Safety of Emergency Workers

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. My thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate and bringing this issue to Westminster Hall.

In July 2022, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation, concluded that the occupation of firefighting is carcinogenic, linking it to firefighters’ exposure to toxicants present in fire effluents. Only six months later, a University of Central Lancashire study on Scottish firefighters, commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union, showed that firefighters have higher cancer and disease mortality rates than the general public. Tragically, many firefighters with rare cancers are diagnosed at the terminal stage.

Firefighters are directly exposed to potentially large quantities of toxins and fire effluents on a regular basis. Fire effluent is a cocktail of toxic, irritant and carcinogenic species, which vary depending on the specific materials burning and the fire conditions at an incident. Exposure through inhalation, ingestion or dermal absorption is likely to be a significant risk factor for acquiring cancers and diseases. Research has found that such toxins are often unknowingly transported back to stations and firefighters’ homes, further increasing their exposure. Even if the levels of contamination at fire stations are much lower than the levels at the incidents, prolonged exposures to potentially harmful contaminants add up over a lifetime of service, with significant health consequences.

One example is exposure to soot. Some 93% of firefighters have noticed soot in their nose after an incident: 30% said that it remained until they washed, 32% said that it was still noticeable for a few hours after washing, 23% said that it remained for up to a day and 6% said that it remained for more than a day. Only 6% reported not noticing soot at all.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the health and safety issues that our firefighters face. This summer, Dorset and Hampshire experienced wildfires, but firefighters in Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service do not have the lightweight protective gear that their counterparts in Hampshire do, meaning that they are more vulnerable to issues such as heat exposure. Does he agree that all fire services should have access to the personal protective equipment that they need for their job?

[Brian Leishman]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is imperative that we seek equality, and that means improving PPE for firefighters right across the nation.

To finish on my point about soot exposure, compared with the general public, firefighters are twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer if they have noticed soot in either their nose or throat.

The FBU has backed not only the devolution of relevant employment injury assistance benefits, but the creation of a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council, to review and modernise any Scottish benefits. Frankly, it is unacceptable that six years after the industrial injury scheme was devolved to Holyrood, the SNP Scottish Government is still not ready to roll out work to deliver the Scottish employment injury assistance scheme. The FBU has strongly advocated for the creation of a Scottish Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to ensure that employees have a permanent seat on the body responsible for reviewing and amending what illnesses, injuries and diseases would be recognised under a new Scottish scheme.

Firefighters have been atrociously let down, as a previous Bill to deliver that body was voted down in Holyrood, delaying this vital piece of work. Firefighter cancers and diseases are recognised with presumptive legislation and/or compensation schemes in more than 50 countries across the world. The way the SNP Government treat our fire service leaves firefighters and communities less safe; it is nothing short of a national disgrace.

Antisocial Behaviour

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. Across Alloa and Grangemouth, there is an understandable frustration with antisocial behaviour that negatively impacts communal spaces, neighbourhood communities and public transport. Many of my constituents rightly feel a sense of injustice about the fact that the perpetrators have been allowed to act in the manner they have with few to no consequences.

My constituents have been let down, but let me be clear: the fault does not lie with our overstretched police officers. Police Scotland has been savagely cut following years of sustained SNP Government underfunding, which naturally leads to increases in issues like antisocial behaviour. Giving evidence to Holyrood’s Criminal Justice Committee, the Scottish Police Authority admitted that policing is “under severe strain” and that public trust and confidence in the service is “decreasing”. The authority said it would continue to make the case to the SNP Government for “strategic investment” and to aim to show the

“devastating consequences of flat cash.”

Let us be under no illusion: if the force’s settlement remains unchanged in cash terms, jobs will be lost.

Even though the SNP promised that officer figures would remain above 17,234, the quarterly figures show that there were 16,322 full-time equivalent officers on 30 June 2026. Officer numbers in Scotland are at their lowest level since June 2024. These SNP cuts are hollowing out Police Scotland, drastically reducing community policing across the country. Visible local police are essential in stopping crime, reducing antisocial behaviour and improving overall community safety. In two decades in government, the SNP has relentlessly cut vital public services, whether it be healthcare, education, local councils, our fire service or Police Scotland, leaving our communities far, far from safety.

Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

As I have said, any lessons we need to learn from these cases will be learned. However, I know from conversations I have had that the police were dealing with an emerging problem in quite a difficult geographical area, particularly in Portsmouth, with one road going in and out. The police had a lot of vulnerable people—I am speculating about their physical health, because I have not yet had a full briefing, but I suspect they were having to deal with hypothermia and all kinds of issues—and they were having to deal with an increasing number of about 200 people protesting. They definitely had to use batons and other interventions, so that may not have been the right point at which to arrest those people, but there will be investigations, with CCTV. So I genuinely ask the hon. Member not to draw any conclusion from the fact that no arrests were made at that point, because there may well be arrests. The police have to do the right things at the right time and in the right order, and in that emerging difficult situation, they may have taken a decision to do those things for the safety of everyone there and to turn to investigations afterwards.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

When a Reform UK councillor says that Nigerians should be “melted down to fill in the potholes”, and an ex-Reform councillor had to resign because they used racial slurs against a black family, I am disgusted at their overt racism. Does the Minister agree with me that the racist Reform UK and the ethno-nationalist Restore Britain are contributing to the scenes we have seen in Dover and Portsmouth?

[Sarah Jones]

Anyone who is whipping up this kind of activity and breeding racism is to be condemned. I notice that other Reform MPs are bobbing to ask their questions, so perhaps one of them could address the issue of the Reform member who wants—I am sorry, but I hate even to repeat the words—to see Nigerians melted down. Perhaps one of the hon. Members would like to respond.

Immigration Reforms

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. My appreciation goes to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. He has been consistent in defending human rights in his decades of service to this place, and he has my respect for that.

When the country elects a Labour Government, it does so with certain ideas in mind: to lift people out of poverty, to improve public services, to offer genuine left-wing solutions for the problems the country is facing, and to show compassion to the most vulnerable people, both domestically and from across the world. That is why I vote Labour, and one of the main reasons why I joined the party.

No one ever votes Labour with the desire to be tough on the weak and weak on the tough. But with its immigration reforms, the Home Office is being tough on the very weakest—the most oppressed people. The reforms do not represent the values of the Labour party that I joined, and that I am still proud of. We should always stand up for oppressed people at home and all over the world. That really should be a given.

The feeling of perpetual review and assessment will cause no end of uncertainty. The change from five years to 30 months will negatively impact people’s ability to integrate and contribute to Britain. What a barrier to building a new life for people who have fled war, oppression and persecution—the sort of traumas that, personally, I cannot comprehend. This is most certainly not the route to making the country a more caring and more tolerant place.

I honestly do not know why the current leadership seems to think there is mileage in copying the far-right ideals of Reform. Thinking that that is the route to gaining electoral success is incredibly misguided and in no small measure wrong. No one voted Labour thinking that we would make social media videos bragging about deporting some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is beyond distasteful and it is dangerous, because this is a huge political and moral moment, not just for this Labour party but for this country.

We all see that the far right is making headway across Europe. Fascists are already in power in Italy. France looks likely to elect as President a known extremist with a racist past. With the Government’s cruel reforms, we are trying to appease and pander to the far right’s lack of humanity. If it came to a vote, I certainly would not vote for the reforms, and anyone who would needs to have a look at themselves, and ask themselves the serious question of what happened to their humanity.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer; I shall certainly follow that direction. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate, on a topic he clearly feels very passionate about. He spoke with great power, while also providing a forum for colleagues to do the same and raise interesting and important global, national, regional and local issues.

I will seek to cover the wide range of issues that have been raised in this debate, but I start by saying this, because I did not hear it enough in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution: the system at the moment is disorderly and uncontrolled. The people with the most agency in the system now are human traffickers. I appreciate the power and the anger with which he spoke, but I know that he has the same power and anger towards those individuals.

