Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend raises a hugely important topic, and Reuben’s story was extremely moving to hear at first hand. I extend my deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have been affected by sickness through using the water around England, and I share their anger, outrage and desire for change. We reformed the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 so that they are fit for purpose, and we are looking at water quality classification information. We also have the Environment Agency’s Swimfo website. We will continue to look at how we can best keep bathers safe.

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

T8. The Minister has heard from both sides of the House this morning about the deepening crisis for independent pig producers and farmers. There are concerns that a quasi-cartel might be operating, to the detriment of small independent producers. Will the Minister consider using his powers to make a referral to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator or the Competition and Markets Authority, so that those producers can be protected?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

As I mentioned, I am due to meet the National Pig Association in due course. I take those issues seriously and I want to ensure that there is certainty and clarity in the sector. We recently published our farming road map, which brings that certainty and consistency, but I am happy to follow up on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Fishing Industry: Government Support

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.

It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Alec. The rich fishing and coastal heritage of my constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is second to none. My constituency is home to Europe’s largest whitefish port at Peterhead and Europe’s largest shellfish port at Fraserburgh—the largest is not Bridlington, as some people claim. My constituency’s corner of the north-east of Scotland is a key part of our nation’s fishing industry, and a significant part of the industry in these islands.

That is why I was so keen to invite the Minister’s colleague—the former Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—to Scotland and to extend that invitation to my constituency. I hope that you, too, can accept that invitation when your diary allows, so you can then see this historic industry with your own eyes and meet the experts who nurture and maintain it against myriad challenges during these volatile geopolitical and economic times. I hope, too, that such a visit will be valuable in understanding why there is such disappointment and anger at how the fishing and coastal growth fund has been allocated in Scotland, which has less than 8% of it—£28 million out of a £360 million pot.

Let us put things into perspective. The Scottish fishing sector represents over 60% of the UK’s total fishing capacity, contributes over 60% of the UK’s seafood exports and lands more than 75% of all UK quota species. If the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), otherwise known as the presumptive Prime Minister, is really serious about the devolution of power and decision making, seeing growth in every postcode and putting hope in every heart, let him look at this issue. Let him listen to Councillor Ann Bell, chair of the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership, when she says:

“A fair allocation would, at minimum, be consistent with the 46% share Scotland previously received”

from European Union funds.

Why is there still so much anger about all this in Scotland and in my constituency? Because this Westminster Government tried to blame the Scottish Government for the Barnettisation of the fund. So we submitted a freedom of information request asking the Scotland Office to show us where in its discussions that had been asked for. This is what we got—and I have six pages of this.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Member, first, that we do not use the word “you”—I am not responsible for any of this. You speak through the Chair so that we can maintain calmness in the Chamber. Secondly, you are not allowed to use aids and props. You may describe the aid or prop, but please do not hold it up as if it will be recognised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

Thank you for that clarification, Chair. I have six pages of almost entirely redacted correspondence, so it is clear that somebody does not want us to see these things.

In subsequent correspondence between the Scotland Office and the chair of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, it is admitted that this was a Treasury decision in 2024, not a Scottish Government decision. It is admitted that the allocation in no way reflects the size and strength of the industry in the north-east of Scotland, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says she is too busy to meet the chair of the SWFPA, Jimmy Buchan—too busy. Perhaps in the forthcoming reshuffle she might find herself less busy.

Adding insult to injury, allocating this paltry pocket money to Scotland over 12 years means that Scotland will receive only around £2.3 million per year in additional investment. To say that that falls short of what is needed is to put it mildly. If the UK Government had engaged fully with the industry in Scotland, as well as with the Scottish Government, they might have been made more aware of that. The Minister here today now has the opportunity to put this right.

Another expert in the industry, Mike Park, chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, has also called the allocation unfair and indefensible. He adds:

“Scottish waters are bearing the brunt of the 12-year EU fisheries access extension”,

which was negotiated by the UK Government, and that

“the use of the population-based Barnett formula fails to reflect this reality…with communities left carrying the burden with only a fraction of the support they deserve.”

This is not about tribal politics; nor it is about scoring points in this Chamber. This is about fairness and the lack of it in terms of support for our fishing industry in Scotland.

