Brian Leishman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for bringing forward this debate, and for her contribution, which was excellent, as usual. It was quite the sight yesterday to see female parliamentarians don green, white and purple sashes in commemoration of 97 years since women won the vote. It seems unthinkable that women were denied political representation; but then again, women have been the victims of inequality for centuries. The pension inequality that women born in the 1950s suffer from shows that the political battle may have somewhat changed, but prejudice and unfairness still exist. Some colleagues may feel somewhat uncomfortable with what I am about to say, but I believe that it needs to be said. Someone who supports campaigns on WASPI, nuclear test victims or the Hillsborough law while in opposition should, when they find themselves in a Front- Bench role in Government, do everything they can to deliver justice, as they said they would while holding a placard or a banner. Support and solidarity for people like the WASPI women is not transactional; solidarity is not a campaigning tool. I have campaigned for justice for WASPI women, and that is why I co-sponsored the ten-minute rule Bill for compensation in January. For years, Governments have refused to deliver justice to WASPI women. That is wrong. Not delivering that justice seems like one of those “tough decisions” that politicians have to take, but the truth is that this was a choice, and it always seems to be working-class people who are on the wrong end of these choices. A Labour Government should make different choices, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. Like many, I believe that the Labour party is the vehicle for social, political and economic change. A year ago tomorrow, people voted for change—a change from austerity and its social consequences, and from a Government who denied fairness to victims of many scandals and injustices. I want to mention the ladies from the Falkirk WASPI branch. We met in my constituency office. We sat; they spoke; and I listened to their legitimate anger about the Secretary of State’s announcement last December. Their hurt today is as palpable as it was when we met in the new year. I urge the Government to do the right thing.