Personally, I would like to have heard more on that, because we know what the consequences are across the country. Public confidence on this issue is subterranean. The hon. Gentleman made a lot of points about politics, but actually this is much bigger than party politics. Public confidence in the mainstream to deliver meaningful change in this space is subterranean. This is the last go for the mainstream to do this. We know that public order, as a result, is in jeopardy. We must be really careful; I appeal to all hon. Members that there must be no progressive defence of the status quo—they would never hear that from the Government Front Bench. There is only the absolute need to act.

That is set against the instincts of the British people. I know from my own community, in which it is no secret that the immigration conversation is difficult, that those same people who raised those concerns with me about the disorder and lack of control are the same people who leant into the Afghan resettlement scheme, the Syrian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme—for which we have one of the biggest populations in the country—and Homes for Ukraine, in which people are literally opening their homes. That showed that when there was control in the system and order, and when we knew those coming forward genuinely needed protection, the community would lean into it. That is an awful lot to build on.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the edges of the argument, but I say to him that the edges of the argument at the moment embody, on one side, a nightmarish vision of a Britain that closes its borders, puts up high walls and offers sanctuary to no one; and on the other, a fairytale that pretends that we can do it in all circumstances with all people. That is not right, and the public know it.

I will cover the points that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members have made, but I do want to address some of the things the hon. Gentleman said in opening that are simply wrong, starting with the idea that the Home Secretary has changed refuge rules overnight from being permanent to temporary. That is not the case. It used to be a five-year grant of settlement; it is now a two-and-a-half-year one. I will explain shortly how that will work in practice, but that is not the change he described.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the Home Secretary will arbitrarily, at the stroke of a pen, overturn individuals’ protection needs. Again, that is not true. Everybody’s protection need will be individually assessed. I am a white, middle-aged, cisgendered, heterosexual man, but someone who looks like me—just as good looking, Mr Stringer—could be gay, and they would not be safe in certain contexts. That principle will always be the case under this Government, and it is an established principle in this democracy.

The hon. Gentleman talked about it making it impossible to find work. Again, that is not at all the intention, which I will cover when I talk about core protection. He talked about the contraction of safe and legal routes. I am proud that, through our asylum policy statement, this Government were willing to stand up when it was politically difficult to do so, and say that we want to break the model of the traffickers who transport people to this country illegally, while providing safe and legal routes.

I cannot accept, however, that time-limited university schemes designed for an individual to come for one, three or four years—an agreement made between that individual with the state and the university—should act as a de facto asylum system. That cannot be right, which is why we are replacing it. However, I heard a lot from the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues that I found heartening with regards to the desire to provide sanctuary, for everyone to have an opportunity to contribute to this country and for integration, because we share those desires, too.

I will now turn to some of the points on illegal migration. First, on core protection, the 30-month permission, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), is there because, if individuals come to this country and get refuge, but then sit at home without learning the language or contributing to society, we believe that is no life. It is not good for the individual or the collective. If they switch to the protected work and study route, which means they are either working or learning, and are learning the language, not committing crimes, and taking part in society, they can take themselves out of that 30-month renewal regime. It is exactly designed to give people the opportunity to contribute, which is what colleagues have wanted. I think that that is the right balance between the individual and the collective.

The issue of visa brakes was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, and by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) when he talked about “back doors”. It is a really important point. From the four countries for which we implemented visa brakes—Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan—asylum applications had risen to more than 470% of their 2021 level. In the case of Afghanistan, 93% of those students—all of whom said they had come to the country for a time-limited period—claimed asylum. If that, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire posits, demonstrates that there is a need for an asylum-linked study route, I agree, actually. He knows that the Home Secretary has already announced that we intend to bring that in. But this Parliament and this Government should be the ones to set the terms of that, rather than universities themselves. That must surely be the right balance.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), talked about our commitment to people from Afghanistan. He knows that in the past few years, we have brought 35,000 people over via safe and legal means. Again, we will offer those protected visa routes, but that should be a decision for this country’s democracy, rather than a decision for universities.

