Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Seamus Logan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Quigley]

I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that his constituents will be able to explain why.

The project has been plagued by delay after delay, the costs have soared to more than £360 million, and islanders have been left without the reliable transport they were promised. One vessel is now years behind schedule, while the other may not set sail until 2026—not 20:26 by the 24-hour clock, but the year 2026. It is not just a failure of infrastructure, but a failure of leadership, a failure of accountability and, most importantly, a failure to respect the island communities who rely on these lifeline services. Now the SNP is asking us to entrust it with even greater powers over immigration. Never once, while scanning the horizon for dolphins off the coast of Nairn, did I think that Scotland should have its own separate immigration laws or that that would solve everything.

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

How the hon. Member has managed to bring ferries into a debate about a Scottish visa is beyond me. Instead of focusing on the issues that he sees with capital projects in Scotland, why does he not talk about some of the capital project failures in England?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I remind hon. Members that this is a debate about why Scotland should have devolved powers over immigration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

I have the benefit of having been a tour guide in a previous life. I often brought American visitors into Dublin and on into Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady says that she is the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, so I point out to her that there is no border in that regard. The tourists pass freely from the south to the north and back into the south, so I have no idea what she is talking about. Will she elaborate on where the problem might arise for those tourists?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

If the hon. Member is aware of the ETA situation we have in the Home Office, he will know that people have to have applied online to be able to travel into the north. Many concerns are being raised with me that that is a real issue. [Interruption.] Well, it is true—tourism in Northern Ireland is struggling, because people will not go there because of the additional paperwork that there is. It is a real issue. Because I am so generous, I will send some of my correspondence and the concerns that have been raised with me to the hon. Gentleman. He may like to cast his eye over them, just to put the record straight.

An argument I have heard in favour of the Bill is that it would help with growing the hospitality sector in Scotland, which is fantastic. I enjoy visiting Scotland, particularly for rugby; the rugby games may be unsuccessful, but I enjoy it. There is tourism from Wales to Scotland, and I would hate for there to be any hindrance in that regard. Members will know my passion for rugby, and I make regular visits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are far better when we work together on these islands than when we drive each other apart.

The Scottish National party’s model for higher education in Scotland has been nothing short of a failure. Disadvantaged teenagers are less likely to get into university in Scotland than their peers south of the border. The Scottish National party is failing the least well-off in society, blocking social mobility through the transformative power of education.

[Seamus Logan]

After the shadow Secretary of State’s long litany of talking down Scotland, the Scottish Government and all their failures, can he explain why the people of Scotland have elected the SNP for the past 18 years and why the polls show that we can expect to be elected again next year?

[Andrew Bowie]

It ill behoves me to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I was not talking down Scotland; I was talking down the Scottish National party’s record. I know the SNP thinks that it is Scotland and that Scotland is the SNP, but it most certainly is not. As for setting out a long litany of failures, I have only just started, believe you me—but as this debate must conclude at 2.30 pm, we simply do not have time to go through the list of failures of the Scottish National party in government over the past 18 years. The people of Scotland will have the chance to demonstrate at the polls next year whether they have confidence in the Scottish National party to continue in government. That is the only poll that matters, and we will see what happens in May 2026.

Let us address the utter absurdity of the Scottish Government’s proposed additional Scottish graduate visa, which would allow graduates four unsponsored years. It is even possible that those on the four-year graduate visa would qualify for permanent residence. Members have also raised the issue of Scotland’s declining birth rate. Proposing immigration as a quick fix for a declining population is wrong-headed and short-sighted. High immigration to solve low birth rates and an ageing population is a pyramid-scheme response. Working-age immigrants initially slow the growth of the age dependency ratio; however, they will in turn age and perpetuate the same crisis. Nations across the developed world face the myriad issues that an ageing population presents. The Scottish National party should be more focused on supporting working families and improving the economic outlook and prosperity, rather than proposing unfettered immigration. It might take the radical approach proposed by the Scottish Conservative party of making Scotland the lowest-taxed, rather than the highest-taxed, part of our United Kingdom and see what that does to attract people north of the border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

As I have said throughout this debate, this is a really complex area. We cannot deal with it by just pulling on one lever and with a separate immigration system. We can deal with it by providing proper pay in the workplace, which is what we have done through our new deal for working people. We can provide housing, so that people can live there and afford to live there. We can provide connectivity, so that people can move around. A very practical thing that the Scottish Government could have done was to pass on the full rates relief that English hospitality businesses had, which was not passed on to Scottish hospitality businesses. Indeed, despite this Government legislating for a 40% reduction in perpetuity, the Scottish Government still refuse to do that.

