Seamus Logan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will know that, in reality, we do work very well together in the APPG under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I accept the point about the fishing and coastal growth fund. I think he agrees with me that we need a review of that decision, but I will come back to that later. Why did the Westminster Government change the approach and Barnettise the formula? Many of my constituents think it is because there are no votes for Labour and there is no prospect of ever winning another seat north of the Tay, alongside perhaps the seat of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I can tell the Minister that that is not going to change any time soon with this approach, because this Government are stealing our money to prop up their failing support in coastal communities in England. A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made no effort—zero effort—to lobby the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a fairer and proportionate allocation, given Scotland’s massive contribution to our food sector. What is the point of the UK Government’s Scotland Office if it does not stand up for Scotland? Finally, as if the above were not enough, visa restrictions by the Home Office have been suffocating the growth of fishing in Scotland. Key sector stakeholders have raised concerns about the changes to visas coming into force at the end of this year and the impact this will have, particularly on processing. Their concerns about visa provision extend to hiring workers for operations within the 12 nautical mile limit, given the overlap in fishing grounds. I appreciate that this is not within the Minister’s brief, but I would be grateful for clarity from her, or at least for her to tell us that she is lobbying the Home Office on this point, so that people and industries in my constituency can thrive and contribute to our growing economy. But please do not try to tell us that we need to hire local people. This mythical workforce sitting at home twiddling their thumbs simply does not exist. We are at full employment in my constituency, and efforts to recruit young people into this industry are simply not working—just ask Mike Park at the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. The future of fishing in Scotland is at a precarious stage, and I want to use this opportunity to plead with the UK Government: please listen to the Scottish Government, to the Scottish fishing industry and to fishermen and women to get this right. One more U-turn will not make much difference to this Government, considering the number they have already made, but it will make the world of difference to fishing and coastal communities in Scotland. It is not too late to give Scotland a fair deal.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is speaking about the European Union. Just today, I have heard about requests from the European Union regarding the size of fishing nets, which the British Government have apparently accepted without question. Is the shadow Minister aware of that?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for this debate, those hon. Members who supported his application, and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time on this important subject. However, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) used so much of their time to attack the SNP Scottish Government. The plain fact of the matter is that I am elected, as are they, to deal with matters in this place. My advice to them is: if you are so concerned about Scottish matters in Holyrood, please stand for election there. I want to give some context before I deal with those matters that are relevant to Westminster.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  No, not yet. I may allow interventions later, but I want to get to the second paragraph of my speech first. Fishing is an incredibly important livelihood for many of my constituents. Fraserburgh and Peterhead ports are among the largest fishing ports in Europe in terms of the tonnage and value they consistently bring in. Across Scotland, the Scottish Government’s Scottish sea fisheries statistics show that the value of the Scottish fishing industry in 2024 was £756 million—the highest in the past 10 years. Scotland’s sea area is six times larger than our land area and accounts for 63% of the UK’s exclusive economic zone. It is therefore no surprise that Scotland accounts for the largest part of the UK’s fishing industry, generally representing around 60% of total UK landings by both tonnage and value. The industry is obviously important to Scotland’s rural and coastal communities; it is a key part of Scotland’s food economy and provides employment all around our coast. The issue of this debate is crucial to my constituents—but, regrettably, the decisions taken by the Westminster Government regarding the Scottish fishing industry are regarded by those constituents as treacherous. First, we had the EU-UK agreement, announced last year, which saw fishing access arrangements extended for 12 years, rather than the preferred annual renegotiation that would have ensured better leverage for fishers. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described this decision as “disastrous” for Scottish farming and described the UK Government’s view as being that the fishing industry is “expendable”. The Prime Minister said that this UK-EU deal was a “win-win”, but that characterisation is risible. Then, as if to pour salt in the wound, the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund allocations saw Scotland receiving just £28 million over 12 years, or just over £2.3 million a year—7.8% of the fund. How on earth is that approach sustainable? It is an unmitigated disaster for Scottish fishers. Trading away access to Scottish waters and refusing to mitigate that policy through the coastal growth fund is simply creating the conditions for the Scottish fishing industry to fail. A sector worth £756 million to the Scottish economy faces changed conditions with no consultation, as Members have acknowledged, mitigated by a pitiful amount from this UK Government. The Scottish Government were sidelined in the allocation of the coastal growth fund, with the pathetic excuse that they had requested a devolved approach. Now we learn from the Fishing News that the application of the Barnett formula was because of a decision by the Treasury to baseline the marine allocation for 2024-25, rather than ringfencing it. To clear this up for Members who commented on it, at no point did the Scottish Government say that the allocation should be Barnettised; they simply asked for the devolution of the decision making on that fund to Scotland.