Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is an avid campaigner, and with her health background, she is well placed to understand the value of the allied health professionals right across our society. That applies to prison in the same way. Obviously, there is a commitment that any person in prison will have the same access to treatment as they would if they were on the outside, which is vital if we are going to achieve the outcomes we want: reducing reoffending by giving people purposeful activity, education opportunities and the ability to gain skills, so that they can lead a more fulfilling life on the outside. I will certainly take away my hon. Friend’s suggestion about what more we can do.

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

Earlier today, I heard from the head of the Prisoners’ Education Trust about the chaos and cuts caused by new education contracts. In Scotland, scandalously, all prison education is delivered by a private company owned by a US-based venture capitalist. Surely it is time that we take that service in-house for prisons across the United Kingdom and prioritise rehabilitation, not private sector profits.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is right that education in prison is vital to rehabilitation; it provides hope for an alternative future, and engagement with education is proven to reduce reoffending by up to nine percentage points. We are determined to modernise the prison education, skills and work system. We want a joined-up system that maximises opportunities to support prisoners to progress. We recognise that there have been challenges with rising costs, and we are working at pace to ensure we deliver an education system that works for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I assure the hon. Lady that we will consider all evidence that is submitted, and certainly evidence submitted by those experts who I talked about in my opening answer. I am afraid that we cannot quite accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation. We will look at these things very closely and have that interaction through ordinary parliamentary processes and beyond, because I think we have a shared interest in this. I would caution the House about defending the status quo when we all know—because it is in our constituency mailbags—that our constituents are waiting until 2029 for trials, and soon it will be 2030. That is not justice, either. Yes, it behoves us to make important changes to the system to help address immediate capacity challenges—as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) has done—but it also behoves us to look at longer-term structural changes. As I say, I look forward to working with colleagues on that.

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

2. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of establishing a royal commission on the criminal justice system.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

We inherited a criminal justice system in crisis, with challenges in prisons and criminal courts at risk of collapse. That is why as an early priority, we launched two wide-ranging reviews—one led by David Gauke, the other led by Sir Brian Leveson—to tackle that crisis holistically. This is a system-wide challenge and requires urgent action from across the whole criminal justice system.

[Brian Leishman]

Just a fortnight ago, the Justice Secretary said that

“we have to build a new criminal justice system.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 86.]

After the damage done by a decade and a half of austerity, I wholeheartedly agree. Nobody knows how far our justice system has fallen better than the hard-working frontline workers who are desperately trying to hold it all together, and who have watched and warned about this dangerous situation coming down the track for years. Will the Department listen to the leaders of the six national justice trade unions, who are calling for a royal commission on prisons and the wider criminal justice system?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that whether they are powering our prisons, our Probation Service or our Courts Service, our workforce are the backbone of delivering for citizens in this country. My colleagues and I routinely engage with our trade unions, who are vital stakeholders in this matter, but we are not waiting for a royal commission. The state of our justice system requires action now, which is why the Government are making record investment in sitting days in courts, in building new prisons, and in the workforce itself.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Our society is grossly unequal. Local councils have been hollowed out by years of austerity, people need food banks to survive, kids go to school hungry and people are trapped in low-wage, precarious employment, all while corporations make record profits and the super-rich become even wealthier. Inequality destroys society and ultimately reduces people, places and systems to nothing more than commodities and assets to be used and exploited by the wealthy. That is obvious in our legal system. With SLAPPs, the law can be used as a weapon by the powerful and wealthy, making a mockery of things we like to believe are the foundations of our justice system: fairness, equality, transparency, and the notion that money should have no bearing on someone’s receiving justice.

Every debate that we have in this place comes down to the fundamental issue in British politics and society, the same issue we have had for hundreds of years: class. SLAPPs are the embodiment of capitalism and the inequality it creates, because SLAPPs are used to intimidate people, restrict activists and campaigners, and exhaust their time, energy, emotions and, crucially, as we have heard from so many hon. Members, finances—all to suffocate freedom of speech.

I wish now to speak about Lucy and Verity Nevitt, who in 2018 reported allegations of sexual assault and rape to the police. Following an investigation, at the end of January 2019 the police decided that they would take no further action due to insufficient evidence. After Lucy and Verity’s cases were dropped, the ladies decided to speak out online to warn others about him. Specialist Metropolitan police officers encouraged them to speak out online, but told them not to name him, to say “alleged” and to call it serious sexual assault instead of rape. However, the sisters decided to say who he was and what he had done. Their attacker responded by bringing a legal action against the sisters, based on accusations of misuse of private information, harassment and defamation. As legal action continued, the sisters became aware of cease and desist letters being sent to CrowdJustice, where they were raising money for the defence, and to supportive MPs.

In May 2020, the High Court decided on a number of applications made by Lucy and Verity and by the claimant. The sisters were allowed to lift their anonymity order to allow themselves to be publicly identified, while the court allowed the claimant to remain anonymous. However, the court rejected his application for reporting restrictions. In its intervention to oppose this application, PA Media, then called the Press Association, argued that

“the main thrust of the claimant’s application for anonymity is to protect his reputation rather than his privacy”.

