National Security

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend has raised, and for his reference to the importance of remembering the victims of terrorism. It is an important part of my responsibility that we ensure that we have appropriate support for those who have been subject to terrorist activity. That is why we are progressing, as a priority, work to deliver a new victims hub, which will offer an enhanced service for those who have been victims and their families, as well as developing a proposal to hold a national day of reflection to properly remember all those who have been the victim of terrorism.

On the points that my hon. Friend makes about British Jews in his constituency, I completely share other hon. Members’ thoughts about the unacceptable nature of the threats that we have seen in recent times. It is the responsibility of all of us to stand against those threats. That is an important priority for the Government, as I am sure it is for local authorities and police forces right around the country. If he has specific points of concern about the way that we are communicating information to members of that community, I would be happy to take that up with him offline.

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

I commend the Minister on his statement, particularly his peroration about how standing up to hatred and intolerance is the shared responsibility of every person in these islands. The Scottish Government have been working closely with Police Scotland and relevant partners to ensure that safety for Jewish communities and their places of worships is protected, and they will continue to do so throughout the new Scottish parliamentary Session. The additional funding of £25 million to protect Jewish communities and deal with the other threats that the Minister described is welcome. Can he confirm that full Barnett consequentials will be made available to help Police Scotland with its work in that area?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member and he is right: I believe that this is a shared endeavour across the House and across our country. I was pleased to discuss these matters recently with the First Minister, and I have received positive correspondence from him. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not respond to him now on the precise point about Barnett consequentials, but I will write to him.

Debate on the Address

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to contribute to this King’s Speech debate at such an early point. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and I want to express strong support for what he said about the determination of the Government and of the whole of Parliament to crack down on antisemitism. I hope that he will have carried everyone in this House in the words he used.

It is also a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on their brilliant speeches, which entertained and amused the House. The hon. Member for Harrow West said that it was an honour to be in the same party as both of them, but I think all of us can say that it is an honour to be in the same Parliament as both of them, and they certainly did very well. I have to admit that it is now 34 years since, in 1992, I had the privilege of seconding the Queen’s Speech from the Government Benches. On that occasion, I referred to myself as an

“oily young man on the make”—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 56.]

Those were the days!

There are three points I wish to contribute briefly to the debate, all of which came off the doorsteps in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield during the recent elections, when I was listening carefully to my constituents—elections, incidentally, which were extremely successful for the Conservatives in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we hold now all 10 seats on Birmingham city council, having got rid of the last vestiges of the Labour party in the royal town.

That clean sweep in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield was not echoed across the city of Birmingham, where six significant parties are now represented on the council, making governance even more difficult than it was before. I urge those on the Treasury Bench, in particular the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to be on red alert about what happens now in the city of Birmingham. They are, I think, going to need to give the commissioners far greater powers. Vulnerable people, old and young, depend on Birmingham city council turning a page and becoming a more effective giver of good local governance. The words of the Conservative leader of the Conservative group on Birmingham city council, Robert Alden, are important. He said that the group would try to

“work with people across the political spectrum”

to deliver these priorities.

Birmingham has languished under a profoundly inadequate Labour administration, which even the Labour party nationally did not think was doing a proper job. It will now require a herculean effort of restraint and good will to deliver the governance that the people of Birmingham are entitled to receive. That will involve devolving more power locally. Governance is always best when it is closest to the people it seeks to serve, and certainly the royal town of Sutton Coldfield’s town council, under its outstanding leader Simon Ward, is ready for more devolution, which we think will make life better for local people.

My second point is about defence, because although the words are in the King’s Speech, an awful lot more needs to be done. Ukraine and President Trump have ushered in a new era on defence—and, incidentally, thank goodness the last Conservative Government were so fast to realise, arm and train the Ukrainians ahead of and during the early days of the illegal invasion by Russia. The Prime Minister complains—he may or may not have some justice in doing so—that the armed forces have been hollowed out over many years by both parties. However, it is on his watch that these acute problems have come to pass. George Robertson, who was respected on both sides of the House over many years, has made clear that we must now rearm and increase our spending on defence, and I very much hope that the Government will provide far more urgency than they are providing at the moment to that cause.