My hon. Friend the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Alloa and Grangemouth and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) talked about values —something I think about a lot. First, the idea of an orderly system—one that takes the agency away from the traffickers, closes down illegal routes into the country and opens up safe and legal ones—sits squarely within the mainstream of Labour’s traditions. The idea that we incentivise by making the best route to settlement by working and contributing, being a good neighbour and not committing crime, is also rooted in the values of our movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) covered that point very well. I am proud that we are part of a Government who have been willing—even when it is politically difficult—to say that we intend to pivot the model in that way.

[Brian Leishman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Norris]

Yes, but I have very little time.

[Brian Leishman]

I appreciate it, and I will be quick. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but could he clarify what he thinks, with regard to Labour values, about the horrendous social media posts that we have seen, showing people being bundled into the backs of vans?

[Alex Norris]

That is a very important point. If people are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders, and have no right to be in the country, they should be removed. There is a challenge: public confidence, as I have said, is so, so low. It must be demonstrated that that takes place—I have that conversation with constituents, and they do not always believe me. If my hon. Friend thinks that it is too route one, I accept that challenge, but I cannot accept that we do not need to tell that story, because we absolutely do.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for a meeting about fishing; I will make sure that it happens with me or with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). For sheep shearers, we have announced the one-year extension.

A number of colleagues raised settlement issues—I will not name them all—including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is no longer in her place. We will retain existing safeguards around domestic violence and abuse. On earned settlement, again, it is about ensuring that people’s contributions are recognised, so that working and earning, learning the language and not committing crimes can accelerate a person’s route to settlement. That is why we brought it in.

On the point about retrospection, it has always been the case that the rules apply at the point of application, not at the point of entry. Nevertheless, colleagues know that we consulted—the consultation only recently closed, and it had 200,000 contributions. We are looking very carefully at it—transitional protection was an element of it, and we will return to it. The hon. Member for Woking asked me what I thought of what the Law Society has said about a lack of clarity. I defend the principle that we are consulting and thereby creating clarity. I think that that is the right balance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made interesting points about common sponsorship, and I am talking to the union movement about that. We are looking at it closely. I have covered a number of points that were made in what has been an interesting debate.

Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. I add my appreciation to everyone he mentioned at the start of his excellent speech. I do not know of a bigger animal lover than my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and I thank her for all the work that she does with her excellent APPG.

As I said in a different debate yesterday, everything comes down to:

“what kind of society do we want to live in?”—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 17WH.]

This topic is no different.

Currently, we live in a country that tolerates and sanctions experimentations that lead to pain, mutilation, intense suffering and, ultimately, the grotesque and very avoidable deaths of animals in laboratories. Over 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK in 2024. That figure shocked me. It is utterly appalling. Like the Minister answering for the Government here today, as Labour candidates, we stood on a manifesto that committed to working towards phasing out animal testing. However, in 2025 it was approved that over 5 million animals would be used in experiments over the coming years. That simply has to change.

In a debate last week I made an intervention regarding passing Herbie’s law. If we are going to meet our manifesto commitment, passing Herbie’s law really is a must. We should move towards more modern, relevant and human-specific technologies for both the animals’ sake and for people needing treatment or who will do so in future.

As I said, it is a question of what kind of society we want to live in. The moral case is surely reason enough. It is basic human decency to know that there should be an end to animal experimentation. As with everything, for things to change for the better, there must be the political will to make it so. I implore the Minister and our Government to get behind Herbie’s law. It is the right thing for the animals, it is popular and by adopting it we would be making a genuine difference and change the country for the better.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

St Mark’s gospel says:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

With the political discourse of today largely focusing on blaming immigration for the societal ills our country faces, that commandment is sadly not in fashion.

