persecution of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims since 2017 has been unprecedented even for the Chinese Communist party. More than 1 million Muslims have been imprisoned in an enormous network of camps; possibly as many as 3 million out of a population of 11 million Muslims have made their way through the camps at some time. This is the largest mass arbitrary detention since the second world war. Uyghur women face forced sterilisation, forced abortion, sexual violence in the camps, and forced marriage to Han Chinese men. Thousands of mosques have been demolished. Hundreds of Muslim graveyards have been bulldozed. Countless sacred Islamic shrines have been destroyed. Uyghurs are forced to consume pork, drink alcohol and eat during the Ramadan fast.

These crimes are part of a deliberate effort to destroy the Uyghurs as an ethnic group with a distinct culture and religious identity. International organisations and human rights groups too numerous to list assess that crimes against humanity are taking place in Xinjiang, and this House of Commons has voted to recognise that what is going on is a genocide—an intentional policy that seeks to destroy a people.

All of that provides context to the issue of forced labour in Xinjiang, but it is important to understand that Uyghur Muslim slavery is not a by-product of the attempt to destroy a people; it is an integral part of China’s project. Indeed, as the camps were built, factories for forced labourers were constructed alongside them. For those Uyghurs who are not inside the camps, the threat of incarceration is used to coerce them into the PRC’s wider labour transfer programme.

There is a dark contradiction at the heart of all this. The atrocities are happening in a region that is increasingly closed to those who would testify to the crimes, the journalists and human rights groups who would document them and of course those who would flee to freedom if they could. However, at the same time that the region is closing down, it is increasingly open to and integrated into the global economy. Xinjiang mines, refines and manufactures for the world. Some of the best-known global brands are profiting from the destruction of a people.

The scale of slavery in the region is enormous and is barely disputed: four years ago, official Chinese Government documents acknowledged that 2.6 million Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities had gone through labour transfer programmes. The scope of the industries affected is too large to cover in the time afforded to us today, so I will focus on three areas that especially expose the UK’s economy and that risk consumers being unwittingly complicit in Muslim slave labour: clothing, cars and climate change.

Xinjiang produces a quarter of the world’s cotton. The idea of hundreds of thousands of slaves working in cotton fields evokes an image of slavery and forced labour from another era, but this is not historical practice. It is a well-documented economic reality in the Uyghur region today.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for illuminating an issue that still too few in the international global order are willing or brave enough to talk about. I assure him that Muslim communities across the country will be particularly grateful to him for securing the debate. Important as it is for us to be ethical about our own supply chains, does he agree that as a major global player we should double down on our efforts to persuade China’s near neighbours to adopt a similar ethical approach to the one that he espouses?

[Blair McDougall]

I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for the time he has taken to meet me and meet Uyghurs in the UK, and for his concern.

On cotton, it is highly likely that high streets around the UK are today selling goods made by Muslim slaves from Xinjiang for brands such as Primark, Next, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss, Pull&Bear, Mango, Guess, Jack & Jones, Levi’s, Burberry, Nike, Adidas, PUMA and Max Mara. In my city of Glasgow, I have identified 15 retailers on the famous style mile that stock brands that have been identified as at risk of being implicated in Uyghur forced labour. The same story is true of every shopping mall and high street across the UK. The price of disposable fashion is Muslim forced labour.

I turn to cars. The automotive industry is also deeply compromised: the steel, aluminium, electric vehicle batteries, electronics, tyres and spare parts used all have chains stretching back to the Uyghur region, to companies that we know take part in PRC-mandated labour transfer programmes. Audi, Honda, Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Tesla, Renault, LEVC, which is the maker of electric London black cabs, Aston Martin, Bentley, Daimler, Jaguar and Rolls-Royce have all been identified by researchers as having supply chains at high risk of being compromised by Muslim slave labour.

Even if we were not appalled at the inhumanity of the persecution of Muslims, the theft of children from their parents, the sexual violence and the sterilisation, we should be angry as a nation at the economic unfairness of it. We cannot build our own manufacturing industries and create good jobs for our own people while competing with companies that have little or no labour cost. This Government are building a new green energy future for the country, but we cannot generate the green jobs that are part of that vision while competing against Muslim slave labour.