I was pleased to note the excellent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, “Resetting the relationship with fishing communities”, which was critical of how the fund had been allocated and recommended that the UK Government should work collaboratively with the devolved Governments on the design and allocation of the fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector for the allocations in year 2.

In common with my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, I look forward to the forthcoming sectoral action plan being co-ordinated by the former Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I would like to add my own recommendation that the ideal way to ensure better engagement in Scotland would be to support reinstating the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group, as suggested by former Scottish Government Fishing Minister Mairi Gougeon, something which the Scotland Office endorsed. Collaboration with those in this sector will be invaluable in resetting relationships and an opportunity to understand a further pressing problem on how one size most definitely does not fit all when it comes to fishing’s labour shortages.

That brings me to the UK Government’s reluctance to have a Scottish bespoke visa for our catching and processing sector. Fishing in the north-east is affected by major labour shortages. The knock-on impact to growth and building a successful and prosperous future is very negative. I am currently in an unsatisfactory game of email ping-pong with the Department for Work and Pensions about its insistence that skilling up domestic labour is the answer to these shortages.

Let me share some reality with the DWP and the Home Office. The north-east fishing industry cannot get local people to apply for these posts or, when they do, to stay in post for more than one shift, despite strong financial and career incentives. The flip side is that international workers are commonly keener to stay the distance once they are trained up—a costly endeavour for already stretched businesses. This is not just a Scottish issue; just ask my colleagues from other parties. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows exactly what I am speaking about in relation to Northern Ireland.

On another front, Ian Gatt, the chief executive of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association points out that the ongoing situation with quota shares of mackerel between coastal states is yet to be resolved, despite efforts by UK and Scottish Governments to secure an agreement with the four coastal states. That is crucial, because mackerel is the most valuable to Scottish fisheries in terms of tonnage. The autumn negotiations are therefore crucial for Scotland.

All those issues point to the need for the UK Government to play a far more supportive role with the Scottish fishing industry. To do that, they need to listen to industry concerns, rebuild trust and boost economic growth, and they need to do so with policies that rise to the challenges outlined and that reflect solutions to the realities that they face. It is just not good enough to bypass the sector, override the Scottish Government and play funding games with invaluable investment. The time for a more positive reset is well past due.

The Scottish Government’s support for our fishing industry is extensive. Since the launch of marine fund Scotland, £70 million has been awarded to almost 400 projects across Scotland, enabling total investment of £154 million—everything from supporting new entrants, the onboard observers programme, the promotion of Scottish seafood, safety training, covid-19 recovery funding for 855 vessels, emergency harbour repairs and much more. Targeted economic link measures have, for example, led to an additional £58 million-worth of mackerel and herring being landed in Scotland, helping to drive record landed values at Peterhead port. There is much more to be done, not least in terms of harbour renewal and expansion at Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Those are the kinds of capital projects that need co-operation between our two Governments in the interests of both Scotland and the UK.

I should be grateful if the Minister could address the following four questions, either in his closing remarks or in correspondence at a later date. First, can our fish processing industry colleagues be included in the energy-intensive industry scheme? The former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), was pressing hard on that point; I lobbied her strongly on it, and she understood. Secondly, does the Minister understand that the current Home Office approach to immigration is creating unintended consequences for our fishing industry, and will he lobby for a bespoke visa scheme that provides solutions, not problems?

Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the Scottish industry that the European Union will not use the forthcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to place further burdens on our fishers, but will in fact reduce the burden, making it easier to export?

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I completely agree that the funding settlement is inadequate and unfair for Scottish fishermen, but will the hon. Member confirm that the SNP policy is to rejoin the EU and then rejoin the hated common fisheries policy?

[Seamus Logan]

I have no brief to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government. Of course, our policy is very clear: we want to rejoin the European Union, because Brexit has been a disaster for the Scottish economy. However, I do not believe that we want any of the worst effects of the common fisheries policy.

Finally, can the Minister support the re-establishment of the Scottish seafood industry action group and actively investigate doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister to his place earlier, and I formally do so now. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. We have had a small number of speakers, but it is not about volume; it is about quality. There were lots of references to broken promises; there have been too many broken promises, I am afraid, but let us hope that the future will result in promises kept, and I wish the Minister well in his endeavours in that regard.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), asked some very searching questions; I agree with him that we need to know what outcomes will flow from the fishing and coastal growth fund. I was particularly interested in the Minister’s reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in relation to immigration, and it sounds very much as if there might be some productive dialogue in the future—let us hope so. I was also very heartened to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes great pride in this industry and that he has a heritage there to draw on; that is wonderful. I endorse the remarks that were made about the impact of fuel costs on the industry and about the dangers that our fishermen and women face when they go to sea—it is a very dangerous occupation.