[Seamus Logan]

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) will agree that the difficulty in my constituency is not the issue of proper pay or housing. [Interruption.] If Labour Members will just listen for a moment, they will hear the issue is that we are at full employment. Some 2.3% of the population between the ages of 16 and 64 are unemployed. By any definition, that is full employment. The issue is that we cannot get the staff. The Secretary of State is ducking the question, so will he please answer it?

[Ian Murray]

Let us do a little mathematics. Some 2.3% of the population in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are unemployed, and nearly one in six young people across Scotland are not in education, employment or training. That is nearly 100,000 young people alone. The question must be: why are those young people not seeking out those jobs in his constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter)? The hon. Gentleman wants to say to those young people, “You stay not in employment, education or training, and we will pull a separate immigration lever to get people to work in poorly paid industries, rather than boosting pay, careers, progression and the places that people want to live and work in.”

Scotland has a proud industrial past—indeed, we all know that from history—and it can have a bright industrial future that delivers jobs and wealth for families for generations to come. For too long, Scottish workers have missed out on work, and I worry that a new generation will miss out on the skills required to take up the new opportunities. While the Scotland Office will seek to work in co-operation with the Scottish Government, I am afraid that this debate is just another example of the SNP demanding more powers to distract from its own failures rather than take responsibility for them.

UK visas are tied to locations already—an international student at the University of Edinburgh is not commuting from Somerset. The question is then: at a time when the previous Government presided over record levels of immigration, why is Scotland not a more attractive place for people coming to the UK to work or study? I suggest that it is down to 20 years of SNP failure on policy delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

If my comments fall out of scope, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be very happy for you to tell me, as you have the right to, and as you do so well; I will then change my remarks. However, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire spent three quarters of his rather lengthy contribution talking about the same issues that I am addressing. He may want to reflect on that.

[Seamus Logan]

I welcome your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, with regard to the focus of the debate.

You are speaking about waiting list times for cancer treatment. What has that got to do with immigration? Secondly, you keep focusing on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know the debate is very intense, but “you” means me. No doubt the hon. Member is not critiquing me.

[Seamus Logan]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is talking about health metrics. We will see about the validity of some of those health metrics for England over the next few months, but there are many other metrics in health and social care. In Scotland, we are very proud to have free prescriptions, free social care, free personal care and many more benefits. I will not list them all in the way that you do, with your litany of so-called failures, because I want to talk up Scotland—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. That is twice! “You” refers to the Chair. I think that is the end of that intervention. I call the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is right to again highlight the failures of the Scottish Government, which is one of the reasons that people are not staying. We know that this is a challenge, and not just in Scotland. Areas of England have also been left behind and have challenges in keeping their young populations. A lot of work is being done in places such as west Cumbria, where people who left for university outside the area tended not to come back. An awful lot of work has been done there to try to hold on to those young people, so that they bring their families up there and the younger population in those communities does not reduce. There are examples where this work is being done well, and there are examples where it is still early days, but we need to acknowledge the problem. We cannot gloss over it by saying that a new immigration policy will solve everything.

The Migration Advisory Committee has been raised a number of times. It is worth sharing one of the moments in the Home Office that was a screw-up. One of the challenges is that the Home Office is a Department of many parts, and a panic came across my desk that there was a sudden rash of marriages between Ukrainian women—this was a long time before the tragic war in Ukraine and the illegal invasion by Putin—and Scottish men. It triggered a bit of the Home Office to wonder whether fraud was going on. There were examples of newspapers advertising for brides from other countries, so it was not a frivolous concern of the Home Office.