That brings me to my final point, which is on climate. The primary material for the production of solar panels is polysilicon. That manufacturers of polysilicon in the Uyghur region use forced labour is not in dispute. Every single polysilicon manufacturer in the Uyghur region has reported its participation in labour transfer programmes or is documented as being supplied with raw materials by companies that have participated in those programmes. More than a third of the global production of polysilicon takes place in the Uyghur region. No company or public authority in the UK should be sourcing solar materials that originate in that region. A further third of global production of polysilicon takes place in other parts of China, with a high likelihood that those supply chains ultimately begin with Muslim slave labour.

I am keen to hear the Minister expand on the welcome pledge that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero made during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill that the Government are working to ensure that the extension of solar energy in the UK is not built on Uyghur forced labour. I would argue that the only real solution, given the Chinese dominance of the market, is an urgent international effort to develop alternative supply chains that, from quartz to panel, never pass through China. The measures in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have not stopped companies profiting from the slave labour of Uyghurs and other Muslims in China.

Nothing that I have said today is new. These stories have been splashed over front pages and broadcast on television news. Shame, it seems, is not a greater motivator than profit margin. Sunlight is not disinfecting. Legislation based on transparency and reporting alone is not getting the job done. Other nations in the European economic area have gone further than us by requiring companies to conduct human rights due diligence on their supply chains. I ask the Minister whether it is time to introduce UK legislation that emulates the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was signed into law by President Biden and which creates a presumption that any goods manufactured wholly or in part in the Uyghur region should be assumed to be the product of forced labour unless clear and convincing evidence proves otherwise.

I recognise that supply chains can be difficult to unravel and that exports often pass through multiple companies on their way into our economy. However, there is a direct freight flight from the Uyghur capital Ürümqi to Bournemouth that brings goods from the epicentre of forced labour in China. Yesterday, a flight from Ürümqi arrived just before 7 pm; another will arrive on Friday, and another on Sunday. That will continue week after week. This is not opaque or convoluted: it is a clear and obvious route and there is a significant risk that those flights will contain goods compromised by Muslim slave labour. I ask the Minister whether import inspections have been or can be carried out on the goods arriving on the freight flight to Bournemouth from Ürümqi.

After the results of yesterday’s election in the United States, there will be much debate about the state of the global struggle between autocracies and democracies and between strongmen and human rights. As we look for a policy response, we can begin by ensuring that our own economies are not funding the worst excesses of such regimes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

Thank you, Mr Dowd, for the opportunity to close the debate. I thank hon. Members for speaking up on behalf of the dignity and humanity of Uyghurs and other Muslims in this situation. I thank them for not using sanitised language in describing what is going on in the Uyghur region, which I was potentially guilty of myself. We talk about “labour transfers” when we are really talking about slavery. We talk about “sexual violence” when we are talking about women being raped. We talk about “re-education centres” when we are really talking about concentration camps. We talk about “the removal and transfer of children” when we are talking about state kidnapping.

I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In the short time I have been in the House, I have been in the room countless times when he has spoken up on behalf of religious freedom. He made a point essential to understanding the nature of what is happening in Xinjiang: it is religiously motivated. He mentioned the small infractions for which people can end up in the internment camps. I would add that having a beard, going on a pilgrimage to Mecca or simply travelling to another Muslim country is enough for someone to find themselves in a camp.

Sometimes, in politics, the word “Orwellian” is used. It has become a hyperbolic cliché that we turn to, but I do not think that there is a more appropriate word to describe what is happening in the Uyghur region. I have heard stories of people phoning home on FaceTime or video calls to find a uniformed Chinese state security person answering their relative’s phone, stories of artificial intelligence being used to identify particular ethnicities, and stories of the collection of biometric information on millions of people. It is almost impossible to imagine the traditional approach to forced labour and due diligence working where the oppression of people is so intense and so pervasive.

In Parliament, the causes and intent behind human rights issues are often a matter of nuanced debate. When it comes to the situation of the Uyghurs, it is incredibly clear what the intent, plan and motivation are. My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) both hit the nail on the head: the political and economic power of China is driving the forced labour crisis. The longer it continues without being challenged, the deeper the problem becomes. Others in the debate have spoken about how pervasive it is, from the cars we drive to the clothes we wear. It is also in the food we eat, whether it is tomatoes or seafood. Our moral complicity grows, and the longer it goes on, the more our own economic ruin grows as well. We cannot possibly compete with industries that have no labour cost.

