Seamus Logan MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 25 Feb 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The last time the Minister was in the House talking about Sudan, she told us it was important to have trust in the international system. Given that the RSF are accused of ethnic cleansing and genocide, are so far acting with complete impunity and have just pledged to form a rival Government, what are the UK Government doing to garner trust in the international system and to hold the RSF to account?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Surely it cannot be right to leave those with no real care or concern for Europe’s wellbeing the sole voice in negotiating the future of Ukraine—and by extension the future of Europe. Will the Foreign Secretary convey, in his discussions with President Trump, the point that Ukraine must be present at the table when negotiations take place, and will he convey the disgust of this House at the fact that the US voted alongside North Korea and Russia against the Ukrainian resolution at the UN today?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Paymaster General for an advance copy of his statement. I recognise his sincerity, and the hard work that he and his colleagues are putting into progressing this vital compensation scheme. I also understand the need for him and his colleagues to take small initial steps to test their systems and processes, but as others have said, legal representatives fear that many will die while they wait, and justice delayed is justice denied. Does he really think that is good enough, given the numbers involved? Will he consider strengthening the authority’s teams who are processing these claims, so that the pace can be rapidly accelerated, and so that they can meet the forthcoming key performance indicators to which he referred? Finally, the last time we spoke about the scheme in the Chamber, he undertook to look at the role of voluntary organisations that provide vital support to claimants, and to consider putting funding for them on a statutory basis. Will he comment on that as well, please?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perplexing to see the Prime Minister commit that he will “back Scotch producers to the hilt” —I believe those were his words—while enforcing the highest excise duty in the G7 on Scotch? Surely now is the time for the Prime Minister to back up his words with action.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate. Adequate Government support for pensioners is vital to ensuring dignity in old age. Indeed, the mark of a civilised society is the extent to which it looks after vulnerable people. Many, many pensioners have only the state pension as their main source of income. The UK Government’s recent action to cut support for pensioners has rightfully been met with anger. Labour MPs, including all Scottish Labour MPs, voted to cut the winter fuel payment for 900,000 Scots. Weeks later, Scottish Labour MSPs voted against an SNP Government motion demanding that the UK Government reverse the introduction of means-testing of the winter fuel payment. Now Anas Sarwar claims they are going to deliver it if he is elected next year. Pensioners do not have time for that kind of Scottish Labour false promise while their benefits are being cut. Ministers point to the uptake in pension credit as some sort of mitigation for the cut in the winter fuel payment, but it seems ridiculous that the cut was not delayed to allow for a longer uptake campaign. I hope the Minister will tell us, because I do not understand yet, what the trade-off is between the revenue raised by the cut in the winter fuel payment and the uptake of pension credit. If the uptake increases to, say, 50% or 60%, what does that do to the money that the cut is supposed to be raising? If the Government had delayed the cut, that would have ensured that pensioners do not miss out and would have reduced the number of pensioners going cold this winter. I come from one of the coldest parts of these islands. Hon. Members have probably heard of Braemar, which is often said to be one of the coldest parts of the UK. It is in the north-east, close to Balmoral, the King’s private estate. Many, many pensioners in the north-east are feeling the effects of this cold winter. I totally endorse the comments that were made about the impact that has on people’s health, the increased admission rate to hospital, the increased number of delayed discharges, and the increased number of avoidable deaths. In the general election, Labour was elected on a platform of change, but I and many voters had no idea that that change would be to cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners. I am old enough to remember previous Labour Governments, and I do not recognise this Government as a real Labour Government. They just do not seem like the kind of Government I was expecting. At least one colleague in this Chamber was with me when we had a debate on fuel poverty in England. We heard about all sorts of measures that the Government could be taking, such as social tariffs, social prescribing and, perhaps more importantly, some form of windfall tax on the obscene profits that energy companies are making—I think the figure cited was £423 billion or something of that order. A windfall tax on that level of profit would absolutely dwarf any saving from the cut to the winter fuel payment. In contrast to the UK Government, the Scottish SNP Government will provide universal support through the introduction of the pension-age winter heating payments next year, which will ensure a payment for every pensioner household in the winter of 2025-26. Pensioners in receipt of a qualifying benefit such as pension credit will receive that benefit at a rate of £300 or £200, depending on