Seamus Logan MP: speeches 2026

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.