Finally, I want to take issue with one part of the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird): she claimed to have the best fish and chip shop in the world in her constituency. Many Members in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber will have laid claim to that title, but I assure her that there are many fish and chip shops in my constituency that believe they have that title, not least Findlay’s in Fraserburgh.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the cut to red diesel fuel duty. I can reassure her that we have recently published draft guidance for SFI 2026 and will be opening the first window soon for small farms and those without an agreement. We are looking at what can be done—I think she was about to ask this—about farms with agreements that are expiring either later this year or early next year, to see whether we can ensure that they can apply before their agreements expire for the coming period.

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

2. What discussions she has had with Scottish fisheries on the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

I have engaged directly with Salmon Scotland on the UK-EU SPS agreement, and colleagues have discussed the deal with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. We will continue that close engagement as negotiations progress, and we are committed to supporting businesses and providing clear guidance, so that they are ready to benefit from the agreement from day one.

[Seamus Logan]

The Scottish White Fish Producers Association is concerned that the worst elements of the common fisheries policy could reappear in these negotiations. For exporters, time is everything. Even small delays at the border can mean lost value for highly perishable goods. The SPS agreement must deliver faster, more streamlined export processes, because without that, the benefits will not be felt by fishermen, processors or coastal communities who rely on trade with the EU. Can the Minister guarantee that as the negotiations continue, Scottish fishing communities and their representatives will be listened to during the process, and may I repeat my very warm invitation to her to visit the north-east of Scotland?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Now that certain democratic processes have taken place, I am looking forward to being able to come north of the border. I can assure the hon. Member that I am well aware that 65% of all UK seafood is exported to the EU, and therefore the more friction we can take away from that border crossing, the more certainty there is and the more value those exports have. Given that as a nation, we tend to export a lot of the fish we catch rather than eat it ourselves, this is clearly a very important issue.

Fishing Industry

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Seamus Logan]

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.

[Mr Carmichael]

Well, what on earth did they expect? They asked for devolution. With devolution comes Barnettisation. Is the hon. Member going to stand there and tell us that the SNP Government did ask for the rebasing that we have seen previously? I have certainly never heard that suggested, and we have taken evidence on this in the Select Committee.

[Seamus Logan]

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?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and politely decline his offer to stand for the Scottish Parliament, because Na h-Eileanan an Iar has an excellent candidate in Donald MacKinnon. Next May he will wipe out the SNP and give us a real voice for the islands, which have not been listened to in 18 years.

We have much to agree on when it comes to the share of the fishing and coastal growth fund, and I remind the hon. Member that the fund will be there for a decade. What is past is past, and without rancour, we could work together through the fisheries APPG and other organisations to ensure that more of this fund goes to our coastal communities, and particularly our fragile inshore coastal communities that need support—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions should not be that long.

[Seamus Logan]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I congratulate my friend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee, on securing this vital debate. I have a huge amount of respect for him, given his expertise in, and dedication to, these and other important areas.

We have heard many contributions from Members across the House today. The Chair of the Committee spoke passionately about issues such as spatial squeeze, and also talked about the imbalance in the situation with Norway. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about how dangerous a profession fishing is and the importance of people in this sector, as well as about the importance of data and science.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about the importance of bringing the next generation into this profession. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the importance of fish for our food security; she also talked about spatial squeeze and about fish being an important part of a balanced, healthy diet for the UK population. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) talked about some of the key logjams of logistics, bureaucracy and red tape facing the sector, and about a pragmatic approach to workforce issues.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about some of the debates regarding the designation of marine protection areas, about conservation, and about striking accords on workforce issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about the importance of the industry to his rural and coastal communities, and also highlighted workforce issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) again talked about spatial squeeze, the importance of the next generation, and flaws in the recent EU negotiations. I fear he was starting a bit of a lobster war with our hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway; I remind him that lobsters are indeed sentient creatures. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always a passionate advocate for his industries and communities in Northern Ireland, also talked about some of the key issues, including workforce issues and food security.

