Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Seamus Logan and Scott Arthur

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan]

I agree with my hon. Friend completely. I implore the Treasury to reconsider and hear what the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) said, but if it does not, my party will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report.

Labour MPs have talked a big talk about how much money is going to Scotland, but I would like to ask them how much they are taking away from Scotland, whether it is through the APR, the energy profits levy, the excise duty on Scotch whisky or the national insurance hike. Once again, it feels like Scotland’s wealth and success are being used against it by an uncaring Westminster Government.

I want to turn to one other issue: NHS drug costs. They are not in the Finance Bill, but my point is that they should have been. I appreciate that you are giving me a bit of leeway, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new UK-US trade deal in medicines raises huge questions about where the money is coming from to pay for these increases in drugs costs. If the additional costs are to come from within existing NHS budgets—that is, through efficiency savings—I must ask the Government whether they have read the University of York’s impact assessment concerning excess deaths and negative impacts on cancer patients, gastroenterology and respiratory care in particular. If the additional costs are to come from the Treasury, where is this mentioned in the Budget, in this Finance Bill or in the accompanying Red Book? It is certainly not in the Bill, but it should have been. The OBR will be listening and watching, and will get to this in due course.

What does all this mean for Scotland in Barnett consequentials? Why has there been so little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of this smoke-and-mirrors deal? Transparency is needed on costs. The Health Secretary says £1 billion to £1.5 billion. The OBR says £3 billion, and £6 billion has been suggested by other commentators. Which is it? The Government hail it as a great deal for the UK, but the truth is that no matter where this money comes from—the Treasury or existing NHS funds—patients will ultimately pay the price for filling this pharma black hole. It looks like the UK Government are over a barrel on this, with drug companies threatening to pull out of investment in the UK, bullying from an increasingly erratic White House and creeping privatisation of the NHS. The Government need to provide some answers. I simply say to all Labour Members who have bragged this evening about what a wonderful Bill this is and what a wonderful Budget this has been: why are the polls showing that this Government are the least popular in history?

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an opportune point. I respect the fact that he is here and that his political ambition is Scottish independence. The Government negotiated that trade deal with the United States, and it is one of the best deals any country in the world has. I find myself wondering what kind of deal an independent Scottish Government—perhaps led by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) sitting next to him or by John Swinney—could negotiate with Donald Trump. Would it be a better deal or a worse deal?

[Seamus Logan]

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member respects our desire for Scottish independence. I simply say to him: when will this Government respect the democratic will of the Scottish people?

I could go on to talk about energy and the coastal growth fund—two measures that, again, have particularly hurt my constituents—but I will leave it there.

Nolan Principles

Debate between Seamus Logan and Scott Arthur

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

European Union: UK Membership

Debate between Seamus Logan and Scott Arthur

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.