President Trump was not the first person to complain about Europe failing to pull its weight financially in NATO, but he is the first American President to take action. Britain needs to step up. We need to lead European NATO with France and Germany, but also with Poland and in co-operation with Ukraine, whose technology has redefined modern warfare. Australia and Canada are significantly increasing their spending, and I very much hope that the Government will now entertain far greater urgency in addressing these matters.

I am pleased that Gordon Brown is now at the heart of this Labour Government. I hope he will explain the importance of soft power being the other side of the defence coin. Many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are experts on defence, and they know that the Government made a terrible mistake in cutting further the amount that we spend on development. Development is a very important arrow in the defence quiver, and I very much hope that Gordon Brown will be able to explain to the Government why this is so important, and why they have made such a mistake.

My third and final point is about welfare, which is now consuming every penny that we raise in income tax. We simply cannot go on like that. The Government always appear to be caught in the headlights whenever welfare is discussed. The last time they sought to tackle the issue, they were unable to carry their Back Benchers and they failed to do so. I submit that they failed because they tackled it in the wrong way.

There are three rules of welfare reform, as I learned many years ago as a junior welfare Minister between 1995 and 1997 in John Major’s Government. That may have been 30 years ago, but the rules of welfare reform have not changed. It was the most complex of the various ministerial jobs that it was my privilege to undertake, and this is what I learned.

First, we cannot take benefit money off poor people. It is not right to do so anyway, and as constituency Members of Parliament we know that it cannot be done. None of us came into politics to make poor people poorer. Taking money off the poorest people is not something that anyone who is planning to reform welfare should entertain.

Secondly, the only way to save on welfare is to freeze benefits, although not disability benefits—something that I believe no Conservative Government have ever done. Freezing benefits can make a significant difference to the size of the budget.

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

Does the right hon. Member agree that rather than attacking the most vulnerable in our society to pay for the nation’s defence, it would be better to tax the banks and the large multinationals on their extravagant profits?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

I am worried that the hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, was not listening to what I said. I said that the first rule of benefit reform is not to take cash off very poor people, and I explained that it cannot be done. That is what Labour found when it outlined its policies for welfare reform and then had to back off.

The third rule is to narrow the gateways into a benefit. We have seen—particularly with the personal independence payment, but in other ways as well—that narrowing the gateways is an important aspect of any reform. I very much hope that the Government will return to the issue with a well-thought-through plan and will manage to carry people with them.

Finally, the hon. Member for Harlow said in seconding the motion that this is a King’s Speech for young people. I hope that it is; I fear that it is not. We need to recognise that we are presiding over a period of growing intergenerational inequality, and this House must address it. I hope that the hon. Member’s point will inform the decisions that the Government make now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

What the hon. Lady, as a Scottish Unionist—I am sure a proud Scottish Unionist, for reasons best known to herself—needs to understand is that the UK is not contingent on Scotland, but Scotland is contingent on the UK. The decisions made here affect Scotland, but the decisions made in Scotland do not affect down here. Against that backdrop, Scotland is regularly in the upper quartile for GDP per capita in the United Kingdom. This myth that we are subsidised by the rest of the UK is risible. We economically outperform more than three quarters of the UK in any given quarter, roughly. We are the top destination for foreign direct investment. Foreign companies are not confused: they know where they get a return on their investment in the United Kingdom, and it is in Scotland. Our unemployment is lower and our employment is higher. I could go on, but I do not want to get in trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Seamus Logan]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech—his first as our party’s new group leader. He mentioned the vapid King’s Speech—this is no criticism of the King, of course—which contained the renewed promise of a Hillsborough law that the Government have had two years to introduce. Why on earth is it taking the Government so long to deliver on their manifesto promises?

[Dave Doogan]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue, which is so important to many people across the UK but especially in the north of England, and in Liverpool in particular. But it is not just that. It is the way Labour rushed during the campaign to stand shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women before abandoning them when they got into office. It is about the family farm tax, which the Labour party expressly said before the election that it would not introduce but then got in and did exactly that. That was a gross betrayal of our agricultural industry and our rural communities.

The change to employer national insurance was self-evidently anti-industry, self-evidently inflationary and self-evidently a tax on jobs. It was going to have one potential outcome. The £25 billion that the Government said that it would bring in was complete fantasy; by the time they had compensated for the public sector, it was down to single figures of billions, and even that did not take into account the drag on the economy and the lower fiscal receipts as a result of that disastrous, self-defeating policy.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend highlights a really important point. This is why the feedback mechanism is so important in ensuring that, where there are issues, they are treated sensitively and with the seriousness they deserve, and that they are elevated to the appropriate place, whether that is IBCA’s board or the Cabinet Office, to be dealt with.