Finally, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the significance of the fishing heritage in his community and its importance to his local economy.

Fishing has always been vital to the United Kingdom—it is the lifeblood of communities up and down this country, across all four nations of our UK. I pay tribute to the brave and hard-working fishermen and women, the processers, the transporters, the traders, and everyone else who does so much to harvest and deliver that precious food source, which is so vital to our food security and to local economies across the land. I also thank representative bodies such as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for all they do to champion and advocate for those vital industries. His Majesty’s official Opposition are committed to standing up for, and supporting, our coastal communities and fishing industries. As an independent, sovereign coastal nation, our fishing rights are a fundamental asset; we cannot weaken them, and they are crucial to maintaining our food security and our economy.

The previous Conservative Government made progress in making us an independent, sovereign coastal state, including through our work to secure the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. We used that agreement as a catalyst to secure £970 million in fishing opportunities by 2024 and an uplifted quota at a value of £146 million, including significant gains for the pelagic sector. The current Government had to renegotiate on quota and access under the terms of that agreement. Unfortunately, the fruits of the Government’s negotiation with the EU were somewhat spoiled. It was quite simply a sell-out that throws our fishing industry under the bus for the sake of closer ties to the EU. Industry representatives have described the deal in no uncertain terms as a “horror show”, and as giving away

“the best card that we still had”.

We Conservatives are fundamentally clear that we stand with all our hard-working fishermen and women, who will be significantly impacted and have their fishing capabilities restricted because of this retrograde deal.

Back in March, when it was first being seriously suggested in the public discourse that fishing rights might be bargained away for access to the European defence fund, I asked the then fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to confirm that the Government would not capitulate on our fishing rights. The Minister responded that he was

“determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 366WH.]

Unfortunately, the Government caved in to pressure to seek closer ties with the EU at any cost. Worse still, we have learned that despite the Government caving in, the EU has still refused them those closer ties on defence. While nations as far afield as the Faroe Islands have the option of negotiating with the EU yearly to improve their lot when it comes to both quotas and access, the Government’s deal means that our fishing industry is locked into current arrangements for 12 years.

[Seamus Logan]

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?

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. When requests like this come in, we have to take a very logical view across the United Kingdom and the UK Government have to be strong in their deliberations, because we have to make sure that our waters are protected.

The Leader of the Opposition explicitly set “no reduction in our fishing rights” as one of the five tests for this Government’s agreement with the EU. The Government have not even come close to meeting that test. His Majesty’s Opposition also note that in the most recent discussions, technical management rules were brought into the frame of negotiations for the first time. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has intimated, that is a clear sign of the increasing influence the EU is starting to have as a result of these changes.

While of course we all welcome any funding to support the fishing sector and improve the welfare of coastal communities, the Government’s fishing and coastal growth fund was really just a sticking-plaster exercise—yes, it was a significant amount of money, but it was really to try to cover up their errors in their fishing policy so far. As the Minister will remember, when that fund was announced, I asked her to confirm any practical details of how the fund would be delivered; how it would support fishermen and women and coastal communities; and, importantly, whether the funding would be front-loaded, which is the only way that the Government can begin to repair some of the harm they have started to cause since taking office.

As I have said, we absolutely support any funding provided to fishing and coastal communities. When we were in Government, we brought in the £100 million UK seafood fund to support the future and sustainability of UK fisheries and the seafood sector, allocating funds for science, research, infrastructure, skills and training across the sector. Today, we have heard from Members across the House about the importance of data, research and science—we need to collect that, and we need to fund it. From the autumn Budget documents, we also know that the Government plan to spend £25 million in the financial year 2026-27, which is a small part of the £360 million in the fishing and coastal growth fund. They must provide that funding as soon as possible, in a way that makes an actual difference to fishermen and women and to coastal communities.

Speaking of the Budget, like most of the country, people in fishing and coastal communities will have been anxious about the autumn Budget and the changes it contained. We in the Opposition are concerned about the impact of the tourist tax on coastal communities that rely on tourism—that tax will serve a double blow on top of the difficulties the fishing industries and coastal communities have already faced. Owing to the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, employers have been left to make very difficult choices, such as refusing to hire new staff, freezing pay or—worst of all—letting people go. This is really hitting the fishing industries.