their age. Meanwhile, all other pensioners will receive £100 from next winter, providing them with support not available anywhere else in the UK. The SNP Government in Scotland have shown that the UK Government’s choice to cut the winter fuel payment was wholly political. For reasons that I do not understand, they chose to punish pensioners, especially those just above benefit thresholds. As already said, another failure of pensioner support from the UK Government—both Labour and Conservative, I must add—was on WASPI compensation. I was shocked to see that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who happily posed for a photograph with WASPI women while in opposition, ignored them and the ombudsman report, which demanded compensation, as soon as she came to power. Other policy decisions are hurting pensioners. For example, the employer’s national insurance contribution charges are leading to reduced third-sector service provision. The farmers family tax is leading to higher prices at the supermarket, and that hits the most vulnerable people in society, including pensioners.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wonderful work that food banks do, but does he agree that it is a source of shame to this country that food bank usage is growing?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister promises to maintain the triple lock, but the Government have broken promises on WASPI women and on farmers, so how can anybody believe that they are going to keep their promise on this?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member —that is absolutely shocking. I was not aware of that particular statistic, but I have spoken several times on the Floor of the House about the plight of hospices. Only this morning, I heard from Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, which is facing a cut of £250,000 as a result of those extra employer’s national insurance contributions. That association does not yet know what the impact of that cut will be, but the two people on my call this morning might well lose their jobs. We are speaking here about nurses and other support workers who provide essential support to people after a stroke. That is the impact of those national insurance changes on such organisations. I will wind up by simply saying—as I said earlier—that to me, all of this shows that this Government fundamentally do not understand the situation of so many pensioners throughout the UK.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  Far be it from me to intrude on the grief of elected Members in England and their constituents, but this is Westminster, which is currently responsible for energy laws across the UK. Although devolved Governments have a role to play in reducing fuel poverty, the biggest levers of change, as the hon. Member would surely agree, are in the remit of the UK Government. I am thinking of the coupling of electricity prices—when electricity is increasingly generated here, on this island—with the global gas market; the nonsensical decision to cut the winter fuel payment; and the ongoing failure of the Government to reduce fuel bills, which are going up for the third time since July.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Member agree that reforming energy standing charges would be an easy way to cut costs for consumers, especially those living in rural areas such as in my constituency? It seems absurd that daily standing charges can vary so wildly. Would he agree that they are often higher in areas with huge energy infrastructure, such as my constituency?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I endorse the warm words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), in paying tribute to the Minister, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and the work he has done in previous Parliaments. As a recently elected Member, I was not in the House then, but I was aware of the work being done. Some of the contributions we have had in this debate so far have been extremely powerful. The quality of the debate seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of Members present. I rise not to oppose these orders but to focus specifically on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, or GMP. The order gives applicable pension schemes the percentage by which they need to uprate GMP entitlement built up between 1988 and 1997. This year the increase is 1.7%. Wow! That was informed by the CPI figure for the year to September 2024. While that increase and the other increases are welcome, they will not even touch the sides. We must remember that the Government have taken away the winter fuel payment. We have seen numerous increases in energy costs, and we are seeing rising food prices because of policies on national insurance contributions and now the family farm tax. These matters are reserved, but all those years ago back in 2014, we were promised in the run-up to the referendum that we would receive maximum devolution. That has not happened. People in Scotland may not know this, but we have had to introduce seven different benefits to mitigate the effects of decisions made here in Westminster. Fair pensions are necessary for ensuring dignity in old age, but we must be aware of the unintended consequences when changes are made to the pension system. During the transition to single-tier pensions in 2016, the DWP was found by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman not to have provided clear and accurate information that some pension holders were worse off under the changes. By the DWP’s own figures, about 50,000 people would lose out. That failure in communication seems emblematic of an outdated approach to social security that saw people unfairly treated when changes were made to their pension provision. We saw that