It turned out that the Migration Advisory Committee had listened to colleagues in Scotland and acted on what they were saying. There was a severe shortage of fish filleters on the west coast of Scotland, so the Migration Advisory Committee had put it on the shortage occupation list for Scotland. It turns out that one of the many skills that Ukrainian women have is that many of them are very good fish filleters, so the word went round and they came and helped the Scottish economy. Obviously it ended up with a number of them settling and marrying Scottish men. [Interruption.] I fear I may choke from an hon. Friend’s seated intervention; I am a happily married woman. It is not a concern for me to look to our Scottish colleagues and see what the best of the pickings are. [Laughter.]

[Seamus Logan]

This might be an opportunity for the hon. Member to catch her breath. She is making a number of claims about Ukrainian women and Scottish people, but I want to go back to something she said earlier about Stranraer and Cairnryan, which is a place I am familiar with as an Irish person and a guide. I just wanted to correct the record: Stranraer port closed many, many years ago. The example that you gave is completely impossible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members should not use “you”. The hon. Member was told off twice earlier for using it, and he came and apologised to the Chair. I would not have mentioned it, were I not being accurate in making clear for the record that he had been inappropriate with his language.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

I thank my hon. Friend, not just for her service to her constituents but her previous service in the NHS. As she has noted, thanks to Labour, NHS waiting lists in England have fallen month on month, because this Government have a plan and we have invested. Sadly, it is a completely different story in Scotland, as she has pointed out. Like mine, her constituents see a situation in which almost one in six people are now stuck on a waiting list. John Swinney has announced this SNP Government’s fifth NHS recovery plan in less than four years, but patients and staff know that it is not good enough, and we need a new direction.

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

The Minister is right to speak of the wonderful NHS staff that we have, but she also speaks of a new direction that is required. Let me give the House a clue as to what new direction she might be speaking of. The Good Law Project revealed this month that more than 60% of donations to Labour’s Health Secretary, totalling £372,000, came from individuals and companies linked to the private healthcare sector. As the same Labour Health Secretary is so fond of saying, all roads lead to Westminster, including on NHS funding. With cuts to public services coming down the line, is the Secretary of State—or the Minister—worried about the influence of private health donors on Cabinet colleagues?

[Kirsty McNeill]

The hon. Gentleman says that there have been cuts to public services. Let me put on record once again that this Labour Government pledged to end austerity, and we have, with a record settlement for Scotland’s public services. That money has been squandered by the SNP Government, such that we are still in a situation where nearly one in six Scots are on a waiting list. South of the border, waiting lists have fallen for the fifth month in a row. That is the difference made by a Labour Government with a plan and a willingness to fund it.

Budget: Scotland

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregor Poynton]

As I said at the start, not all the decisions in this Budget were easy. We had been left a horrible economic inheritance by the Tories, and we needed to make decisions to tackle that and clear the mess up that they made.

The decisions in the Budget mean that the Scottish Government are receiving more per person than the equivalent UK Government spending for the rest of the UK. As I said, in 2025-26, we will see the biggest financial settlement to the Scottish Government in the history of devolution. Sadly, however, we know from bitter experience that more money to the Scottish Government does not guarantee success, because the Scottish National party is taking Scotland in the wrong direction and being careless with Scotland’s money.

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

The hon. Gentleman speaks about the ending of austerity, but how can he say that when we have seen the removal of the winter fuel payment and a refusal by the Labour Government to end the two-child cap?

[Gregor Poynton]

We have delivered the largest budget settlement in the history of devolution—that is the end of austerity. [Interruption.] Well, you have it to spend.

SNP decisions have left a black hole in Scotland’s finances. The billions in extra cash delivered in this Budget must not be used simply to cover up the SNP’s “buy now and pay later” policies. That money must reach the frontline, to bring down waiting lists and drive up educational standards. The SNP has nowhere to hide now.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this debate, and for his excellent survey of the considerable benefits of the Budget for Scotland.