A scientific, evidence-based approach is non-negotiable if we are to ensure high ecological and environmental standards in fishing across all fishing countries, including the UK—standards that are paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade. However, a delicate balance has to be struck. While ensuring ecological and environmental standards, we must also ensure that the fishing industries are able to survive and, indeed, thrive. When we talk about improving marine welfare and addressing some negative practices, we must be clear that fishermen and women in the UK are trying to act in the best interests of the ecosystem on which they depend. As we have heard from Members across the House, the experts on nurturing and protecting that precious resource are the people who fish it. Likewise, an evidence-based approach must be at the centre of the solution tackling spatial squeeze, which we have heard a lot about today.

It is vital, as we enhance our abilities to deliver clean energy, that offshore wind is delivered in the right way and in the right place, looking at all the evidence, including on how offshore wind impacts on the fishing industry, ecosystems and marine life. While the Marine Recovery Funds Regulations 2025, which came into force in December, compensate for environmental damage caused by offshore wind, they fail to compensate fishermen and women for any harm to their livelihoods done by offshore wind projects. That is just another missed opportunity to protect the industry by this Government. Unfortunately, it is their embedded approach at present.

Seafish’s recent report on employment in the fishing industry in 2024 showed an increasingly ageing demographic in the sector, with difficulties for many to access the skilled labour that fishing demands. Pretty much every speaker today talked about the importance of workforce moving forward. Without new fishermen and women, the industry will not have a future. Will the Minister please confirm what the Government are doing to tackle this existential threat to the industry?

Part of solving the problem must look at the practice of fishing itself, which is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry. Financial instability, the tough conditions and the physical stress can have a significant impact on people’s mental health. I commend the work of several charities, including the Bearded Fishermen Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust, to support fishermen and women with their mental health. What measures are the Government taking to make fishing safer and to help improve the physical and mental health of our fishermen and women?

In conclusion, fishing is vital for our local communities, our economy and our food security, which is national security. This Government had the room to make real progress on the good—albeit not perfect—legacy they were given. Unfortunately, they are adrift from the shore when it comes to truly grappling with the challenges facing the industry, or they have actively worsened the situation with their decisions, such as this awful EU deal. The Government must wake up and steer their ship in a new direction, or they will see the industry sink on their watch.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the fishing and coastal growth fund.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We are working closely with our fishing and seafood sectors to ensure that they are vibrant, profitable and sustainable, and that we have a healthy and productive marine environment. That is why, on 19 May, the Government announced the fishing and coastal growth fund, a £360 million investment that will support the next generation of fishers and breathe new life into our coastal communities. Through the fund, we have recognised the vital contribution that fishing and coastal communities make to our economy, local communities and national heritage.

Designing the fund with stakeholders is paramount to its success, and we want to work with industry and communities to get their views on how to maximise value and target investment for maximum local impact. That engagement is just beginning. We will consider investment in new tech and equipment to modernise the fleets; in training and skills to back the next generation; and in promoting and supporting the seafood sector, so that it can export across the world.

Since the fund was announced, a wide range of stakeholders have called on the Government to learn from previous fisheries funding schemes and to devolve the funding, instead of the funding being at UK-level. That is why, on 20 October, the Government, in a reaffirmation of our commitment to devolution, confirmed that the fishing and coastal growth fund would be devolved, and that devolved Governments would have full discretion over how to allocate funding. That approach enables each devolved Government to design and deliver support in response to the specific needs of their fishing and coastal communities. That will ensure that investment is targeted towards regional needs and national views, and that it best supports coastal towns and villages. It ensures that decisions are taken closer to the communities that the devolved Governments serve, so the sector can thrive for generations to come.

Although the Government respect the devolution settlement, I would like to encourage collaboration across all Governments to maximise the fund’s impact, as each Government will have their own insights into how the funding can be used, and will learn lessons over the fund’s lifetime.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Minister for her response. I would be failing in my duty to my constituents, and indeed to people across Scotland, if I did not reflect the anger, dismay and sense of betrayal that has greeted this set of fund allocations. On 5 March, ahead of the much-vaunted EU reset deal with the UK, the Prime Minister told me the following from the Dispatch Box:

“I recognise the huge and historic importance of the fishing industry in his constituency, and others, and I am determined to make the sector more secure, sustainable and economically successful.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 280.]

