Seamus Logan MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Minister moves on, one needs to cast one’s mind back to events that took place many months ago, when newspaper and other media reports led to a hotel housing asylum seekers being attacked. One of the rioters sought to burn the hotel down, which could have led to great loss of life. That initially stemmed from media coverage. That is why it is important to try to articulate this provision in a more sensible way.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I may be misreading the evidence—if I am, I accept that—but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence given to us by Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller during the Committee’s second sitting, last Thursday afternoon. I came away from that sitting with a very distinct impression that those two witnesses were of the view that the legal aid system might need to be expanded. We find that view from Mr Minnoch, the chief executive of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, at columns 60 and 61. He seemed to suggest that his expectation was that legal aid would be expanded in this context.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger. I rise to support the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and to draw attention to some examples of why the amendment is important. Members will be familiar with the hacking problem that we had some years ago. In fact, I think one journalist actually served a prison sentence in relation to that. There were many others who may or may not have been involved in that affair. Members will recall how the programme on the Post Office brought huge attention to that scandal and, in fact, led to a major review of the situation. A similar programme called “The Hack”, which may not have gathered as much attention, highlighted the vast extent of the problem of collusion between journalists and the police. Members will also recall that Leveson 2 was cancelled. Leveson 2 was, as I recall, designed to provide stronger regulation for journalism and the media in general. I think we should be concerned about this very sweeping exclusion for journalism, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the new clause, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. I believe this to be an important proposal. If the new clause is adopted, would it actually result in a saving to the public purse?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If I interpret the Minister correctly, what she is saying is that, through the application of the Bill, there may be a need to review the position in due course.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is fair enough, but the Minister stated earlier that there are no additional resources as a result of the application of the Bill.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an important point, but am I right in thinking that his motivation—and the motivation of many people in this area—is about getting to the truth, rather than punishing people?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To build on my point to the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, the issue here is that the criminal responsibility focuses the mind of the person with command responsibility. It requires that person—the chief executive or otherwise—to ensure full compliance. That is the point.