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I want to address that now. Under the European maritime and fisheries fund, when we were part of the European Union, the UK received approximately £207 million over six years, of which Scotland received 46%—46%, not 7.8%. That is why Scotland wanted that matter devolved: so that we could properly support the Scottish fishing industry, in the same way that the European Union and the UK did in the past. Why change the approach?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. My constituent Pelin Omar has asked me about the ceasefire that was announced on Sunday between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces, which has already unravelled, with fighting resuming in less than 24 hours. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to promote humanitarian access, international monitoring and a long-term reconciliation between the Kurdish people in Aleppo and northern Syria and the Syrian Government? Do the Government support more devolved government as a solution to bring about lasting peace for the Kurdish people?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the Minister for the constructive, collaborative and collegiate way in which she has worked, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). That is in stark contrast with the disgraceful words from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), and his behaviour in this statement. This whole process has been marked by parties of all shades and hues working together. In that spirit, I want to reassure the Hillsborough families that that is the way in which we have proceeded on our work in association with the Bill, and we will continue to do so. I endorsed amendment 23—I think it is sound—and Pete Weatherby has also endorsed my amendment 20, which provides a simple role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. My question to the Minister is simple: when we see the next draft of the Bill, will there be a role for the ISC?

• 13 Jan 2026 · A&E Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is able to praise the efforts of NHS staff this Christmas and new year, but there is good news in Scotland, too: waiting lists have fallen for the longest waiters for the sixth month in a row and threatened industrial action by resident doctors has been called off. However, there is anxiety not just in Scotland but across these islands about the new UK-US medicines deal and its impact on the NHS. Will the Secretary of State change his habit this new year with a new year’s resolution and answer my question? Where is the money coming from for the UK-US drugs deal?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to address clause 62 and schedule 12. I, for one, cannot believe the self-congratulatory tone of so many contributions from across this Chamber. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), pointed out that Labour Members had five opportunities to change these rules, and only one Member—the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—voted to do so. However, the initial change to APR in 2024 was described by NFU Scotland as “devastating to the vast majority of farms and crofts”. The concerns raised by farmers across Scotland, including a significant number in my constituency, were ignored by a Labour Government who appeared to be completely blind to the fundamentals of rural life and rural communities. When defending the decision in response to the Environment, Food and Rural Committee’s first report on the Government’s vision for farming, published in May last year, the UK Government said: “Ministers from multiple Government departments have had several meetings with agricultural organisations on this matter since Autumn Budget 2024, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers’ Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, and the Farmers’ Union of Wales”. Here is the killer: “After listening, the Government believes the approach and timescale set out for these reforms is an appropriate one.” In the 2025 Budget, just a few months ago, the spousal transfer allowances were changed, and this was welcomed, but there was nothing further for worried farmers. As in so many areas in which this Government have been forced to U-turn, why did they not listen from the start? Is everything we say on these Benches to be dismissed as political rhetoric? Was it arrogance? Look where this has led—to a Prime Minister and a Government regarded by the public as the worst ever. We do not need a Government who listen later, if they feel like it. We need a Government who listen from the start. We need an end to the sound of screeching tyres from the Government machine as it performs another U-turn that could have been avoided. If “food security is national security”, as Labour said in its manifesto, why did Labour feel it was acceptable to make farmers face insecurity about their livelihoods, and the country face food insecurity in the face of a growing international crisis? After the recently announced threshold changes, it was very disappointing to see the failure of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to offer an apology to the people who produce our food. The anti-forestalling clause in the Bill continues to pose a perverse incentive. It penalises anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a substantial IHT bill and potentially triggering capital gains tax. If no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That creates an appalling situation where terminally ill or elderly farmers, especially those unlikely to live for a further seven years, face perverse choices: keep the farm and hope to die before April this year; sell the farm, with a potential loss of food production to the nation; or transfer the farm in the usual way and saddle their children with a huge tax bill. No set of tax measures should—nor should this Bill —create such a situation. Of course these IHT rules apply elsewhere, but this is where we see Labour failing to understand what it is dealing with. A working farm is like no other business. What it produces concerns everyone, not some segment or niche area of the economy. In conclusion, the NFU Scotland president, Andrew Connon, stated: “The anti-forestalling clause, in particular, is morally indefensible. No tax policy should ever place a terminally ill farmer in the position of being financially better off dead than alive.” The House will have an opportunity later on to protect farm production from that perverse incentive; that is what my amendment would achieve. The amendment before us tonight gives us an opportunity to change this. If we fail to do that tonight, I will seek to bring my amendment back on Report.