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

I pay tribute to the Minister and his team for the great work that they have done. I agree with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that this work is really cross-party, and the Minister will continue to enjoy our support in the future. I would like to raise two matters of detail. One relates to the Hepatitis C Trust, which has welcomed the funding that it has received, but it is only for one year. Owing to the nature of its work and the fact that these cases are likely to go on for several years, will the Minister confirm that organisations such as the Hepatitis C Trust can expect to enjoy funding in future years to enable them to continue to provide support?

I also welcome the Minister’s comments on the new level 2B severity banding for people who received interferon treatment, but I would like to raise a couple of points of detail on that. The Minister might not be able to answer them today, but if he could answer them in writing, that would be helpful. Do these new measures remove the 2017 reduction in rates for compensation, and will they ensure that people are fairly compensated for health harms caused by interferon treatment from the date those harms occurred?

Digital ID

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The hon. Member is speaking on behalf of his party, but also from a devolved nation point of view. Does he agree that this is one of those unusual circumstances in which this Government have managed to unite every party in Northern Ireland on a single issue, and in opposition to the proposal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

Secondly, nobody will be stopped and asked for this new digital credential by the police. No card, no papers, no police.

[Seamus Logan]

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

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I have to say that I could not hear him say that, mainly because everyone else was making so much noise, like now. [Interruption.] I did not hear him say that.

Nolan Principles

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to address the Nolan principles. I wish I could say, as the dentist might, that the next 30 minutes should be pain-free, but I cannot; this is going to hurt, and it is not because of the Prime Minister’s current difficulties. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate.

Members will know that the seven Nolan principles are now part of the fabric of our public life in this country. We might have expected—in fact, we were led to believe in the Labour party manifesto—that this Labour Government would restore our faith in standards in public life. Sadly, like so many people, I remain to be convinced that this is the case. Time and again we have seen, and are seeing, examples of Ministers and others failing to meet those basic standards, particularly honesty, integrity, accountability and openness. Most recently, as highlighted by me in a point of order, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), made some very dubious claims from the Dispatch Box regarding water quality in Scotland. Those comments were repeated in writing to a Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government, on social media, and in broadcast interviews. Thank goodness for the Office for National Statistics, but I have yet to hear a clarification—or better still, an apology—from said former Secretary of State.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life published its last report and recommendations in November 2021, entitled “Upholding Standards in Public Life”. Among its findings were the following: that there still needs to be greater independence in the regulation of the ministerial code; that the scope of the business appointment rules should be expanded, and those rules should be enforced through legal arrangements; that reforms to the powers of the Commissioner for Public Appointments are needed to provide a better guarantee of the independence of assessment panels; and that transparency around lobbying is poor, and requires better co-ordination and more frequent publication by the Cabinet Office.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Seamus Logan]

I will take a brief intervention, yes.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Member for bringing this debate before the House. I was on Ards borough council from 1985, and the Nolan principles came in in 1995. They were very clear about the need for integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those principles were formulated to bring us into line, and when they were introduced in 1995, I was very grateful to have them. As public trust is at an incredibly low ebb, does the hon. Member agree that now more than ever, all elected officials must cling to those vital principles as a foundation of public service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will address his point later in my speech.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life noted that

“standards regulators in government are not sufficiently independent”

and that

“government needs to take a more formal and professional approach to its own ethics obligations. To address this, we recommend a number of stronger ethics rules; that standards regulators in government are given a basis in primary legislation; and that government develops a formal compliance function. The arrangements to uphold ethical standards in government have come under close scrutiny and significant criticism in recent months. Maintaining high standards requires vigilance and leadership. The Committee believes our recommendations outline a necessary programme of reform to restore public confidence in the regulation of ethical standards in government.”

Those words, written in the teeth of one of the most corrupt regimes in Downing Street that the country has ever witnessed, still hold true today, more than four years later.

In Scotland, the seven principles have been extended further with two additional requirements:

“Public Service: Holders of public office have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which they are a board member and to act in accordance with the core tasks of the body.