On economic forecasts, I am a somewhat boring Member of Parliament—I like to read the Financial Times. It wrote a leader a few days ago that was, in some parts, somewhat critical. However, the article pointed out that

“Britain’s economic outlook in fact looks quite robust compared to other advanced economies. According to the Financial Times’ annual poll, economists reckon that the UK will outgrow France and Germany this year…Labour’s strong parliamentary majority is another positive for investors as political uncertainty ramps up elsewhere.”

I could go on. I simply point out that this Government are pro-growth and pro-industry; people understand that and economists understand that.

The Budget delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivers on our commitments to the electorate. It adds VAT to private school fees, providing more funds to state schools, including in Glasgow; it tackles poverty by increasing the national living wage, giving thousands of my constituents a pay rise; it provides pensioners with over £400 this year due to our commitment to the triple lock; and it reduces the level of deductions that can be made for universal credit payments—a boost to struggling families in Glasgow.

If one were to listen to the SNP, one might think that the Budget was terrible news for Scotland and an absolute disaster. In fact, it delivers the largest settlement ever for a Scottish Government, with £4.9 billion of additional funding over the next two years—a UK Labour Government and 37 Scottish Labour MPs delivering for Scotland. That significant boost to Scotland’s public finances is critical, with nearly one in six Scots on an NHS waiting list. As we heard just before Christmas, there are many people who have been waiting for more than two years for NHS treatment in Scotland—many more, proportionally, than in England.

One in three Scots children is regularly absent from school, and there are declining police officer numbers on the street at a time when people are petrified about crime. Scotland’s public services are in utter crisis after almost 18 years of SNP misrule. This Government have provided the SNP Government with the money. They have no excuses; they must use the funding wisely to clear up their mess.

SNP and Tory colleagues have repeatedly criticised the Government’s Budget, but failed to offer a credible alternative. Time and again, they say we should spend more money but fail to explain where the funding should come from. That is not credible. One hears about “magic money tree” economics—here we have a whole forest of magic money trees. Yes, we have made difficult decisions in our Budget, but government is about confronting difficult decisions to manage public finances carefully. Independent experts are clear that the SNP has failed to manage the Scottish public finances. There have been three years of in-year emergency budget cuts due to their mismanagement and £5 billion wasted on failed SNP pet projects, while, for example, ferries do not sail and the islands suffer from appalling connectivity.

[Seamus Logan]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[John Grady]

No, I will not. Time is marching on, and many people wish to speak.

The SNP cannot be trusted with public money—remember that this is the public’s money. People in Glasgow East face much higher income tax rates than their counterparts in England because of the SNP Government’s mistakes. As my friend, the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, set out yesterday, after nearly two decades of SNP failure in government, Scotland needs “a new direction”. It needs a new Government, with

“new hope, new thinking, new solutions”,

not more of the same divisive politics of the last two decades.

On 4 July, the people of Glasgow made a choice: that our great city, in its 850th year, shall be represented by a Labour Government. That Labour Government have delivered for Scotland by providing a record funding settlement. Scotland chose a Labour Government, electing 37 Labour MPs. This Budget, with its record increase in funding for Scotland, demonstrates this Labour Government’s absolute commitment to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torcuil Crichton]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passionate defence of his own position, but the truth is that, despite higher spending per head in Scotland, that money is inefficiently used on a massive management structure—boards upon boards and quangos upon quangos—that does not put patients first, as evidenced in the Western Isles.

There is no better evidence of these issues than the transport decisions made over my constituents. We have three companies—a Bermuda triangle—running ferry services: CalMac, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and Transport Scotland, with hardly an island representative.

[Seamus Logan]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Torcuil Crichton]

Time is short, my friend, so I must press on.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I was not going to speak, but seeing as you have asked me to, Ms Vaz, I will speak briefly. I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this important debate. I have only one point to make, because we are short of time. Labour Members continually mention to us the ferries—I have heard the ferries mentioned more times than I heard Slade played over Christmas, and that was quite a lot—but they never mention High Speed 2. The people of Scotland are paying for that. They are also paying for Trident and for Hinkley Point.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Seamus Logan]

No, I am not giving away—in retaliation.