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the review announced today by the Secretary of State. He is right to talk about the importance of upholding the integrity of our democracy, but this is not just about malign foreign interference; it is about things that are said in this place. One of the greatest threats to our democracy is the wilful spreading of misinformation by prominent politicians, and the Secretary of State is not without fault in that regard. He has repeatedly and incorrectly claimed that Scotland’s water quality was lower than England’s, but, in fact, it is significantly higher—I have pointed that out during a debate and in a point of order in this Chamber. Even when that was pointed out by the UK Statistics Authority, the Secretary of State refused to apologise. Will he take the opportunity to do so now, in the light of the fact that our conduct and social media posts are now in scope of the review?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers have responded helpfully to me on two previous occasions regarding the “68 is too late” campaign. On both occasions—last January and most recently in writing in September—the Government indicated that they were prepared to amend or at least review pension provisions. Indeed, a working group was established to examine similar terms currently in place within the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister provide an update on the working group’s proposals and the Government’s intentions?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend completely. I implore the Treasury to reconsider and hear what the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) said, but if it does not, my party will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report. Labour MPs have talked a big talk about how much money is going to Scotland, but I would like to ask them how much they are taking away from Scotland, whether it is through the APR, the energy profits levy, the excise duty on Scotch whisky or the national insurance hike. Once again, it feels like Scotland’s wealth and success are being used against it by an uncaring Westminster Government. I want to turn to one other issue: NHS drug costs. They are not in the Finance Bill, but my point is that they should have been. I appreciate that you are giving me a bit of leeway, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new UK-US trade deal in medicines raises huge questions about where the money is coming from to pay for these increases in drugs costs. If the additional costs are to come from within existing NHS budgets—that is, through efficiency savings—I must ask the Government whether they have read the University of York’s impact assessment concerning excess deaths and negative impacts on cancer patients, gastroenterology and respiratory care in particular. If the additional costs are to come from the Treasury, where is this mentioned in the Budget, in this Finance Bill or in the accompanying Red Book? It is certainly not in the Bill, but it should have been. The OBR will be listening and watching, and will get to this in due course. What does all this mean for Scotland in Barnett consequentials? Why has there been so little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of this smoke-and-mirrors deal? Transparency is needed on costs. The Health Secretary says £1 billion to £1.5 billion. The OBR says £3 billion, and £6 billion has been suggested by other commentators. Which is it? The Government hail it as a great deal for the UK, but the truth is that no matter where this money comes from—the Treasury or existing NHS funds—patients will ultimately pay the price for filling this pharma black hole. It looks like the UK Government are over a barrel on this, with drug companies threatening to pull out of investment in the UK, bullying from an increasingly erratic White House and creeping privatisation of the NHS. The Government need to provide some answers. I simply say to all Labour Members who have bragged this evening about what a wonderful Bill this is and what a wonderful Budget this has been: why are the polls showing that this Government are the least popular in history?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to hear that the hon. Member respects our desire for Scottish independence. I simply say to him: when will this Government respect the democratic will of the Scottish people? I could go on to talk about energy and the coastal growth fund—two measures that, again, have particularly hurt my constituents—but I will leave it there.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to focus briefly on a small number of issues in the Bill and one associated with it—I will explain. I want to focus on how these issues will impact Scotland generally and my constituents in particular. Although the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is no longer in his place, I note his comment that persistence pays off, which I think he made in reference to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). I therefore hope that the Minister is listening to me in relation to this matter. It is just over 100 days until April, when farmers across Scotland will face changes to agricultural property relief described by NFU Scotland as “one of the most significant threats to Scottish family farms in a generation”. They did not know that the changes were coming—no one did—because they were not in Labour’s manifesto. What was in the manifesto, on page 59, was a pledge to recognise that “food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming whilst protecting the environment.” The sudden application of the new rules on inheritance was deeply unfair. No farmer expected it. In Scotland, 98% of the total land area across the country is classified as rural, covering about 17% of the Scottish population. Land use in my constituency is classed as 76% agricultural, 18% forest or semi-natural and 3% built-up areas. There are 51,200 farm holdings in Scotland, and I accept that not all of them will be impacted by this policy, but studies by experts such as the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation have offered an alternative approach—one that is less harsh and that would generate similar levels of revenue, but it has been ignored by the Government. As I say, although not all farms will be affected by the change to APR, all farms could be, and maybe have been, impacted by having to take new and costly legal advice in the light of these unexpected changes. The spousal transfer allowance change is welcome, but its addition points to a recognition at the Treasury. It is a shallow attempt to placate farmers in the light of the ensuing backlash and an admission that the 2024 Budget provisions were too harsh. The anti-forestalling clause mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—clause 62 of the Bill—and the associated schedule 12 are deeply cynical, as they penalise anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a potentially massive bill. Good for the Treasury; potentially disastrous for national food security. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out, if no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That is the problem with the anti-forestalling clause. I appreciate that Labour MPs are probably preoccupied with a different aspect of succession planning at the moment, but perhaps they could focus their minds on this issue. As has been said, Labour is paradoxically biting the hand that feeds it, but every family across these isles is feeling this effect.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and thank the Speaker for granting this urgent question. In fewer than two months, since the RSF captured El Fasher on 26 October, the city has been consumed by a killing spree—a series of appalling international war crimes. We have seen reports of relentless assassinations of innocent civilians, with accounts of parents forced to watch the killing of their children; systematic sexual violence, including gang rape; and satellite imagery exposing bloodstained ground and piles of civilian bodies. Current estimates suggest that 60,000 innocent civilians have been killed, with as many as 150,000 people missing since the takeover. Those numbers are likely to be underestimates. Recent sanctions on senior figures in the RSF are welcome, but there are areas where I would ask the Government to go further. There have been cuts to the UK’s overseas development assistance from 0.5% to 0.3%. In addition, recent reports suggest that the work of the atrocity prevention team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is being reduced, and the team that previously monitored global atrocities is being cut. The UK Government refused to contribute to an atrocity prevention programme in Sudan, even after the risk of genocide and mass atrocities became clear. That is indefensible. I want to hear from the Minister why that decision was made. Although the announcement of an additional £21 million in aid for Sudan is welcome, consistently funded development and prevention aid for relevant countries could prevent the UK from forking out millions when future atrocities occur. Today’s displaced people are tomorrow’s asylum seekers. Will the UK Government reinstate overseas development aid to Sudan and reconsider their contribution to international atrocity programmes? British-manufactured weapons—allegedly supplied by the United Arab Emirates—are reportedly still being used by the RSF to conduct horrific massacres. Will the UK Government take action on that and pledge to prevent British weapons from falling into the hands of the RSF? It feels as if the UK Government are not giving the genocide in Sudan the time in this Chamber that it deserves. They have chosen to update the House on Sudan alone on only one occasion. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to commit to updating the House on the Government’s actions in relation to Sudan through a ministerial statement early in the new year.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question ): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on UK Government actions on the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  It is. In his response to my urgent question, the Minister referred to my presence or otherwise in the Chamber during a previous debate. I want the Minister to be aware, and the record to show, that members of my extended family are Sudanese nationals. Is it in order for the Minister to undermine the validity of my question in that way? Will he apologise?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but is he concerned about his own Government’s commitment to this important debate, given the row upon row of empty seats on the Government Benches?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the hon. Member says about oil refineries, and I share many of his concerns—you will have heard what I said—but I have also heard him and his party colleagues talking about “net stupid zero”. Does he actually believe that we should cancel all the wind farm projects and all the grid infrastructure rebuilding? Is that what he firmly believes we should do?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who spoke with his usual passion, but today I believe with a degree of anger as well, and rightly so. A just transition supports and protects existing oil and gas sector workers through—I emphasise “through”—the transition to a world-class renewables workforce, a transition in which Scotland is well placed to lead the world. I want to share the following quote: “‘just transition’ has now become meaningless for so many people and that’s a failure… People should feel like that’s not something done to them, but something they’re part of shaping.” That was said by the Minister for Energy in a recent interview with the Holyrood magazine. Sadly, for thousands of workers in North sea upstream, midstream and—in the case of refining—downstream jobs, a just transition is far removed from the reality that they face. The workers now made redundant are angry at the UK Government’s failure to support their transition. Their families and communities are also angry, as are we, their representatives. We know that the just transition is doomed to fail because of three things: first, the failure to press forward with renewable energy schemes in north-east Scotland at the urgent pace that is required; secondly, the failure to allow new exploration licences while persisting with the crippling energy profits levy on the oil and gas sector; and thirdly, the failure to protect refinery jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran. Today I learned that 7,000 business leaders, workers and companies have signed a letter to the Prime Minister in which they demand change to the EPL to avoid the projected 1,000 job losses per month. Looking specifically at the situation in Grangemouth in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, said that a Labour UK Government would “step in to save the jobs at the refinery and to invest in that transition…and