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this vital debate. Sixty-one years ago, Tony Benn wrote: “Of all the weaknesses that beset those in authority, blindness to reality is always the most crippling and usually the most inexcusable.” In that article, Mr Benn was calling for international sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. The weakness he wrote of back then is applicable to those in authority in the UK today, because words of condemnation have not stopped the displacement, segregation and apartheid being suffered by Palestinians. Mr Turner, imagine soldiers, tanks and bulldozers rolling into your constituency, destroying buildings, essential infrastructure, schools and medical facilities. Imagine being forced out of the house you call home and fences going up around what was your community. For Palestinians in the west bank, who live under occupation and are seeing their community seized by state-backed Israeli settlers, that is their reality. Since 7 October 2023, the west bank has experienced an average of four documented incidents of settler violence per day. Settler expansion and violence is, I repeat, a state-backed initiative, the goal of which is the erasure of Palestinian land from the map. It is total absorption—does the Minister not see that as being Netanyahu’s ultimate aim and driving force? I hope the Minister answers that question, because all the evidence points to it being the systematic removal of Palestinians from their land. It is not just hamlets, villages and towns that have been destroyed; even the refugee camps at Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarem have been attacked, as mentioned by other hon. Members. I say to the Minister and other Members: when it comes to displacement, death and the building of 22 new illegal settlements in the west bank, do not be blind to reality, as Tony Benn said. Netanyahu and his murderous regime are not stopping. They will not stop—not when the international community are allowing war crimes to happen. Will the Government agree to an independent public inquiry, as per the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which will come back to the House on Friday and has widespread political and public support? The British public, Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza, and the wider Palestinian diaspora all deserve answers.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. I want to ask about the £200 million national wealth fund commitment for Project Willow. How will it be accessed? What is the minimum and maximum amount that can be accessed by an applicant? If it is exclusively for businesses, will it be based on being positioned within the existing footprint of the Grangemouth site that is owned or operated by Petroineos or INEOS?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response and many hon. Members present for their wonderful contributions. Refugees are victims of war, famine, oppression and environmental catastrophes. The previous Government failed in their international obligations to refugees, and to allow people to exercise their right to seek asylum. I have to say that I found the speech by the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), equal parts insulting, distasteful, xenophobic and, frankly, classist. However, I respect his right to air his views—that is free speech, after all. I also respect my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) and have a lot of time for him personally, but I fundamentally disagree with this sort of hierarchy of humanity. Personally, I do not care whether someone is an Olympic athlete or does a perceived lesser job—or, in fact, no job at all. As the Labour party in government, we have to combat the 14 years of austerity, division and classism that have ripped this country apart. Now that we are in government, we have to do better on a whole raft of issues, and everything that we do should always have basic, core humanity at its heart. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered refugee citizenship rights.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move. That this House has considered refugee citizenship rights. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Refugees should not be reduced to statistics. After all, refugees are human beings, and every human being deserves to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion, and with empathy for their vulnerability and their need for safety. How we treat each other is a basic measurement of us as people and of the kind of society that we live in. Every day we see prejudice, oppression and war. It would be easy to consider those issues as mere news items, but they demand a co-ordinated international response of co-operation based on humanity, social inclusion and integration. On 10 February, the Home Office introduced significant amendments to the good character requirement guidance for British citizenship, which will have profound and lasting impacts on thousands of people who are already here in the UK and have been granted protection status following a well-founded fear of persecution or violence. They will likely be denied citizenship just because of the way in which they came to the UK, and that will include people who travelled by small boat or in other ways. We should bear in mind that those are people who have made their new home and life here, and they have been working and contributing to our economy and culture. The change was made in the back of a document, without any significant parliamentary scrutiny, and today’s debate, over five months later, will be the first time that it has been substantively discussed in this place. Given that we are elected officials and legislators, that is simply not good enough. Under the policy, anyone who arrived in the UK via a dangerous journey or entered irregularly will normally be refused British citizenship. It will not matter how long they have lived here or how they have integrated into our society. Although there may be exceptional situations in which applications are approved, the Government have not provided clarity on how that discretion will be applied. It is understood that most applications will be rejected. Will the Minister provide clarity on how discretion will be applied?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution; I can appreciate the political nature of what he has said. Yes, Scotland is a nation, and it has its own unique needs. This is something that both Governments need to collaborate on, to try to thrash out something for the benefit of Scotland. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed serious concerns about the UK’s updated guidance on the good character requirement for citizenship. It has been clear that the policy risks breaching article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising refugees for irregular entry when fleeing persecution. The lack of clarity from the Government and the presumption of refusal may deter eligible refugees and stateless individuals from even applying for citizenship, especially given the exorbitant cost of applying—British citizenship applications are non-refundable and cost £1,630. The refugee convention also explicitly requires states to facilitate, as far as possible, the naturalisation of refugees and stateless persons. That is a particularly interesting article, because not only is the UK a signatory to the treaty, but the British Government of the day are widely credited with incorporating the article into the convention. Not only are we abandoning our international obligations; we are abandoning the very international obligations for which the UK historically advocated. This policy change undermines the very values of cohesion, unity and fairness that the UK aspires to uphold. It denies people who have sought protection from us the dignity and security of citizenship. I want to see a system that welcomes refugees not as second-class residents but as full members of our society, with the rights and recognition they deserve as human beings. Before my final questions to the Minister, here are the thoughts and feelings of a young man with refugee status in Glasgow: “I have lived in Glasgow since 2017, after gaining refugee status the same year. I work and study civil and environmental engineering full time at Strathclyde University. I’ve had indefinite leave to remain since 2022 and was about to apply for citizenship, having already passed the UK life test and English language assessment. These are my thoughts: Denying people the right to gain British citizenship after waiting for the legally required amount of time and upon gaining indefinite leave to remain is modern-day segregation. It splits people into different classes by keeping some stuck as second-class citizens. Not having the right to be a UK citizen stops me from being equal with my local community. People who have already the UK had no idea that they one day would not be allowed to become a citizen because they were claiming asylum—it feels like you have been targeted. Throughout my journey, other countries rejected me—Italy gave 48 hours to leave the country, France gave 72 hours to leave the country. Coming to the UK is not necessarily something you can control yourself; it was my only option. However, fulfilling the good character requirements, which are things you can control yourself after entering the UK, should remain important. This policy completely erases the point of people showing they have good character, and instead rejects us based only on something that I could not control. This new guidance does not encourage contribution to the community, if you are not one day going to be a proper part of the community by being a full and equal citizen.” I put it to the Government that they should reconsider their stance, in the light of Lords amendment 186 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. First, it would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. Secondly, it would uphold the best interests of children by prohibiting the consideration of a child’s irregular entry or arrival. Thirdly, it would remove retrospectivity, to further uphold the rule of law. An adult’s irregular entry or arrival may be taken into account only to the extent specified in guidance that was published when they entered or arrived in the UK. Previously, the guidance permitted a person to acquire citizenship so long as 10 years had passed since their irregular entry. At present, the guidance applies to someone whether they arrive two months or two decades ago. It cannot serve as a deterrent to people who are already here. It serves only as a penalty and a scarlet letter.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is a champion on this topic, and his parliamentary record stands up there with the very best—although I did not vote for him to be my MP. I thank him very much for his contribution, and I agree with him. It looks as though refugees will have to argue for an exemption to the blanket denial of citizenship. It would make for much fairer and effective policy if all cases were treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket ban being introduced, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could also address that point in her response. I want to talk about people’s personal experiences of the policy, and I acknowledge the Scottish Refugee Council and Together with Refugees for supplying case studies for the debate. Sabir Zazai, the chief executive officer of the Scottish Refugee Council, would not be eligible for citizenship if he were applying now. Sabir has three honorary doctorates and an OBE; it is difficult to imagine a more compelling example of integration. But because he arrived here in the back of a lorry from Afghanistan, this Government would exclude him from ever being a British citizen. The policy does not discriminate between refugees, victims of trafficking and children. It does not consider the unique vulnerabilities and complex backgrounds of people seeking protection, many of whom have fled circumstances that we could only imagine. For example, Gulan, a refugee from Iraq, shared how she escaped torture with her young children, risking death to survive. Despite years of integration and contributing to her local community, she feels like this policy makes her a second-class member of society.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Absolutely: more safe routes are a necessity, in the name of human decency. British citizenship is a key building block of integration, but there are also significant pragmatic considerations. Without it, people do not have the right to vote, to stand for election to this place or to work in many government jobs, nor do they have the freedom to live in, or travel in and out of the UK without restriction. If they do manage to travel, they require access to consular services; but worst of all, they remain at risk of detention or, worse, deportation. One example is Mohammad, a refugee from Sudan. He said that he feels like a perpetual outsider, being vulnerable to deportation despite years building his life here. We saw an extremely laissez-faire attitude to international law and obligations from the previous Government. It was damaging to the UK’s international standing and to our relationships with countries all over the world. Continuing in the same manner would be the wrong approach for the Government to take.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the root cause of the problems that we face has been identified. We have touched on it, but this is what happens when private capital is in charge of such a key piece of infrastructure. We saw that play out at the Grangemouth refinery in my constituency, and it is good to hear my hon. Friend the Minister in agreement with me in condemnation of the owners of the Prax Lindsey refinery. It gives me hope that the Government will learn important lessons and assume at least some form of ownership in the future industries that will be come at Grangemouth and potentially at other sites. Can we get an update on that, please?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  8. Whether she has had recent discussions with Alexander Dennis Ltd on the potential impact of the proposed closure of its Falkirk and Larbert bus manufacturing sites on her targets for public transport decarbonisation.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which details my membership of Unite the union. Once upon a time, Scotland was an industrial powerhouse—we made things—but last week, Alexander Dennis started a 45-day consultation with employees. As it stands, hundreds of jobs will be lost from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). Unite and the GMB have called for both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, the company and the unions to come together to find a solution to save those jobs and Scottish bus manufacturing. There are changes to policy and legislation that could achieve this. My constituents, the Alexander Dennis workers, want and need to know whether the UK Government are willing to do what it takes.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Arms Trade: Israel · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Government’s policy on arms trade with Israel.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Arms Trade: Israel · Hansard source