happen again with the WASPI women. The PHSO again found that the DWP had committed maladministration in communicating those pension changes to WASPI women. Pensions and pension provision are wide-reaching. Last week, I raised the issue of prison officers and changes to their pension scheme that mean some of them will be working until they are 68. I again impress upon the Government the need to consider the unintended consequences of that and all other pension changes. That is perhaps even more pertinent now, as the state pension age is due to rise to 67 for men and women between 2026 and 2028, and to 68 between 2044 and 2046. The DWP failed on previous occasions when it came to communicating these changes to people regarding their pensions. We have a new Government, and if they will not allow the Scottish people to determine their own future in these matters, or they will not devolve these matters to the Scottish Government, all I can ask is that they deliver fairness in pensions, because people need certainty when it comes to their retirement plans. I agree with the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) when he mentioned the forthcoming review of the welfare system, and I wholeheartedly endorse the quiet words spoken by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) when she made her powerful intervention talking about the socioeconomic determinants of ill health. That message cannot go unnoticed by the DWP in these matters.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that two measures that the Government could take that would make a serious impact on the levels of poverty would be to restore the winter fuel payment and abolish the two-child cap?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will have heard several references to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report this afternoon. The report demonstrates not only that extreme poverty is rising, but that the only part of these islands where child poverty will fall in the next four years is Scotland. Is it not time that the Westminster Government took a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. I agree with her and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) about emotional attachment; I urge hon. Members to watch “The Field” with Richard Harris—his Oscar-winning performance. I want to return to the point that I have made in previous debates and which has already been made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr. The key issue is that food security is national security; we as MPs have a duty to ensure that and to deliver jobs for communities across the country and low prices for consumers. Yet the Government behave as if they think food appears magically on the shelves at supermarkets. My constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East holds some of the best agricultural farmland in the country, and it will be disproportionately impacted by this change. Three quarters of the land in my constituency is used for agriculture, and the people who work that land are incredibly worried. Personally, I would have sympathy with a policy that targeted wealthy individuals who purchase agricultural land as a means of avoiding inheritance tax. However, that will not be the sole consequence of this legislation—that is the crucial point. After the Chancellor delivered her Budget speech last year, the NFU and the National Farmers Union Scotland immediately cast doubt on the revenue that the policy would actually raise; they were ignored and dismissed. Now, even the Office for Budget Responsibility—Labour appear quick to mention it, but then ignore when it suits—has cast doubt on the revenue that the policy would raise. It states that the Treasury figure of £500 million is now highly uncertain. The justification for the policy is falling apart. Since we last met on this issue, almost every major supermarket chain in the UK has publicly backed farmers, urging the Government to halt their plans and carry out a consultation. Ashwin Prasad, Tesco’s chief commercial officer, said there must be a pause in the Government’s implementation of the Budget measures, while a full consultation is carried out. Farmers recognise Labour’s APR change as a bad decision; now the UK’s leading supermarkets have confirmed it. We must not forget that Labour brought in this change after explicitly ruling it out. Long-term clarity is needed when it comes to planning the future of family farms and the UK Government have failed farmers on that point. Listening to the NFUS and the NFU on this issue would have saved a lot of hurt for farmers, rural communities and shoppers across the country. I have heard time and again from the Government that this policy was necessary to tackle the difficult financial situation that they inherited from the previous Government. I do not see how a bad inheritance justifies an objectively bad policy for consumers and farmers. If the necessity was so, why did the Chancellor rush to Davos to offer tax reliefs to non-doms, why is she not tackling widespread tax evasion by prominent individuals, as was reported recently by the BBC, and why is she not considering a wealth tax? It seems ironic that the Labour Government complain about their dire inheritance while ignoring the dire inheritance that they are inflicting on family farms throughout the UK. It is not too late for the UK Government to reassess this damaging policy and make the necessary changes to protect farmers across these islands and in my constituency. It is a bad policy, Minister, and it is time to rethink it.