we would put hundreds of millions of pounds behind it to make it a reality.” No doubt the Minister will cite the £200 million promised to support Grangemouth, and reference has been made to the Scottish Government’s contribution. Of course, today brings good news in that regard, with MiAlgae’s welcome investment announcement on top of the Celtic Renewables project. The Scottish Government are an active partner in funding those projects, and we welcome the investment. However, the funding announced today amounts to only £7.73 million in total, and the 280 jobs —perhaps more—will not be fully realised for five years, if ever. Where is the rest of the promised £200 million? Where is fulfilment of the promise made by the leader of the Labour party in Scotland? Where is the intervention that occurred for Scunthorpe? People need work now. Families need certainty, but all they face this Christmas is uncertainty. In the meantime, the refinery workforce has been largely cast aside. Looking further afield in Scotland, including Prax Lindsey, the UK has lost a third of its oil refineries just this year, on this Government’s watch. Furthermore, it is an uncomfortable truth for the Government that the UK’s uniquely high energy costs—the highest in the G7—are one of the main factors harming the refining sector and industry more generally. I acknowledge that the North sea basin is in decline, but the importance of sovereign capability in national security is often repeated from the Government Front Bench. It is particularly true in defence, but how can defence capability be even remotely claimed if the vital fuel needed to operate tanks, ships and aircraft is acquired in the quantities needed through imports from abroad? Those imports can hardly be described as secure in this currently very dangerous world. Refining sites, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, have great potential for such things as sustainable aviation fuel production, but this remains a jam tomorrow promise. This is not remotely a positive trend for our economy, our environment, or, vitally, our national security. I must press the Minister to address these questions. How can she tell the thousands of directly employed and supply chain workers at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and the many other sites and companies that are shedding workforce in the oil and gas sector that they are part of shaping the just transition? What assurance can she give those workers that the future is bright, especially when the Acorn project in my constituency faces growing uncertainty, for example? I urge her to address those questions in her speech. The destruction of the refinery jobs is a repetition of the Thatcherite coal mine closures and the steel plant shutdowns, with no plan for the workers, their families and the communities affected. We have long memories in Scotland. Only with the full powers of independence in areas such as energy policy will the workforce at Grangemouth and elsewhere in Scotland’s oil and gas sector get the priority and the just transition to the future that they so richly deserve.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise, as do so many Members across the House, the injustice and maladministration suffered by the so-called WASPI women born in the 1950s. I welcome the recent development announced by the Secretary of State, but will he give an undertaking that if compensation is agreed, it will take into account the poverty suffered by so many of these women and include recompense for their significant legal costs?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Is it in order for the Minister to indicate that contributions in this debate contained lies?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I have remarked on the breadth of the parties speaking out against this. My party does not support it. We do not think that it will address the issues; indeed, we think that it will cause more problems than it solves. And we do not think that that amount of money will do it. That will double in size. I therefore oppose this proposal and so do my colleagues.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I thank the almost 3 million people who have signed this petition, and in particular those in the Public Gallery who have managed to stay for the whole debate—well done. In my constituency, 5,166 signed it. That is an unprecedented number in Aberdeenshire North and Moray East. Every week I meet my team, as so many other hon. Members probably do, and I ask, “What is the biggest thing in my inbox this week?” This is it: digital ID is the No. 1 thing in my inbox. I will not repeat everything that has been said so far in this superb debate, but I want to amplify a couple of points. Many Labour Back Benchers have referred to digital ID schemes in other countries, and we have heard some references to others. I will mention a few: India, Estonia and Australia. The point about those countries is that they asked for a mandate from the electorate before they introduced the scheme. That has not occurred here. This policy was not mentioned in the Labour party’s manifesto. I want to draw out further a couple of those examples. In India, the scheme resulted in technical failures and exclusionary practices, whereby people were excluded from public services by the thousand. Estonia has been mentioned by some hon. Members; in 2021, 300,000 identity photographs were stolen there. I am sure the Minister heard me when I said that—300,000. This is not about dealing with little problems and sorting out tweaks here and there. It is about a fundamental flaw in the proposal. I am old enough—as are some others in this Chamber today—to remember when there were two channels on the TV. They might remember a programme called “The Prisoner”, filmed in the beautiful port of Portmeirion, and the late, great Patrick McGoohan saying, “I am not a number.” He was Number Six in the programme, which I did not understand when I watched it as a wee boy. Later on, when I read George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, I understood exactly what was going on there. Labour has no mandate for this proposal. The OBR estimate of £1.8 billion was queried by the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and she was right, because £1.8 billion will not do it. When I worked in the health service, IT projects were commonly regarded as the graveyard of many careers, and £1.8 billion will not touch the sides on this one. Will the Minister address that in his speech, please? I am speaking on behalf of my party and my colleagues here in Westminster. We do not support this.