But we were once again used as a bargaining chip when EU access to Scottish waters was extended for another 12 years—way beyond what the EU negotiating team had hoped for.

Boris Johnson used those in the fishing industry as poster boys for his reckless Brexit campaign and then betrayed them afterwards, and now this Government have done exactly the same by reserving more than £300 million for English coastal communities over the next 12 years, while handing us pocket money. Despite Scotland representing 60% of our fishing capacity, despite it landing almost 50% of these islands’ catch, and despite more than 75% of all species caught having been landed by Scottish vessels, we have been offered a mere 7.78% of the fund.

My urgent question has been co-signed by colleagues from across the House who represent coastal communities across Scotland, including those in Orkney and Shetland, the Outer Hebrides, and Wales. My Welsh colleagues are equally dismayed at the crumbs they have been offered. I recognise that the Minister and her team may need time to get to grips with their brief, but her predecessor said he intended to engage fully with devolved Governments, and the Scottish Government have been ignored again. I urge the Minister to look at this decision. There is time before next March to take a fresh look at these allocations, and to recognise the crucial role that the fishing industry plays in our beautiful coastal communities, around our massive coastline, and in our island communities across Scotland. If the Minister is in any doubt about the strength of anger on this matter and about why it is so crucial, I repeat the offer I made to her yesterday to come to my constituency and see for herself.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I have been looking at the history of seafood support funds. The last one was a UK seafood fund, which was reserved by the then Government nationally, to be used in a strategic way. There were many vocal complaints that the fund should have been devolved. We have now devolved a fund in the way in which funds are always devolved: using the Barnett formula, which gives a 20%-a-head uplift to devolved Governments for all other spending.

I also note that the devolution settlements in the comprehensive spending review 2025 gave the Scottish Government another £8.5 billion that they can choose to spend in any way. It is always open to them to support the sector, which is an important industrial sector for them, with some of the money devolved to them in the CSR devolution settlement.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

We could spend all morning exchanging fishing industry puns, but I think it would be better to get back down to the nitty-gritty of trying to advance policy for the benefit of the fishing industry.

The Minister will appreciate what goes on in my constituency, which he visited last summer when he came to Newlyn, Sennen and other areas around Cornwall to look at the activities within the industry. That was very much appreciated and he clearly has a very sincere interest in the industry. Although he is not personally responsible for what he has inherited, he has a significant task on his hands in helping the industry find a way forward. That is what I hope we can encourage him to do today, because the issue for us—I am speaking on behalf of the industry, which I have spoken to on numerous occasions—is how last year’s quota negotiations are impacting on the prospects for the industry this year.

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

I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate in a light-hearted way—initially, at least—which is a contrast to some of the previous discussions. Is he concerned about reports that our French allies are seeking to link fishing quotas to other matters, such as access to the €150 billion defence budget? Does he agree that the Government should clarify their position on this, and will he perhaps ask the Minister to do so this morning?

[Andrew George]

I am sure that the Minister heard that intervention. It does trouble me. If we go back to 1974, when Edward Heath was involved in the negotiation of our entry into the EU, and to subsequent negotiations, the fishing industry has often been used as a pawn—a bargaining chip. It would be a great pity if that happened again. I know that fishing Ministers do not usually sit around the Cabinet table, but I hope the Minister will use his influence to make sure the message is heard loud and clear within the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister that the fishing industry is not a bargaining chip that can be handled in that manner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns around flooding; we have today heard about those concerns up and down the country. I would, of course, be happy to meet her.

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

T5. After many years of rising costs for Scottish pubs, they now face being unfairly caught up in the double jeopardy of extended producer responsibility, as bottles going to pubs are being classed as household waste by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, even though almost no glass bottles delivered to pubs end up in household waste. Given the extremely tight margins on producing bottled beer, the situation threatens to cause serious harm to this part of the industry. Will the Minister consider an EPR exemption for pubs and other hospitality venues, or some kind of easement to help the situation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

We are introducing the biggest set of changes to the regulations in 20 years. We are looking at the issue of dual use, but the real prize with glass is, of course, to get to a reuse system, instead of a recycling system. I have been in touch with the drinks companies to look at how we speed up the start of that.

Farming

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.