Respect: Holders of public office must respect fellow members of their public body and employees of the body and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.”

I recommend those additions for wider consideration.

Interestingly, just this summer the former Prime Minister John Major intervened again, telling the current Prime Minister that he needed to crack down on misconduct in politics and citing examples of scandals in political funding, the award of honours, lobbying, “unsavoury” behaviour, bullying and “Partygate”, as well as whole Governments breaking or bending the law and shielding their own colleagues from censure. His suggestions for improvement included asking the House of Lords advisory commission to scrutinise the suitability of political peerages as well as their propriety, about which I shall say more in a minute or two; giving statutory powers to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments so it can impose sanctions on former politicians and officials who flout time-limited lobbying bans; ensuring that the Government respond swiftly to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; new protections to prevent wealthy foreign interests from influencing politics through mega-donations—I understand that a cap on individual contributions is under consideration, which will be of interest to certain Ministers who have already received extensive donations from organisations directly supplying to sectors within their portfolios; and returning the Electoral Commission to its former status as an independent body free of Government guidance.

Labour promised an ethics committee in its 2024 manifesto, and has now, I understand, established an Ethics and Integrity Commission. One might hope that this body will make a significant contribution, ensuring the proper and full application of the Nolan principles. They are intended to apply not only to Members of this place but to those in the other place, and, in fact, to all public servants. But, as Harold Macmillan famously said, “Events, dear boy, events.” I give you the current civil war in the boardroom at the BBC, an organisation for which I have tremendous respect and remain a critical friend. Many feel that this almighty mess may be traced back to the appointments process, which cannot be said to be as we would like it to be.

As for this place, when things go wrong, Government spokespersons tell us that their Ministers do the right thing in these circumstances, but it seems to me that they only do that when they are found out. We have seen an example on this very day. What hurts the most—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will explain towards the end of my speech why it matters so much—is that this Labour Government have been mired in scandal almost from day one. They have accepted expensive glasses, suits, accommodation and clothing for relatives from wealthy donors. A peer has been allowed privileged access to 10 Downing Street and been involved in appointing advisers. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have used costly freebie tickets from lobbyists to attend football games or concerts.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?

[Seamus Logan]

If the intervention is brief.

[Dr Arthur]

It will be very brief. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned tickets. As he will know, a Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary used a limousine to attend football matches. Surely that does not sit easily with him. Let me also point out that his party’s Government are running Scotland via Holyrood, and things have not always been above board there. I am thinking particularly about very senior members of his party deleting text messages relating to the covid inquiry, which was an absolute disgrace. Will he join me in condemning that action?

[Seamus Logan]

It always strikes me as very strange that Labour MPs from Scotland who are keen to be elected here spend most of their time talking about events in Holyrood. Why do they not go up the road to the Parliament there?

I was talking about the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Furthermore, three junior Ministers have been forced out of office as a result of conflicts of interest in housing and entanglement in an overseas corruption case. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position. They are not watching enough Parliament TV. No one can hear you at home—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker; no one can hear them at home.

I can also cite the former Deputy Prime Minister’s resignation over underpaid tax on a second home purchase, and the forced sacking of the former United States ambassador, Lord Mandelson, over his close personal involvement with the late Jeffrey Epstein. What are we to make of the fact that Lord Mandelson still sits in the other place, while the former Duke of York has been stripped of his peerage? Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed invincible Baroness Mone—who, despite admitting to conducting herself in a less than totally honest way in her dealings with the media, and in other ways that, at the very least, fell well below the standards of conduct that we might expect—still has her seat in the other place.

Trust in politics is at an all-time low. In June 2024, four in five Britons said that they were dissatisfied with how they were governed, according to the British social attitudes survey. Other opinion polls show this Government to be the most unpopular in history, with the Prime Minister’s personal ratings at an all-time low—after only 16 months. The Nolan principles are now clearly integrated into the new Public Office (Accountability) Bill, exemplified by the new duty of candour. Duties and obligations are all very well, however, until you are the only person in the room doing the speaking or demonstrating candour.

Sadly, there is still a culture of fear across the public sector, and even in the BBC, in relation to speaking up. Unless the Nolan principles are backed up by proper protection for those who speak up—including a confidential and anonymous reporting platform—whistleblowers will be confronted with a choice: to speak up and potentially lose their career or their job, or to stay silent and potentially fall foul of the law.