In her rejection, Justice Steyn stated that

“a reporting restriction order is a peremptory order affecting the right to freedom of expression of the press and the public. It is a form of censorship.”

After numerous hearings and, obviously, hugely increasing legal costs, all parties agreed on a settlement, allowing Lucy and Verity to speak about what happened to them, as long as they did not name their abuser. Lucy said,

“It was a really difficult decision…If we had the money we would have gone the whole way…This wasn’t just about us, there are so many other victims out there.”

After founding the Gemini Project in 2018 and fighting back against their attacker’s attempt to shut down the organisation during the legal battle, the sisters’ campaign in support of survivors against SLAPPs and other abusive tactics continues today.

As legislators, we in this Chamber are not exempt from blame. We, the state, allow this practice to happen. Our inaction makes us complicit in this inequality. I say to the Minister tonight that we must stop wealth, both corporate and personal, from buying silence and evading accountability and justice. We must do everything in our power to equalise the legal system and wider British society. An end to SLAPPs would be a big step forward towards achieving that.

Early Release of Prisoners

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is right first to acknowledge the condition of our prison estate, the issues with capacity and the impact it all has overall on our criminal justice system. I associate myself with the Justice Minister’s comments on all of that from earlier.

I want to say early on in my contribution that I will not get involved in a political tit-for-tat on who did what or who did not do something when they were in power. This is far too serious an issue for people, and to sink to political point scoring leaves a bad taste in my mouth and does no one any good whatsoever. People convicted of sexual abuse against an adult or child, of rape, of grooming or of the attempt, conspiracy or incitement of offences should not be allowed early release from prison. That is not a left-wing or right-wing political debate; it is what is just and right for survivors.

Looking closer to home in my constituency, the statistics in Clackmannanshire show that it is the most dangerous place in Scotland for women and young girls to grow up in. I have been fortunate enough to visit support groups and mental health organisations and to meet volunteers in my constituency. I have heard from women and also from men who have survived rape, sexual abuse and other indescribable things. They may be at home watching this debate, and they and the people in the Gallery will be looking at the discourse in this debate. What should be at the front of all our contributions is the welfare of survivors, because I have heard from survivors, and many tell me that they feel like an afterthought when it comes to receiving justice. It is not right that they should live in fear and terror that the person who committed the offence could be released early. Survivors must matter above all else. Convicted sex offenders should serve the entirety of their sentence, and I urge the Government to adopt that and reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) said in her earlier intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

Applicants for criminal injury compensation have often endured horrific, traumatic experiences, and no financial award will ever fully compensate for that. Last year, over £164 million in compensation was paid to victims seriously injured or bereaved by violent crime, and two thirds of new applications were decided within 12 months. I thank the hon. Member for his correspondence on that matter. CICA is working to improve the experience of applicants and modernise its systems.

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

Mr Speaker, 68 is far too late. When will prison officers achieve a fair, just and—crucially—lower retirement age?

[Jake Richards]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of this cause. We regularly meet the Prison Officers’ Association and will continue to do so. Prison officers do incredible work every day, up and down the country, and we will continue that dialogue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that everyone inciting violence against Jewish communities in our country must face the full force of the law. I know he will recognise that I represent the Stamford Hill area of London, with its significant Orthodox Jewish community, and I am grateful that he has raised this. Can I just remind him that the CPS updated its guidance on hate crimes on 5 May, to ensure that people face the law as they should?

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

T3. I have concerns about recent reports that the Society of Media Lawyers, which opposes the reform of strategic lawsuits against public participation, has had significant access to Ministers and civil servants while lobbying against stronger protections for journalists, whistleblowers and campaigners. SLAPPs continue to be used by the super-wealthy and super-powerful to silence investigative reporting and public interest speech. Will the Government bring forward meaningful and undiluted anti-SLAPP legislation?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot allow the rich and powerful to use their resources to stop proper investigation, and I will be bringing forward legislation as soon as time allows.

Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for bringing this very important debate to Westminster Hall.

Even though the prison system is largely a devolved matter, I would like to speak about things from a Scottish perspective. I regularly speak about prison officers’ working conditions in this place, in both Chambers and as a member of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group.

I am fortunate to know many serving and recently retired officers from HMP Glenochil in my constituency. Officers at Glenochil and every other prison in Scotland do remarkable work every day for pay and conditions that, in all honesty, do not match their skills, commitment and efforts. The 3.5% pay award that officers are due to receive this coming year is just not enough—not when inflation is sitting at 3% and is projected to rise with ongoing global war and conflict, increasing energy costs and a cost of living crisis that shows no sign of stopping. Prison officers deserve better—all workers deserve better. No one should become poorer. When we factor in the fact that those officers are expected to work until they are 68, which is ludicrous for any worker, and when we look at the mental and physical demands of being a prison officer, we see that it is unrealistic, unjust and utterly unacceptable.

Let me talk briefly about the psychological strain of the profession. No amount of body armour will assist an officer who has to deal with criminals who are looking to gain psychological advantages over them and trying to ingratiate themselves, ultimately to manipulate the officer and to garner information. It is a relentless mental attack, all done to assert power, control and dominance over the officers.