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Prison Officer Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his warm words and encouraging remarks. He will know that in Scotland the “68 is too late” campaign by the Prison Officers Association enjoys cross-party and Scottish Government support, but the UK Government have refused to take action on this important issue. The current retirement terms ignore the reality of the frontline role that prison officers perform in prisons on a daily basis across the UK. It is a dangerous role, and no less so than that of firefighters or the police, who enjoy very different terms. Although justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the pensions of Scottish prison officers are controlled by the UK Government. So will the Minister or the Secretary of State commit the Government to reviewing the current prison officer retirement age of 68, and will he meet me to hear this case in more detail?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Prison Officer Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  2. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the terms and conditions for prison officers’ pensions on the recruitment of prison officers.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate and the petitioners for succeeding in bringing the debate to the House today. It is remarkable to be here in Westminster Hall and find such unanimity among Members from both sides of the Chamber—indeed, from all parties, it would appear. The current income requirement for family visas simply means that, in my constituency, social care positions go unfilled, the NHS struggles without the necessary workforce, and care packages are in some instances impossible to deliver, even though the funding is there. The additional money for the NHS and the overall Scottish budget is of course welcome, but money alone will not solve our problems. I remind hon. Members that the previous minimum salary threshold, before April 2024, was £18,600, so the increase brought in by the previous Government represents a significant increase in that requirement. As has been said, would-be migrant workers are also hit by other rules, such as the extraordinary fees and the up-front health charges that provide yet another brutal barrier. It is not as though the Government’s stated intention of training local people to fill labour shortages has any hope of success. We are at virtually full employment in my constituency, but there are shortages in health and social care, in the farming and fishing sectors and in hospitality and tourism. Those are vital issues in my constituency, and I think the hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) would agree. This utterly unacceptable position is a betrayal, and it shows how vindictive the Tories were in their ill-fated and crude attempts to control migration numbers in the post-Brexit world. Remember, if we were still in the single market, we would not have this issue with the free movement of people. Scotland is already suffering as a result of Westminster’s Brexit and migration policies, and the old Tory and now new Labour proposals will inevitably undermine our public services. It is interesting to note that the current leader of the Labour party in Scotland claims that he is in discussion with the Westminster Government about a bespoke Scottish visa; I welcome clarification from the Minister in her speech if that is the case. As a former colleague, Stuart McDonald, so eloquently put it last April: “The Government are basically saying to many of our children and to future generations, ‘You can fall in love with whoever you wish, but if you want to marry a non-UK national and you are not earning whatever arbitrary sum we decide, you will need to go and live somewhere else. You can have the love of your life. You can have your country and the right to live here. But you can’t have both.’ That is just not normal.” —[ Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 223WH.] International students and academics make a contribution in excess of £5 billion annually to the Scottish economy. If the Government recognise the contribution of international students and academics, why would they defend this inherited policy that threatens to prevent future cohorts from making a similar contribution? The SNP stands totally opposed to the current measures, never mind the increases or any potential increases. This is our motivation—and, it would appear, the motivation of the leader of the Scottish Labour party—for asking for devolved powers in this area. We have voted against these measures in the past, and we continue to call for immigration powers to be devolved to Scotland. I say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that money alone will not fix our problems. If the Labour Government want to reset our relationship with the European Union, here is one of the key areas to consider. We do not need simply to resist any increase in the earnings threshold; we need to bring it down. Can the Minister defend the current salary threshold and explain its logic, given that she inherited this figure? I for one—as well as other Members and the wider public, I am certain, some of whom are watching this debate—would like to know the evidence on which it is based.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the humane remarks that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her speech, but is she not now guilty of continuing to slur migrant workers who come to this country as representing a net fiscal drain on the economy? These workers contribute to our economy, and they represent a contribution to its growth.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), speaking for the Opposition, described the public’s perception of these rules as being of great concern, as if there were a homogeneous view across the country. We know that is not the case: there is a different view in Scotland. During my speech I asked the Minister to confirm whether the leader of the Labour party in Scotland was in discussions with the Government regarding a bespoke Scottish visa. She has not answered that question yet, but I hope she will. Perhaps she can also confirm whether that might extend to partner visas as well.