Some of this is about international action as well as the action of individual Ministers. We know that authoritarians are increasingly organised, and those of us who believe in the rule of law and in basic standards have a responsibility to pursue the same multilateral actions. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and others named and shamed some of the companies that are involved in this process. The awful truth is that some companies are literally shameless. They are more motivated by the bottom line than they are by public reputation and international opinion.

I thank the Minister for showing such moral clarity. Given China’s economic power, all Governments have to work with it, but to hear the Minister give such clear and unambiguous condemnation of the attacks on Uyghurs is important. From my time working with Uyghurs, I know that they often feel forgotten and unheard. Many of the things that hon. Members have spoken about today that happen to them, happen unseen. Today, we have shown that they are not happening unheard. That is incredibly important.

I welcome the Minister’s use of the word “innovative” about the approach to supply chains, which is essential given the dominance of China in the polysilicon matter. I also welcome his commitment to continue to assess, monitor and learn from the approaches that other countries have taken. He knows that other Members and I will continue to press him to do that at speed.

I close by paying tribute to those who, at considerable risk to themselves, ensure that the story of what is happening in Xinjiang escapes an increasingly closed society—to the Uyghurs who have lost contact with their families and risk imprisonment when they travel. I also pay tribute to civil society organisations such as Anti-Slavery International and the World Uyghur Congress. Uyghurs often feel forgotten, and if this debate has done one thing today, it has shown the world that we will not forget them and that they have a voice within our Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK supply chains and Uyghur and Turkic Muslim forced labour in China.

Paternity Leave and Pay

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for calling me to speak in this debate.

I want to talk about the vision for the role of fathers in society, which other hon. Members have spoken about, and about how achieving that takes not only personal choice by fathers, but cultural and economic change. I feel that point about personal choice very acutely: at a very young age, my father chose not to be part of my life, and I am determined that that should not be repeated in my own family’s upbringing. I am not unusual: for example, nine out of 10 dads will now go to antenatal scans and the birth. Fathers want to be part of their children’s life and they want to be better fathers, but the culture and the economics make that difficult.

On the cultural point, when I was established in my own business, I made the choice to be a stay-at-home father for a period. However, such fathers are excluded from the coffee with the mothers after nursery pick-up and are not part of the “mum bus” WhatsApp chat. That culture continues, however, because of the economics behind it.

The gap between average pay and statutory paternity leave is about £1,000, which is something that parents cannot afford. There is a class element as well, with nine out of 10 households earning more than £60,000 a year able to take their paternity leave, while only two thirds of those earning under £25,000 a year can do so. If we want the cultural change, and that personal choice, to be taken advantage of, we need to deal with the economics and create more generous arrangements for paternity pay.

In particular, I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) that, as well as looking at paternity leave, we also have to give people the ability to take crisis leave. This does not end with those first couple of weeks of changing nappies and going to the pharmacy; we need to have that ability as fathers throughout childhood.

Post Office Horizon: Redress

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much agree. This is a major scandal, and we must ensure that the wider lessons and the wider lack of trust, which he correctly mentioned, are addressed in our response. That is fundamental. I have said many times that we might never have discovered the scale of this injustice were it not for the campaigners. That is shocking, and we must all reflect very deeply on that.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments, and for his recognition that the issue is about more than redress; it is about the restoration of trust. It has cast a long shadow in constituencies across the country. In my constituency, after years of sub-postmasters desperately trying to keep post offices open in the face of programmes of closures, we now face a challenge to get people to go into them. What is his message to those people, and those wondering whether the culture has changed? What lessons are the new Government drawing, across the public sector, to ensure candour, and to make sure that the culture that we saw in the Post Office is not replicated anywhere else?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I recognise very much what my hon. Friend says. As I said in my earlier answers, there is an absolute need to not just provide redress but learn lessons for the future of the Post Office and all institutions of the state. Crucially, we must ensure that a business model is in place that rewards postmasters with a decent return for providing an essential service, in an organisation that supports their frontline activities and gives them the income and the prosperity that they deserve for that.