EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Debate between Brian Leishman and Seamus Logan

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate.

The behaviour of the right-wing media outlets that peddled the views of their billionaire owners about the Brexit referendum was a perfect example of the wealthy and powerful influencing our politics and, ultimately, striving to maintain the existing class structure of our country. Much of the multimillionaire and billionaire class saw the Brexit referendum as a business opportunity and, through the media, they latched on to and exploited the despair that many working-class communities felt.

It is incredibly frustrating that politicians refuse to accept why millions of working-class people voted for Brexit, but it really should not take too much analysis. Communities felt demoralised and desperate, and people needed something to change—so much so that they grasped on to the notion that leaving the European Union was the answer to improve their lives. I do not blame them, because places have been asset-stripped and abandoned. MPs arrogantly preaching to people that they were wrong to vote for Brexit will not cut through in marginalised communities. That only drives people into the political extremes of the right.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the public were misled by the information provided to them about Brexit. Does he agree with that?

[Brian Leishman]

That is a reasonable, candid and honest assessment, and I agree with it.

It is up to us, now that we are in government, to raise living standards and give people faith and hope. If we do that, the spivs and speculators of Reform and Restore will be rejected. So I say to the Minister: can we properly analyse why right-wing parties are convincing people that they are the ones who will turn people’s lives around? They are conning people again, even after the lies that they told about Brexit.

Referendums have a vital place in our democracy, but let us acknowledge that they can create uneasy bedfellows and awkward alliances. The impact of that is clear when I look at the fortunes of my Scottish Labour party. I am afraid that Scotland is still dominated by the constitutional question. Painting everyone as either nationalist or Unionist has distracted Scots from the real political issue that affects us: whether you are from Alloa or Aldershot, Stenhousemuir or Stoke, politics is always about class. Class must be put back on the political agenda. Many people back home do not know what we in Scottish Labour now stand for or who we stand with. We must appreciate that campaigning alongside Tories, who did so much damage to Scotland, was seen as a betrayal of our class.

If we ever want a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood again, we must appeal to what was once a large chunk of our Scottish Labour vote, which has found its political home in the Scottish National party. Do we not see that competing for just a small, diminishing Unionist vote is swimming in shallow, crowded waters and will never lead to us being in government again? I am not saying that we should back independence, but we should lay out the democratic route to having another referendum. If we do that, we will be speaking to a huge number of Scots who left us. Who knows? They might even listen to us again.

Scotland needs to break the constitutional deadlock and Scottish Labour needs to shift from a position of dogged inflexibility, otherwise we are heading for the irrelevance of perpetual opposition. That would mean we would never be able to put Labour values into a Government that Scotland so desperately needs.

Refugee Citizenship Rights

Debate between Brian Leishman and Seamus Logan

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman]

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.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Forgive me for interrupting the hon. Member’s excellent speech, but he will note the complete absence of Members from the official Opposition party, apart from the shadow Minister, and of Members from the Reform party. My inbox is flooded with queries about various aspects of immigration. Does the hon. Member agree that the aspect of policy to which he is referring—which affects, for example, family members disunited from the rest of their family, asylum seekers, refugees and students—demonstrates that his own party is now following a cold-house policy? Does he accept that specific and special circumstances apply in Scotland, as distinct from the rest of these islands?

[Brian Leishman]

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.

Hospice and Palliative Care

Debate between Brian Leishman and Seamus Logan

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing the debate.

I will challenge any politician, regardless of their rosette, when they say that the NHS is broken. It is not broken; it is just underfunded. It is starved of the resources that it needs to function at its very best. We on the Labour Benches are enormously proud of the NHS and its founding principles: the universal right to comprehensive healthcare that is free at the point of use. Money should never be the passport to the best treatment. People should get the best that modern science can offer.

The NHS is our greatest creation, and it is socialism in action. As the NHS endures another hard winter, so must Labour’s founding principles. The private sector should not always be the solution. The private sector receiving an extra £2.5 billion a year in Government funding to cut waiting lists is not one of the principles—of either the NHS or the Labour party. There was an earlier back and forth between hon. Members on how to find money. That does not necessarily have to mean cuts; I suggest an annual wealth tax.

In Scotland, our hospices remain under enormous strain. Annually, approximately 21,000 adults and children receive expert palliative care, end of life care and bereavement support. The heads of all 14 hospice charities in Scotland have said that their sector is in the grip of an insurmountable funding gap, and staff have spoken openly of the dire possibility of budget shortfalls reaching the point where there will be no other option but to introduce service reductions. Of course, staff will do everything in their power to avoid that, but it is the stark reality of palliative and end of life care in Scotland. The hospice sector needs the Scottish Government to provide further financial support to address the shortfall in statutory funding, which is not keeping up with increased costs. That, coupled with the Scottish Government’s delivery on their promise of a new national funding framework for hospice care, is desperately needed, so that hospices can prepare for the long term.

[Seamus Logan]

The Secretary of State repeatedly tells us that all roads lead to Westminster when it comes to funding. Does the hon. Member agree that the Scottish Government can do only what is possible with the resources made available by Westminster?

[Brian Leishman]

The Scottish Government need to do much better with the resources they have been given.

On the topic of funding, hospices also rely on financial donations, and people the length and breadth of the UK raise so much for hospices. Naturally, many loyal supporters of the hospice sector have not been immune to the bankrupt political ideology of austerity, and the ensuing cost of living crisis has seen ordinary people become poorer, with out-of-control food bills, escalating food costs and sky-high mortgages and rents. Overall, the general erosion of living standards means that donations are an expense that many people can simply no longer afford.

The rebuilding of wider society cannot happen without the rebuilding of and investment in the vital public services that people rely on. That includes a properly funded and resourced health and social care system that has the same principles and ethos as when Labour created it.