An office of the whistleblower would relegate those choices to history and help to reduce or bring an end to the harm to the public. Such an office would be the very embodiment of the Nolan principles. So many of the scandals we have seen could have been prevented or limited if an office of the whistleblower had existed. I hope to join the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) when she meets the relevant Minister in the near future on this point.

To conclude, why does all this really matter, beyond the obvious need for high standards in public office?

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member take an intervention?

[Seamus Logan]

If it is a brief one.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful. As the hon. Member knows—or at least I hope he does—I care deeply about these issues too, and in fact spent some six years on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in Holyrood, which was referred to earlier. Would the hon. Member be content if the Scottish Government were to seek a Sewel motion on the proposal he is suggesting, so that this could be a cross-UK initiative, rather than just one that focuses on this place?

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but of course I am not in a position to speak for the Scottish Government. Once again, Labour Members are referring to matters in Holyrood rather than the place to which they were elected.

As I was saying, this matters because, in the context of a disastrous loss of confidence in the behaviour of public servants—including us—and in the face of a dramatic loss of public trust, is it any wonder that people do not take part in the democratic process any more? Is it any wonder that people might consider voting for parties on the far right? Is it any wonder that we see trouble on our streets?

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about people considering voting for parties on the far right; the former leader of Reform UK in Wales of course recently pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery. Lord Nolan highlighted the need for openness; does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with £4.6 million in suspect donations coming from overseas, we need to take measures against the foreign Governments and state-linked groups intervening in our politics?

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is obviously agreeing with the point that I made earlier.

This matters because the behaviour we are seeing is simply unacceptable. Is it any wonder that snake-oil salesmen and saleswomen obtain support? History teaches us that, when the people lose faith in the democratic process, when they lose trust in the Government, when our institutions fail them—which is what is happening before our very eyes—the door opens to dangerous people who do not have our interests truly at heart. That is why the Nolan principles really matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

Absolutely. On local government, I will just reiterate that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary set out important powers earlier in the week to try to improve standards and to hold people to account. Hopefully that will help.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to make a short intervention. I appreciate the number of times he has referenced the points I made in my speech. Can he advise us in this place what the Government can do about peers in the other place who fall below the standards that we and the public have come to expect?

[Chris Ward]

That is a matter for individual parties and for the Lords to look at. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on this question, because House of Lords reform is another area that the Cabinet Office is overseeing. I do agree, with regard to recent cases in particular—across the House, I should say—that there is a need to improve trust and accountability. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which we intend to take through Parliament, is part of trying to modernise and improve the House of Lords. I think it would be a big step forward if we could pass that Bill. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on his broader point, if that is okay.

Finally, as I have said, the Government are taking steps to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. We are not there yet but will keep working on it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Seamus Logan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This Bill certainly is long overdue. I previously contributed to the excellent debate in Westminster Hall that was secured by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has just made another fantastic contribution to the campaign. He has been a tireless campaigner for justice since the disaster in 1989.

The Scottish National party supports the Bill and we will work with the UK Government to change the culture of secrecy and cover-up, which for far too long has characterised too much of our public life. Scotland and the rest of the UK are well served by the exceptional dedication and commitment of our public officials, who work every day to keep our communities safe. However, it is right that we should be able to trust that those who serve in a public role fulfil very high standards of behaviour and conduct throughout their careers.

The sad reality is that when these failures were discovered, far too often the wagons were circled, rather than good-faith efforts being made to provide transparency and justice. So often in my own career in health and social care, I witnessed public bodies and senior executives responding to adverse events in defensive ways, declining to offer apologies to avoid financial cost and seeking to hide the truth to protect careers. But the buck stops in this place ultimately.

To reiterate, the SNP Scottish Government are supportive of the aims of the Bill and have been engaging closely with the UK Government on this legislation, including on how it may be extended to Scotland and which Scottish legislation will require amendment. If so, a legislative consent motion will be presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate. In the meantime, public servants are, of course, expected to continue to follow all existing codes, and professional and legal obligations, until the Bill is fully implemented. The SNP Scottish Government have already taken legislative steps to introduce a duty of candour in areas of public life in Scotland, but this Bill must now be the catalyst to change organisational culture across these islands for good.