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Covid-19 Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also completely agree with him that in these matters the public do not care about party political differences. I note his commitment to an independent, whole-systems civil preparedness and resilience process going forward. I am just looking for some reassurance that the devolved Governments will be consulted and fully involved. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I want to press the Minister on recovery from some of the very wasteful PPE contracts that were awarded during the pandemic.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report said that a compensation scheme would be “impractical”, with “significant challenges” and the potential for “unjustified payments”, and that there were significant concerns about the robustness of the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is untenable, given the stark contrast with the way that sub-postmasters were treated?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member will possibly be familiar with my constituency—one of the richest farming areas in the UK. The Treasury continues to insist that only about 520 estates a year will claim APR in the way that it is describing, and it has set the threshold at £1 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to provide clear evidence for this threshold, and is he aware that at the evidence session in December, the NFU claimed that the actual figure, rather than 520, is 2,000 estates involved?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this important debate, and for his heartfelt contribution. I imagine that there is no one in this House, or even across these islands, whose life has not been touched by hospice care, and I want to pay a personal tribute to my niece, Dr Róisín Etchells, who works in this field. Recently the House had what was by all accounts a respectful, informed and emotional debate on the concept of assisted dying, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Perversely, this Government have introduced additional employer national insurance contribution charges on the independent hospice sector, which can only be described as an attack, an assault on the very concept of assisted dying as we currently deliver it—for that is what hospice care is and does, and what others who deliver palliative care in the independent sector within the community do. In Scotland one of the leading providers of such care, both in residential settings and in the community—within people’s homes—is Marie Curie. It operates at least two residential services and community care in almost every local authority area in Scotland. Here I declare an interest as a proud supporter of Marie Curie, and as someone who has helped to raise significant funds for it. It does wonderful work, providing skilled care and brightening the lives of patients as they face the prospect of their last weeks, days and hours. Ask any family who have benefited from this support; I defy anyone to find a critic. Of course I understand that the Government must balance their books and that public sector pay rises must be funded, but the failure to offer mitigations in key areas of these self-same public sector services is misguided, ill-informed, clumsy and counterproductive. “Where will we find the money for these services?”, Ministers will cry, but they know that there are alternatives. In their populist haste to win the trust of the electorate, they rashly promised not to increase income tax. They should look at Scotland, where those with the broadest shoulders pay a little more, where in every tax bracket more people are coming to pay their taxes in Scotland every year, where 60% of taxpayers pay less than their counterparts in the rest of this disunited kingdom, and where the Government responsible for this alleged mismanagement have enjoyed public support for close to 20 years and continue to do so. We in the Scottish National party estimate that if the UK Government had matched the Scottish tax bands, they could have raised £16 billion. In the recently announced Scottish Budget, it was encouraging to see that the Scottish Government committed themselves to increasing hospice funding by £4 million, and to providing additional funding for hospice staff to match NHS pay awards. To me, that is the difference between the Scottish and UK Governments. While the UK Government hike national insurance on employers and vote against amendments to exempt hospices from that hike, the Scottish Government increase hospice funding, and put more money in the pockets of hospice healthcare workers. Like other Scottish MPs, probably, I received a heartfelt plea from Children’s Hospices Across Scotland. If the Minister had read it, he would know how desperate the situation is. I implore the Government to think again, to engage with the Scottish Government to ascertain the cost of mitigations for hospice and palliative care service providers and others, and to provide the same mitigating support that has been given to the NHS and other public services in Scotland.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Windrush: Victim Support · Hansard source

  More

  The Windrush scandal involved people coming to this country in good faith who were then falsely labelled as illegal immigrants. One thing that the Minister could do to avoid such circumstances happening again is make it easier for people to come here through a reduction in the English language requirement. Is that something that she would consider?