The Government’s proposal for pathways to settlement introduces a new 10-year baseline for people, including those granted refugee status, with time added or taken away for circumstances seen as favourable or unfavourable to the Home Secretary of the day. If someone was to arrive via illegal routes, that adds 20 years to the baseline, meaning it would be 30 years before they could apply for citizenship. Bear in mind that arriving by an irregular route is almost unavoidable due to the virtual nonexistence of safe and legal routes. It must be acknowledged that claiming asylum is a human right; it is not an abuse of any system. Proposals that differentiate between regular and irregular arrivals are unequal at their very core. Differentiating would create an inferior class of people, whose need for protection might well be internationally recognised, but whose long-term status is kept deliberately precarious.

In a Scottish context, the Scottish Refugee Council has said that in Glasgow last year there were over 2,000 children from refugee families in temporary accommodation. Scottish local authorities are already at breaking point, with over a decade of underfunding—equating to over £1 billion these last 10 years from the SNP Scottish Government. We all know that children growing up in poverty has a huge long-term impact on life chances, health outcomes, our local and national economies, and the condition and functionality of our public services.

I say to the Minister: Labour must do better than copying the right-wing parties and demonising immigrants and asylum seekers. This country does not want or need us to be some diluted version of Reform. Whether we are talking about immigration, welfare, education, the environment, industry, or all the rest, ultimately, the question is always the same: what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in one that looks after the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and destitute, or one that looks to scapegoat and point the finger at these people for the political decisions that have led to growing poverty and inequality? As a socialist, and someone who believes in the commandment of love thy neighbour, I know what I want my Government to do.

Animal Testing

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michael Wheeler]

I of course agree, and I have some information that will illustrate the point and the importance of inspections. In 2024, just 68 establishments were audited across Great Britain. Only 10 of the inspections were unannounced. That represents just 15% of inspections, which is down from 63% of inspections in 2018. The issue is further exacerbated by some elements of those audits being carried out remotely. Nearly 70% of non-compliance incidents were self-reported, which raises a troubling question about how much more is going undetected in the absence of regular, independent spot checks.

ASRU’s current regime of regulatory reform includes increasing the number of inspectors by March to 22 full-time equivalents, up from 14.5, but incremental tweaks to oversight will not solve the underlying problem. In 2024 alone, 2.64 million scientific procedures were carried out on animals. That scale of activity cannot be meaningfully overseen through marginal staffing increases.

The wider issue is that we continue to allow legally sanctioned animal suffering. For instance, some licences permit deliberate deprivation. Primates’ entire daily food intake can be restricted so that food can be used as a reward for correct task performance during sessions lasting up to six hours. Rats, meanwhile, can go without water for up to 22 hours a day, over a week, to encourage them to consume liquids containing potentially aversive substances. Thousands of procedures still rely on controversial tests such as LD50 toxicity testing and the forced swim test—an outdated model that the Government acknowledge has limited scientific value. Licence summaries reveal the severity of authorised suffering: thousands of animals undergo painful procedures without analgesia because pain relief might interfere with the results.

Equally concerning is the failure to uphold the core legal principle at the heart of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Section 2A is clear that scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods must be used wherever possible, yet an expert report commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research identified a “system-wide failure” to replace animals where alternatives already exist. Home Office summaries show that licences have been granted even when non-animal methods are clearly available. In one example, animals were being used as an intermediary step in heart disease research, despite well-known anatomical differences that limit the relevance of that research to humans.

It is time for us to find another way. More than 92% of drugs that succeed in animal tests do not end up being used by patients. That is primarily due to poor efficacy and safety issues that were not predicted by animal testing. We are now at the point where human-specific technologies, using human cells, tissues, artificial intelligence and advanced modelling, offer faster, safer and more relevant results. Pioneering work projects have been taking place for decades, leading to breakthroughs such as mini-hearts that accurately model human cardiac disease without harming animals.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; he is making a powerful case, and a very traumatic one. Does he agree that if we are really to fulfil our 2024 manifesto commitment and enable a transition to more modern, human-specific technology, we should introduce Herbie’s law without delay?