I fully agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the Bill would benefit from the establishment of an office of the whistleblower. That has to be one of the outcomes of the eventual passing of this legislation. We fully support the measures dealing with enforcement and compliance, but the key question is: when will we see an end to cover-up, denial, obfuscation and defensiveness? This law must extend not only to intelligence services, but their individual officers. It must make it clear that there is a single, clear point of accountability for chief executives of public bodies and other leaders with command responsibilities. Some legal experts believe that the Bill’s wording on that may be weak, and there is a case for reviewing and strengthening this part of the Bill.

We welcome the proposed code of ethical conduct, and the extension of the law to private bodies with public service health and safety responsibilities. Clause 5 allows for a prison sentence of up to two years for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour. That could be unduly lenient when one considers some of the more serious scandals.

The inclusion of the concept of “victim harm” in clause 11 may not be as helpful as it sounds, as it would potentially exclude those who, for example, simply falsify statistics, for whatever reason, and are not directly creating any specific victims. That wording could be reviewed. We welcome the commitment to equality of arms in court proceedings, and to ensuring that victims and their families have full recourse to legal aid. In the past, the absence of public funding has too often been an insurmountable obstacle.

On a further matter of detail, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester, the Bill makes no reference to newspapers or other media outlets, some of which were up to their necks in law breaking, as demonstrated by the Leveson inquiry. As hon. Members will know, Leveson 2 was meant to investigate the relationship between the press and the police, but it was cancelled by the Cameron Government. As a result, there is little or no accountability in this area. There is still deep hurt in Liverpool at the conduct of some editorial staff and journalists at The Sun newspaper all those years ago. There are other examples of misconduct and even law breaking. Will the Bill provide some solutions relevant to the media? If not, how do the Government intend to address this issue?

I alluded at the outset to devolved matters. There is a clear need to work proactively with devolved Administrations on legal provisions that will require amendment. There have been so many examples in recent times of an utter failure to consult, liaise or communicate with the devolved Administrations, but that cannot happen in this instance. I hope that we will see maximum co-operation on these matters. My party and I stand ready to make a constructive contribution as this Bill passes on to its next stages.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With regard to my hon. Friend’s first point, on the interim payments, there is an expedited process if the details are unchanged from the first interim application. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the particular details of her constituent, I am happy to look at that. On her second point, I think the strength of feeling in the House is very clear.

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

On previous occasions, I have paid tribute to the Minister for his sincerity and hard work in this matter, and I add to that the collegiate and consensual way that he approaches all of this, particularly in his work with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government. I previously asked for the work of voluntary organisations—third-sector organisations—to be placed on a statutory footing. The Minister will understand that despite the system being fairly straightforward and simple, as has been acknowledged, claimants still need support, particularly those who are unwell. Can the Minister advise whether that work has now been placed on a statutory footing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I have worked with the devolved Administrations throughout. We have to take into account that this is a pre-devolution scandal, so it is UK-wide, and a number of Sir Brian’s recommendations from his initial report are UK-wide. They are now within devolved competence, so this is hugely important. I have always been conscious of that, and I work with the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, on the issue of voluntary bodies, a couple of different issues are mixed up on that question. If he writes to me precisely about putting work on a statutory footing, I will give him an answer. More generally, the work of voluntary bodies and charities in supporting victims has been absolutely invaluable, and I am very conscious of the financial pressures they are facing.

European Union: UK Membership

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the petitioners on securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his eloquent and passionate speech.

I fear that I am in danger of picking at the scars and wounds referred to by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—a very learned Member—but I must reflect on these past nine years. On 23 June 2016, the people of Scotland voted to remain within the European Union by 62% to 38%. There was a majority for remain in every single one of Scotland’s local authorities. In anyone’s terms, that was decisive, and if the vote were rerun today, I suggest it would be even more decisive.

It is almost nine years since the disastrous misleading of the electorate by Gove, Johnson, Farage et al., and we might want to consider the extent to which this failure of democracy has increased support for Scottish independence—from 45% to 54% and rising. But still and all, democracy has been undermined in Scotland, because the imposition of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 restricted the previously agreed powers of the Scottish Parliament and ignored the Sewel convention by proceeding with UK legislation without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As a result of Brexit, we are a much poorer nation, at a time when we cannot afford to be poorer. That poverty equates to £3 billion in lost public revenues for Scotland each and every year since we left Europe.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is of course right to talk about the economic impact of Brexit, but would it have been different if the vote had been won on our joining the customs union—a vote that the SNP abstained on?