Hinkley Point reactor 1 has now been delayed until 2029 or maybe 2031, we have no date for reactor 2, and as for reactor 3—

[Torcuil Crichton]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Seamus Logan]

I will finally give way.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for not giving way to him when I was mid-flow during my own speech. We are waiting until 2031 or 2032 for our ferries. We need ferries this winter, not next decade.

[Seamus Logan]

The point I am trying to make is that Labour Members continually refer to fiscal mismanagement, when in fact I have described examples of fiscal mismanagement that the people of Scotland are paying for. I will leave it there, Ms Vaz; thank you very much for inviting me to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty McNeill]

I will make some progress. The Budget ensured the largest real-terms Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in the whole history of devolution, with an additional £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government to spend this financial year and an additional £3.4 billion next year. It means that the Scottish Government are receiving more than 20% more per person than equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. It delivered the most for those with the least, because that is what Labour Governments do.

[Seamus Logan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kirsty McNeill]

At the election, Scotland was offered a choice—the politics of protest or the politics of progress. It chose the latter, and the result is a Budget that protects working people in Scotland and delivers more money than ever before for Scottish public services. That is what change looks like. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) asked whether these were the choices that needed to be made, and to that I say an unequivocal yes, because this Government are simply not prepared to write cheques that we cannot afford to cash.

The spectacular recklessness of the last Conservative Government is something for which we await an apology, but in the meantime, it falls as ever to Labour to do the work of repair and renewal. It is our task to make whole what has been broken, and to make the long-term decisions that will ensure Scottish families can get on and not just get by.

[Seamus Logan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I will in just one minute. The Chancellor has made it clear that, while protecting working people with measures to reduce the cost of living, difficult decisions would be required. Unlike the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), we are not prepared to shirk them.

[Seamus Logan]

The Minister speaks of broken promises and Labour keeping their promises, but what about the promise not to attack the whisky industry and the promise not to raise national insurance as a tax?

[Kirsty McNeill]

We have made responsible tax choices entirely in line with our manifesto. That is why the rates of employers’ national insurance will increase by just 1.2 percentage points. The smallest businesses will be protected as the employment allowance will increase from £5,000 to £10,500, allowing Scottish firms to employ four national living wage employees full time without paying any employer national insurance on their wages.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

No projects have been cancelled. The Perth deal is under consideration by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury. It has not been cancelled; it has merely been paused. The hon. Gentleman should speak to his colleagues in the Scottish Government, who have £4.9 billion extra in Barnett consequentials to spend today. Perhaps he could even have a chat with some of his colleagues sitting next to him, who seem happier in Holyrood than they are here.

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

7. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of proposed changes to employer national insurance contributions on hospices in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

I know there is consensus right across this House on the enormous value of the hospice sector and the extraordinary work that it does—work that, sadly, has been undervalued for far too long. Support for additional employer national insurance contributions will be allocated to Departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way for the devolved Governments. The rise does not begin until April, and we will set out further details on the allocation of funding in due course.

[Seamus Logan]

There are 45 hospices in Scotland—I cannot be certain of that figure, because so many of them are in dire financial circumstances. I think of Roxburghe House in Aberdeen, which provides services to my constituents and those of other MPs in this Chamber. Another organisation that provides vital hospice care is the Marie Curie charity, which provides services in Edinburgh and Glasgow. It also provides hospice-at-home care. The charity is facing a bill close to £3 million as a result of decisions made by this Government. What does the Minister have to say about the help that can be provided to Marie Curie and other organisations?

[Kirsty McNeill]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the pressures on hospice funding long predate the Budget and relate to the decline in real-terms funding from the Scottish Government. I note that nearly 5,000 members of the public have written to the Scottish Government recently to support calls from the Scottish hospice leadership for fair funding. Those calls might be answered this afternoon when the SNP Government will have an extra £5 billion to spend. This was secured by Scottish Labour MPs but voted against by SNP MPs. It will be spent this afternoon by SNP Ministers. Make it make sense!