  More

  The war criminals of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government are carrying out the most vile human rights abuse and genocide. At the same time, the UK carries out the training of Israeli military personnel and facilitates almost daily spy flights that provide intelligence, and there is continued exporting of military equipment to Israel. With all that, will the Government support an independent public inquiry into UK involvement in Israeli military operations in Gaza?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  With his 25 years of parliamentary service, the Foreign Secretary will no doubt remember when Tony Blair told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a grave threat to international security. Of course, we then followed America into an illegal war in the middle east, and if the Prime Minister were to go down that same road, he would be wrong too. Is it not overdue that the Government follow an independent and, as Robin Cook memorably said, ethical foreign policy—one created here and not in Washington DC?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  I very much thank the Minister for that correction—I appreciate the intervention—and for subtly dropping in my mispronunciation of south Wales. By the end of the strike, the LGSM had raised over £20,000. As the Welsh mining communities had made the Londoners feel so welcome, the LGSM organised a return visit, with a fundraiser called “Pits and Perverts” held at the Electric Ballroom in Camden. Despite the defeat of the mining industry, south Wales miners and their families marched alongside the LGSM at a Pride march in London the following year. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, this allyship was much needed. On 11 February 1987, LGSM founder Mark Ashton died of an AIDS-related illness, and his funeral was attended by many of the miners whom he had supported through the LGSM. In a wider context, the NUM acknowledged the support shown by the gay community during the strike when the union called for gay equality at the 1985 Labour party conference and Trades Union Congress. In addition, the NUM backed the campaign against the hateful and harmful section 28, which was passed in 1988 by the Conservative Government. Altogether, the collaboration of those in the gay rights movement and the labour movement highlights the shared struggle and solidarity across communities bounded by oppressions and class interests. Our labour movement must therefore show unwavering support to those in the LGBTQIA+ community, many of whom will march this summer to demand equality and protest against the rise in homophobia and transphobia. As the gays and lesbians and the miners showed in the 1980s, when two very different communities come under attack from prejudice and form an unlikely alliance to fight for what is right in the face of persecution, then understanding, kindness, respect and solidarity happen, and those emotions always win.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  As a straight man, I cannot speak from personal experience about the prejudice that LGBTQIA+ people have been the victim of, nor have I been a coalminer and experienced the feeling of having the source of my livelihood snatched away. However, in this Pride Month debate, I wish to share with the House a collaboration that emphasises the importance of allyship and—something this House does not hear nearly enough about—class solidarity. This collaboration was between the London-based activist group Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and the mining community of the Dulais valley in south Wales during the miners’ strike of 1984 to 1985. Co-founders of the LGSM, Mark Ashton and Mike Jackson, were inspired to combine gay rights activism with the labour movement after attending a talk by a striking miner. This duo brought collection buckets to the London Lesbian and Gay Pride march in June 1984 to support the miners and their families who were affected by the financial hardship caused by the strike. The LGSM was subsequently set up to officially declare that members of the gay rights movement supported the striking miners, because the LGSM strongly believed that solidarity between the working classes was essential, as all of them would be suppressed if the Thatcher Government succeeded in weakening the National Union of Mineworkers and the wider trade union movement. Indeed, the miners and the LGSM shared very similar experiences and common ground, as both were targeted and vilified by a right-wing media, police brutality and the Government of the day. Attitudes towards the gay community soon began to change in the mining community. The LGSM visited south Wales, with the mining communities reciprocating the solidarity and friendship shown to them by the LGSM.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate. Fourteen years of austerity, followed by a global pandemic and then a cost of living crisis, has led to out-of-control inequality in Britain. People and communities have been hammered by austerity cuts to welfare, the NHS and the public services that bind us together and are the civilising force in our society. There is no doubt about it: cuts cost lives. Last July, people voted for all that suffering to end. They were offered change by Labour. No one from any part of the country thought that, after 14 years of Tory austerity and welfare policies that robbed people of their dignity, the change they voted for would be billions of pounds in cuts from the welfare budget. People voted for something else, and I will be voting for something else.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I am glad the hon. Gentleman brought up the subject of local authorities and the added burden on them of picking up the pieces from this horrendous proposal. As I said, I will be voting for something else. I will be voting against the cruel welfare reforms that the Government have put forward. A Labour Government should always lift people out of poverty, not put people in it.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My contribution comes from a slightly different angle compared with that of other hon. Members, but from the outset let me be clear: I welcome the Government’s plan for sustainable aviation fuel, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his generous time discussing the matter. We can, however, hold different feelings at the same time, and while I approve of the plans, I feel a lot of anger and frustration at what has happened to my constituency. A joint venture of private capital through Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s INEOS and the Chinese state, called Petroineos, has closed the Grangemouth refinery. Hundreds of workers on site, and thousands in the wider supply chain, are to lose their jobs. Scotland no longer refines our oil and fuel, and national security has been weakened as a result. Everyone is aware that the previous Conservative Government did not want to know about that issue, and the current SNP Government tried their very best to conceal their knowledge of the closure years ago. So while my Government have committed £200 million from the national wealth fund for new industries to come at some point down the line, that frankly is not enough. At Grangemouth we have seen another unjust transition. Four decades ago, it was the miners who were cast aside; now it is refinery workers. I understand why oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland are anxious, and they have every right to be. The last four decades of privatisation have also highlighted the danger of private capital and foreign Government ownership of our vital industry. At Grangemouth, conversion from a traditional oil refinery to a plant that would create sustainable aviation fuel was a viable alternative to closure and would have meant a truly just transition for workers and my local community. It would also have helped the Government meet our ambitious SAF mandates and supported the UK aviation industry. Yet conversion was not deemed profitable enough for Petroineos, and the Scottish and UK Governments both meekly accepted the company calling the shots, with minimal pushback, in an example of working-class communities being let down by the collective political class. Only yesterday, in questions to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, I asked what ownership stake the Government would take in future industries at Grangemouth. I am still waiting on a coherent answer. Let me be clear: if there is no Government ownership stake taken and we surrender all the new, greener industries, such as SAF, to private capital, the Government will have learned no lessons at all from the past four decades and we will never free ourselves from being at the mercy of those who put corporate profit ahead of our country’s needs. Earlier today, the Chancellor said that she and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade were not ready to let a working-class community in Scunthorpe go to the wall. That is why they intervened to save steel there and that was absolutely the correct decision. However, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State should have treated the refinery workers of Grangemouth in the same way as they did the steelworkers of Scunthorpe. I urge the Government to take responsibility and to take ownership of vital industry in our national interest.