[Seamus Logan]

I cannot comment, as I was not here at the time, but we will come back to the issue of the customs union in a moment.

The UK has endured the highest rate of inflation in the G7 for many months. Brexit has exacerbated the cost of living crisis, driving a £250 increase in annual household food bills. Food and drink inflation in 2023 was at a 45-year high, with food prices up by almost 25 percentage points between 2019 and 2023. Analysis suggests that a third of that increase is due to Brexit, meaning UK households have paid out almost £7 billion to cover the extra costs of overcoming trade barriers that make importing food from the EU harder.

No community has escaped, but inevitably it is our poorest families who are hurting the most. Our business community is also enduring increased costs and damaged trade. According to Scottish Government analysis, 44% of businesses in Scotland face difficulties trading overseas, and named Brexit as the main cause. They face significant additional costs and bureaucracy at a time when their margins are already being squeezed at home by decisions made here in Westminster. Our prized seafood industry has been hit with an estimated 50% increase in the cost of packaging items sent to the EU, and new export health certificates are costing the salmon sector alone approximately £1.3 million per year.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing dismay at the fact that, for the bivalve fishing industry, the waters of Wales were no longer acceptable, and that industry died with Brexit.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the right hon. Member for that point. Our fishing industry has effectively lost quota share and has access to fewer fishing opportunities for some species than it had under the EU’s common fisheries policy. That includes, for example, North sea whiting, where the maximum percentage of total EU and UK quota available is 73.5% compared with average UK landings in 2015 to 2019 of 82%. Even where quota has been gained through the TCA, much of it is for species that the Scottish fleet does not generally catch, or does not want to catch, making it of little practical value.

In the wider seafood sector, some shellfish exporters have estimated that the new barriers to trade with the EU have resulted in additional costs of £500 to £600 per consignment, making some exports unviable. Seafood Scotland has described post-Brexit labour shortages as having a huge impact on the seafood processing sector, with businesses turning down growth opportunities due to a lack of labour. We no longer enjoy freedom of movement—it has gone—despite the promises of the then candidate for leader of the Labour party in 2020, now the Prime Minister.

Some 45% of tourism businesses in the highlands and islands have reported staff shortages, forcing otherwise successful firms to cut their opening hours. In July 2022, UKHospitality reported 40,000 hospitality vacancies in Scotland, but the sector is excluded from the UK Government’s seasonal worker scheme. Recent media reporting found that one hotel in the highlands alone is short of 70 staff for the busy summer season. In response to an oral question recently, the Prime Minister told me he was fully aware of the labour shortages and was working to address them. I have two questions for the Minister when she winds up, and the first is: how exactly is the Prime Minister working to address those shortages?

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

Travel is more difficult and costly as Brexit has slowed down the process of entering the EU on a British passport. Business travellers and holidaymakers report long delays at some airports and extremely long tailbacks at the port of Dover. Pets can be brought into the European area only with an animal health certificate, which must be issued by a vet and can cost between £100 and £300 per trip. Most mobile phone operators have reintroduced roaming charges, which were abolished for EU members in 2017. Perhaps most shamefully, our young people miss huge opportunities as a result of Brexit because, as many Members said, we are no longer participating in Erasmus+.

In summary, our democratic will is being ignored, we are poorer, the cost of living is climbing, business is suffering, we do not have enough workers, foreign travel is more difficult and expensive, and our young people have lost enormous opportunity. History will reserve an especially harsh judgment for those who misled us down this path. Paradoxically, we are now forced into closer defence relationships with our European allies and higher spending in the face of the growing threat of Russian aggression. But we cannot say that we were not warned that, while the creation of the European Union has been a bulwark for peace in Europe since 1945, its weakening would potentially threaten that peace.

In conclusion, I ask the question that we should all ask: who really benefited from Brexit? It certainly was not the ordinary people. But rather than speak about how bad this all is, let us do something about it. I feel a teeny, wee bit sorry for the Chancellor at the minute, but I am giving her a way out: rejoin the single market, rejoin the customs union and get the benefits that they offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.