Many officers have said that the mental strength and fortitude necessary to be always in a heightened state of alertness is incredibly exhausting. There is also the physical element of working on landings. It is absolutely ridiculous to ask someone in their mid to late 60s to cope with the demands of going up against a prisoner who could be 40 to 50 years younger. Common sense says that that just should not happen.

Why are we considering body armour provision as a solution? Scotland’s prison population is the largest we have ever had. Overcrowding is making everything much more difficult. It has an impact on officers’ ability to look after prisoners safely, and a negative impact on the likelihood of effectively rehabilitating offenders. We simply do not have enough prison officers to safely manage a prison population of this size.

Alongside the record numbers, the complexity of the prisoner demographic means an urgent need for extra prison spaces, increased investment in staff training, a staff recruitment drive and an overall longer-term strategy that will define the purpose of our prisons. With much of our prison estate in dire need of investment, many facilities are not at the standard necessary to keep officers and prisoners safe. Facilities that are outdated and unhygienic must be addressed. No one should go to their workplace if it is in a decrepit condition.

Our prison officers pride themselves on their professionalism. They are rightly concerned about conditions for the prisoners that they are tasked with keeping safe, but also with helping to rehabilitate. If these issues are not tackled, the strain on our prison system and on the officers who staff it will only keep growing, leaving our prisons much more dangerous and rehabilitation much less likely.

Overcrowding, squalid conditions and increases in prison violence can be attributed to the political cuts of austerity. Rising numbers of assaults on officers have led to retention issues. With so many officers leaving the service, that means an exodus of vital skills and expertise. This is no anecdotal tale. The Prison Officers Association has stated that since 2010, over 116,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have left the UK wide service.

Time is pressing, so I will lay out some questions for the Minister to address either today or, if it is more convenient, by letter. On body armour, does he agree with the POA that stab-proof vests should be mandated across the entire closed adult male estate, not just separation centres and close supervision centres? Does he agree that slash-proof vests should be available to all prison officers, wherever they work? Does he accept that one of the drivers for increased prison violence is the amount of experience that has left the Prison Service? Can he name another profession that encounters such high levels of violence, where it is so normalised and where workers are expected to work until they are 68 years old? Does he accept that prison officers working until 68 is unrealistic and that the unjust retirement age is a factor in the staff recruitment and retention issues in the service? Finally, will the Government do the right and sensible thing and lower the retirement age for prison officers?

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am sorry to hear about that case. These sorts of delays mount trauma on trauma for many of those going through sensitive family court proceedings. We have to get this right. Because of the sensitive nature of family proceedings, there has to be judge approval of transcripts, and they have to meet the rigorous requirements of the secure transcription unit. We cannot compromise on accuracy and quality, but we do need to get the delays down.

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

T8. Prison officers are beyond frustrated. They want the Government to sit down with their union, the POA, to negotiate a fair and realistic pension age. We were told in this Chamber over a year ago that Ministers were waiting for advice from civil servants. What does the advice recommend, and does it recognise that for prison officers, 68 is too late?

[Mr Lammy]

I sat down with the POA just a few weeks ago to discuss this and other matters. Of course, it is right that I prioritise investment in our prisons as I seek to support prison officers, who do an incredible job against the backdrop of a system that was horrendously underfunded for 14 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that justice is a devolved matter. I am content for him to write to me, and I will look into this specific case. However, justice is, of course, a devolved matter.

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

Violence against prison staff is at intolerable levels, with more than double the number of assaults today than a decade ago, all while prison officers are expected to work until they are 68 years of age. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair and unrealistic, and if so, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right that we are expecting a lot of our prison officers. I was staggered at the state of what we inherited from the Conservatives. I met the prison officer unions a couple of weeks ago to discuss these issues and we are in a good dialogue about pay, work and conditions. Of course, they also raised the issue of the retirement age.

Right to Trial by Jury

Brian Leishman Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am afraid that I utterly reject the premise of that question. First, the hon. Lady will have to wait, as will other Members, for the Government’s detailed response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and to see which cases will be affected by the reforms. I utterly reject the suggestion that this is somehow an authoritarian gambit—far from it. I cannot think of anything more progressive than doing what it takes to salvage the British justice system and guarantee fair trial, which is currently being undermined as a result of under-investment by the last Government and by the backlogs. I am ensuring that we work towards guaranteeing a fair trial for every victim of crime in this country, and I cannot think of anything fairer and more progressive than that.

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

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

[Sarah Sackman]

Our judiciary are one of the prides of this country, and their independence and integrity provide one of the pillars of the rule of law in this country. That does not mean that they always get it right or that they are beyond reproach, but they are all subject to the principle of acting without fear or favour. They undergo comprehensive judicial training, which rightly includes rigorous training in bias, including racial bias. In our magistracy, which is so reflective of the principles of local and democratic justice, we are moving towards a more diverse magistracy, so that in London, one of our most diverse cities, over 30% of magistrates are currently black, Asian or minority ethnic. We need to go further, but I assure my hon. Friend that whether it is our judges, our magistracy or the involvement of juries for our most serious cases, that democratic element will always be retained.