“The future of farming” seems an apt title for this debate, given the grave concerns held by the farming community the length and breadth of Scotland and beyond over the Government’s proposed tax reforms to APR and BPR, and the inheritance tax coming in next year. The arguments against the proposals have been well rehearsed in this place. They have been put to Ministers time and time again, here and in other forums. A consistent theme, however, seems to be their complete inability to listen to, hear and act on those concerns. I do not blame the Minister in his place today; I blame Treasury officials. I think the Minister is an honourable man who is trying to do a good job for farmers, but I do not think he is being listened to by others. Even on the Government Benches, I understand that around 40 MPs representing rural areas have made their concerns known to the Treasury, and are calling for the £1 million threshold to be raised to protect smaller family farms, and for an amnesty for older farmers and those with serious health problems. That seems a reasoned and reasonable approach to me. But as I say, I do not blame the Minister for any of those things.

Research by farming associations has already called into question the accuracy of the data from which the £1 million threshold was chosen. Surely it is not outwith the wit of Treasury officials to return to their numbers and think again. But rather than back the Treasury into a corner here, let me offer the Government a very sensible and reasonable way out of this impasse.

Farming representatives, including NFU Scotland, which I met recently, are suggesting a clawback mechanism as an alternative approach to generating the required tax revenue. The mechanism would allow 100% relief on qualifying assets, but suggests charging IHT on all those assets if subsequently sold by the beneficiary within an agreed timeframe—they suggest seven years. The NFU says the proposal will meet the UK Government’s aims of raising revenue; avoid penalising elderly farm owners and risking breaking up family farms; prevent stifling investment in food production and environmental stewardship; and take away the incentive to use APR and BPR solely as a way of avoiding tax liabilities. It would also target individuals and corporations who are gaming the tax system by using the land to shelter from their liabilities. The Government do not have to cave in on this—there is time. They should simply agree to enter a new round of consultation aimed at honing their proposals, engage with industry representatives and consider how there might be some compromise.

Finally, I want to finish by referencing a discussion I had with the Minister recently on the need to kick-start the trade in seed potatoes, which has been so damaged by Brexit. The Government are making positive moves in the reset with the European Union. I hope the issue will be high on their priority list, to revive Scotland’s important seed potato industry.

Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Leadbitter]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I will come on to a little bit later in my speech.

In 2022, Scotch whisky distilleries attracted 2 million visitors, making them the most popular tourist attraction in Scotland. Between 2018 and 2022, the industry invested £2.1 billion in capital projects, with many more such projects in the pipeline as we speak.

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

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.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I agree entirely with those sentiments. Again, I will touch on that issue shortly.

The success of the Scotch whisky industry relies on firm foundations and support. Support can take many forms, and I will endeavour to outline the key areas in which the UK Government can take positive and beneficial action. First, on trade, securing beneficial free trade agreements is absolutely paramount. For example, a free trade agreement with India that reduces the 150% tariff on Scotch whisky could generate up to £1 billion in additional exports over the next five years and create 1,200 jobs. We must also continue to strengthen our trade relationships with the US, recognising the significant investment that the Scotch whisky industry already brings to the US economy.

Future of Farming

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate.

Seventeen per cent of Scotland’s population is rural and it delivers some of the best agricultural produce in the world. Seventy-six per cent of the land in my constituency is used for agriculture, and farms are incredibly important to the local economy. Labour shortages have impacted farms across Aberdeenshire. Food can be left unpicked due to labour shortages, and that needs to be addressed, especially following Brexit and the associated migration changes. Even a regional visa for rural farms in Scotland would be an incredible help to farms in my constituency. Technological solutions currently cannot solve labour shortages. In the meantime, there is a risk that, without the right amount of labour at the right time, these types of farms could become unviable in Scotland.

In a discussion about the future of farming, it would be remiss of me not to mention the recent change to agricultural property relief. Many farmers in my constituency have been in touch to express their concerns about the change and the significant financial burden it will place on family farms. I am of the view that the change will be damaging for rural communities and farms across the UK, never mind Scotland, and I would like to see it reversed.

I am sure that Members here and the UK Government understand that food security is national security, and I welcome any action to secure that. It is key to get more people buying local produce, supporting local farms and, in turn, reducing emissions and supply chain issues. Finally, I am delighted to learn of the commitment today by the Scottish Government to support farmers in Scotland, including an investment of £660 million and a capital transformation scheme of £20 million in 2025-26.