I am afraid my contribution will jar with the cosy consensus of the debate, if we should call it a debate, because has it not just been an echo chamber for the laments of two or three dozen Europhile MPs? It has not been a debate at all, but what brings us here are 130,000-odd signatures on a petition. Well, of course, what that immediately calls to mind is the contrast with the 17,410,742 British voters who made the most consequential decision in the greatest democratic decision ever made by the greatest number of people ever voting. That embarrasses them. That is why, almost two hours into this debate, this is the first time we have heard that figure, because those in this Chamber have their face set against that democratic decision.

This petition is notable in its arrogance. It does not even say, “Well, let’s have another referendum.” No—in its arrogance, it demands that we simply rejoin the EU, which the British people decided democratically to leave. I know that is an uncomfortable fact, but that is the core issue.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of uncomfortable facts. Has he been listening to the uncomfortable facts that have been shared in this debate?

[Jim Allister]

Let me give the hon. Member and others some rather uncomfortable facts. I am delighted to tell those Euro-fanatics who gather in this hallowed hall today that only 50 of my constituents in North Antrim signed this petition. Of course that is for very good reason, because unlike the rest of you, we have continued to have to live under the EU. We have continued to be subject to the bureaucratic stranglehold of the EU single market and its customs code. What has that meant? It has meant that in over 300 areas of law we in Northern Ireland are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament in which we have no say. That is the product of the denial of Brexit to the people of Northern Ireland. That is how we have been left. Those are the laws that govern the single market.

I hear the moving desire of hon. Members to be back in the single market, but let me tell them what that has meant for Northern Ireland: we were told that it was the best of both worlds and a panacea, and if only we all had the best of both worlds. Well, having the best of both worlds and being able to sell into the mighty market of the EU was supposed to bring a flood of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. According to some enthusiasts, we were going to be the Singapore of the west, but the reality is that there has not been one foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland because of single market access.

Before people get what they wish for, I caution them that being in the single market is no panacea. As I have already illustrated, in Northern Ireland it comes at the price of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Everyone here seems to want to put the whole United Kingdom in that position. I have heard hon. Members lament American tariffs, but they want to put themselves in the club that will be most tariffed by the United States. Where is the logic in that? It really is beyond belief.

The real lesson from Northern Ireland is that the growth in our economy has come in the services sector, which is the sector that is outside EU control. Of the two sectors—manufacturing and services—the sector that has grown is the one outside EU control. The one that is still under the EU’s control is the one that has struggled and has not grown. That is a telling reminder of what it means for people to subjugate themselves in a subservient way to rules made in a foreign Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me broaden out my hon. Friend’s words to the whole House, because it is hugely to the credit of this House that it is speaking loudly, in a united way and with one voice in the face of Russian aggression. That is why we must have lasting peace based on the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, but it certainly helps all those observing across the world to see this House speaking powerfully and with one voice, united across these Benches. I am pleased that we are able to continue in that way.

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

Q14. The Scottish fishing industry, by volume and value, is the biggest in these islands, and in my constituency the port towns of Peterhead and Fraserburgh represent a large share of that industry in terms of landed catch and processing. I am sure that the Prime Minister enjoys the occasional fish supper, so does he agree that the interests and future of that industry must be secured and enhanced, as the Government pursue economic growth and reset their relationship with the European Union, especially through the forthcoming trade and co-operation agreement negotiations, so that the jobs of people who work in that sector can never be made expendable for the sake of some other interest?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. 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. We have already secured over 720,000 tonnes of fishing quota for the year, worth up to £920 million, including through agreements with the EU and Norway. We also want to tackle the problems of labour shortages, which he will be familiar with. I am pleased that his constituents in Peterhead will benefit from £20 million under our plan for neighbourhoods, and we will do everything we can in relation to that issue.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he mentioned me and my colleagues, but of course IBCA is an arm’s length body—it is operationally independent—so it takes operationally independent decisions on how best to pay out the money to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. As I said, it has decided to adopt a test-and-learn approach to make that possible.

One of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations is that we look at support for voluntary organisations. That will be covered in an update that I will give to the House in due course on all 12 recommendations. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the general assurance that I am, and will continue to be, restless for progress. On his point about IBCA scaling up and having more staff and claims managers, that is precisely what it is doing at the moment.