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse; it is a privilege to have you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall today. Internationalism is at the heart of the Labour movement. When it comes to solidarity with the oppressed and victims of injustice, truly there are no borders. I want to touch on some recurring themes. The first is the ongoing dominance of Washington DC in our foreign policy. There is no doubt that the US continues to heavily influence our international approach. The American President challenged European nations to increase their defence spending at the same time as he cut USAID. The British people we serve deserve better than our nation’s meek obedience to Washington DC. Human rights, upholding and following international law, and using what global influence we have for peace and security should be at the forefront of our thinking and action. The ripple effect of outside influence impacts our domestic policy as well as our foreign policy. A politician talking about “tough choices” almost always means that the poorest, the disadvantaged and the most vulnerable are at the wrong end of whatever the decisions are, whether at home or abroad. Domestically, the proposed cuts to welfare mean that disabled people are facing a life of forever poverty. With reductions in benefits and cost of living increases, on top of the added financial pressures involved in being disabled, it is accurate to say that, for many, the cuts would be lethal. A deadly fate also awaits people in some of the most dangerous, volatile and destitute countries that rely on our overseas aid just to survive. Human rights and humanitarian law are essential for global security, and those essentials are under serious threat.

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, the hon. Member has my absolute agreement. In all honesty, the UK is contributing to the growing danger that I described. We continue to sell arms to human rights-abusing states and further compound that awful act by cutting overseas development aid, which prevents conflict, builds peace, increases global security and saves and transforms lives. I utterly reject the narrative that for defence spending to be increased, overseas development aid has to be cut. Pushing that type of politics is an example of dividing people, sowing discord and creating disharmony and suspicion—creating a society that is dog eat dog and to hell with your neighbour. Cutting overseas aid is not only immoral but a completely false economy, because our security at home is made stronger when the security of others is guaranteed abroad. For example, on International Women’s Day earlier this year, Liberation organised for women from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Gaza and Western Sahara to come to Westminster. Those women shared personal stories of hunger, illness, sexual exploitation and intimidation, and persecution. Our overseas aid helps to provide safety from those awful circumstances. I think we all agree that all politics is personal—with nothing more so than the stories those women shared with parliamentarians that evening. Before finishing, I want to touch again on what I said about internationalism. The fight against inequality must be tackled here and across the world. Austerity and cuts, whether at home or abroad, should be rejected. Our Foreign Office must have a coherent, joined-up approach. It is our country’s duty to respond to the world’s crises, make humanitarian aid available, and promote peace and global security. My only ask of the Minister is that she take that message back to the Secretary of State.

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Track-2 Acorn Cluster · Hansard source

  More

  Acorn would go some way to reindustrialising areas of Scotland, which is much needed. I welcomed the Government committing £200 million from the national wealth fund for future industry at Grangemouth in my constituency. To avoid us again being in the precarious position of having private-capital or foreign-Government ownership dictate our future energy industries, do the Government plan to take any ownership stake in the industries that will be coming at Grangemouth?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. There is no doubt about it; we face a climate emergency. What plans do the Government have to increase funding for the fire service to meet the increase and projected increases in wildfire and flooding incidents? If funding is to be increased, what will that mean for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

• 3 Jun 2025 · HMP Lewes · Hansard source

  More

  On the topic of prison operations, we need effective scrutiny of privatised contracts for prison maintenance because those contracts have been detrimental for prisons. Will the Minister release the last Government’s report recommending more privatisation of prison maintenance, suitably redacted if necessary, for full transparency and to avoid any accusations of a cover-up?