[Michael Wheeler]

I think it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I do agree with him, and I will be making that very call.

We are in a good place when it comes to the development of alternatives. I therefore welcome the publication of the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy in November.

Asylum Policy

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I suspect that the lower numbers on the Conservative side are down to the fact that there are not that many of them any more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the cost. Fairness and contribution are the principles that underpin this asylum policy statement, and I hope that as we bring costs down, we can retain public support for the asylum system overall.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Quite a few things in this statement need to be challenged. First, there is the suggestion that Britain has always been a welcoming, generous and warm place for immigrants and people seeking asylum. There will be many people from an Irish background whose ancestors faced prejudice, as will there be many Jews and Muslims who have been victims of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and let us not forget about the Windrush scandal. With what we have heard today, I am afraid that the Government have surrendered to past discriminations and the vile rhetoric of Reform that we hear today. Does the Home Secretary not see that removing the legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would be otherwise destitute is as far away from Labour party principles and values as we can get?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Again, I would urge my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo and people who commit crimes and are funded by the British taxpayer while they do so.

International Women�s Day

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

There have been many powerful contributions by hon. Members across the House this afternoon. My contribution will not focus on abuse, violence, intimidation or even health issues. Instead, I would like to speak a little about domestic equality and fairness.

It is an incontrovertible fact that women have been discriminated against by men for centuries. The historical struggle for equality and fairness that women have had and continue to have is incredible. The fact that it took until 1928 for women to receive equal voting rights with men is astounding, and it is wrong that it took until the Equal Pay Act 1970 to make equal pay compulsory between male and female employees.

On the issue of pay, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing both this debate today and a Westminster Hall debate on pay gaps just a few weeks ago. In a Scottish context, pay gaps are a very current issue: the Scottish Trades Union Congress has shown that women in Scotland can expect to see themselves earn an incredible �3,000 a year less than men, and the gender pay gap in Scotland has risen from 6.4% in 2023 to 8.3% in 2024. This is unfairness in action and shows that the fight is very much ongoing, as workplace gender inequality is still tolerated in modern society.

Now we are in government, Labour would do well to heed the political power of women, especially those born in the 1950s, because their discontent at pension inequality has become a national movement�the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Now that we have the power that could correct the injustice suffered by the WASPI women, we really should deliver on what is right and deserved.

Credit to the WASPI women: they continue to fight against the injustice of which they are victims. They are not going away. Theirs is a movement based on the values of fighting against discrimination and inequality, a struggle women know so well. We on the Labour Benches, as socialists, and especially my female comrades, know that power concedes nothing without demand. It never has, and it never will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the final speaker from the Back Benches�with just a very short speech, Naushabah Khan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I am afraid I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that his party not only let policing and communities down by taking neighbourhood police off the streets, but let police down on the funding. This Government are providing an increase in police funding of up to £1 billion next year, on top of the additional funding we had to provide for policing this financial year because his party left a huge black hole in not just Home Office or police officer funding, but overall funding for public services across the board—a shameful legacy that we have had to turn around.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

3. What discussions her Department has had with the Fire Brigades Union on improving protections for firefighters against occupational diseases.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We engage regularly with the Fire Brigades Union and we take very seriously the health and safety of firefighters, who risk their lives for our communities every day. The Home Office is reviewing recent academic research to evaluate risks posed by contaminants and the effectiveness of decontamination procedures. We will share our findings with the fire and rescue authorities, which hold the legal responsibility to protect firefighters against those risks.

[Brian Leishman]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Exposure to toxic substances is an avoidable risk and every firefighter should have access to the resources they need to protect themselves. The dangerous nature of being a firefighter has also been amplified as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has had more than 1,400 frontline firefighter jobs cut since 2010, a reduction of nearly 20%. Does the Home Secretary agree that the fire service needs proper investment and a national body with legal standing to set standards on fire cover, training, equalities, and health and safety?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention is looking at all fire and rescue issues and considering all possibilities, including potential reorganisations, as we move the services forward.