Seamus Logan
MP for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“I have seen in my own lifetime, in the land of my birth, how information can be hidden in the name of national security when in fact the interest is not that of the nation but of the Government of the day. That is why I believed that amendment 20 was important, and I am glad to say that 24 MPs from across the House agreed with me.”
“The intent of the amendment, which is supported by Members from a wide range of parties across the House, was to ensure that we here in Parliament, who are elected by the people, would, through the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House, have had oversight of any decision by the head of an intelligence service to hide informatio…”
“I rise to speak as a member of the Bill Committee and principally in support of amendment 20 in my name, which seeks to provide a necessary layer of democratic parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of the intelligence services. I listened very carefully to what the members of the ISC present—the hon.”
“The only other thing I want to say before I finish is the old French saying, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”. We need to be careful about the implementation of this law, so that we do not see the repeat of these mistakes at some point in the future. In conclusion, I reiterate our support for this legislation.”
“That said, I cannot let today pass without making some reference to the fact that, considering the long journey that we have been on—considering the meetings; considering the way in which the Bill Committee was forced to truncate its work into a very limited period; considering the negotiations that followed; considering the pulling of th…”
“Before turning to my amendment, I must acknowledge the work of the Hillsborough families and their supporters for their courage, tenacity and determination over the past 37 years, which has brought us to this point today.”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Seamus Logan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for securing this important debate, and I highlight that this is only the second time that a Backbench Business debate on Gaza has taken place in this Chamber. The reaction of the UK Government since they came into office has been, at best, supine, or at worst, grossly negligent. They have responded to UN independent international commissions of inquiry in other contexts, such as Ukraine—and rightly so—but they have failed to do so on Gaza. Back in September 2025, the UN’s “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” found that Israel had committed a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”
“I hope the Minister will be able to explain that decision, given the ongoing violation of the ceasefire by Israeli forces in Gaza, which is continuing the genocidal horror of these past two and a half years. When talk of peace involves the perpetrators of violence and not the violated—not the voices of those who have lost so much on all sides—war crimes will go unpunished and festering wounds of injustice will lead to further conflict. The Prime Minister, as a former human rights lawyer, must understand that. Why then, given everything that we know, and all that we have witnessed, do his Government remain in a state of ambivalence on assessments of genocide under international law in Palestine? Does the clue to the answer lie in this Government’s protection of trade and diplomatic ties to Israel and the US?”
“Why do they accept the UN’s reports on Ukraine, but not Gaza? Why do they not accept the conclusions of UK-based lawyers, including Supreme Court justices, who signed a letter to the Prime Minister in May last year to confirm that a genocide is being perpetrated? I wish to turn to the letter that I and 57 other parliamentarians have signed, led by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), explaining to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that we are extremely concerned by the Government’s apparent move towards unblocking arms licences to Israel, which they had suspended in September 2024, and the transfer of new F-35s from a British airbase. This is at odds with the Government’s international legal obligations, including the genocide convention.”
“I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In recent days, we have learned that the IDF has admitted its role in the death of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Meanwhile, Secretary-General António Guterres warns us that, as we enter 2026, the clock is ticking louder than ever, with conditions on the ground in Palestine remaining perilously fragile. Only yesterday, a UN committee mandated to promote the realisation of Palestinian rights reaffirmed calls for a two-state solution, which Secretary-General Guterres endorsed as the only viable path towards achieving long-lasting peace and security between Palestine and Israel. However, in this context, at least another 449 men, women and children have been killed by Israeli forces during the so-called ceasefire. Why can the UK Government not see what the UN can?”
“In 2024, 2.64 million procedures using animals took place in UK labs: five animals used in research every minute of every day, representing a decrease of only 1.21% from 2023.”
“The findings show just how much we are failing to prevent animals from suffering when they are used in scientific experiments, due to the incidence of non-compliance with the law or with licence conditions. The report focuses on numerous incidents from across 2024, which sadly included animals that have starved to death or drowned. Other animals were put into waste bags by mistake and others were kept alive beyond humane endpoints. The incidents in the report make for upsetting reading. I am a supporter of phasing out animal experimentation in medical research, and I believe this transition should be completed urgently. The very least we can do in the meantime for those animals used in laboratories is to ensure their welfare and minimise their suffering. It is important to put the issue in context.”
“Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who leads the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, as well as to the work of Animal Free Research UK and its chief executive, Carla Owen, who is in the Public Gallery and was behind the Herbie’s law campaign. Herbie has unfortunately passed, but the campaign lives on. I also want to thank Cruelty Free International, which continues to champion the ending of animal research worldwide. In this debate, I want to focus on the weak oversight of the regulations, which has led to shocking failures to protect animals from undue suffering; that has been highlighted in the Home Office report.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report 2024. It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John, and it is a pleasure to introduce this debate. It concerns the use of animals in scientific research and the most recent Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report for 2024, which was published in December 2025. The subject is important to me, to many of my constituents and possibly to up to half the population of these islands who have the pleasure—nay, the privilege—of sharing their lives with a pet. I pay tribute to the work of the hon.”
“In 2024, there were 146 cases of non-compliance in British laboratories, a 16% decrease from the 169 cases reported in 2023.”
“I completely agree; that is the point that I am trying to draw out. There were 2,646 procedures on dogs and 1,936 on non-human primates. Examples include non-human primates being subjected to invasive brain surgery and deprived of fluid to induce them to perform behavioural tasks and mice being given psychostimulant rewards such as cocaine or amphetamines—and this, under licence conditions. However, the ASRU report highlighted instances in which compliance with these licence conditions was not followed; there have been failures to provide adequate care and failure to provide food and water, which are the most basic welfare needs of animals being held in laboratories across the UK. In one very distressing incident, it is reported that a mother was removed from its cage and killed, resulting in unweaned pups starving to death.”
“I think I speak for many attending the debate when I say that we are keen to see an end to animal suffering in medical research. The ASRU report’s findings are a stark reminder of what is at stake for animals when the law is broken, when licence conditions are not followed or when measures to ensure compliance are not as robust as they could be. The UK has an opportunity not only to secure our position as a global leader in animal protection and scientific innovation, but to end animal suffering in scientific research. That can be ensured only through a full transition from animal experimentation across the next decade. The ASRU report is a stark reminder that until that transition is in place, we will continue to fail animals in laboratories across the UK.”
“Although the strategy is committed to increasing funding for human-specific technologies, founding a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and setting up a cross-Government ministerial Committee to oversee implementation, it contains no timeline for phasing out all animal experiments. We on the APPG on phasing out animal experiments have discussed implementing Herbie’s law as a practical pathway to phase out animal testing, in collaboration with the scientific community. Legal experts have prepared a draft of Herbie’s law, entitled the human-specific technologies bill, describing how Government could ensure progress and how scientists could be supported, with detail on setting up an expert advisory committee to give specialist advice on animal replacement.”
“Labour’s publication last November of its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to the use of animals in science is very welcome, but meaningful change will not occur without a series of more robust measures. I believe that the difficulty is that the UK is in danger of falling behind other international partners—in the European Union and, interestingly, in the US, which is speeding forward within three to five years to remove the requirement for animals to be used in research. It is strange that we appear to be falling behind internationally in this instance.”
“The UK Government have stated: “The Home Office is in the final stages of delivering a comprehensive programme of regulatory reform to further strengthen the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU), ensuring confidence in the regulatory system and maintaining robust compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.” Those reforms include increasing the number of full-time inspectors by March this year, but I would argue that that internal reform does not go far enough. The incidence of non-compliance shows that increasing the number of inspectors alone may not result in meaningful change. I mentioned that 2.64 million procedures are taking place each year. We cannot rely solely on a few more full-time inspectors to turn the situation around; I note that the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying.”
“The ASRU is responsible for licensing animal experiments in the UK, to protect animals in science and ensure compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That means following the principles known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. In other words, use non-animal methods where possible, reduce the number used to a minimum and refine procedures to minimise suffering. I know from visits undertaken by the APPG, which I referred to earlier, that there is a growing use of laboratory-grown human tissue in experimentation, which we need to support as parliamentarians.”
“I completely agree, although the hon. Member is addressing the wider issue of animal welfare, while my focus today is on this report. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right. I was talking about non-compliance. The cases involved more than 22,000 animals, including mice, rats, fish, cows, sheep, frogs, guinea pigs, bats, dogs, non-human primates, cats, a hamster and a rabbit. I might add that those are the reported incidents; 68 establishment audits were conducted for the report but only 3% of cases of non-compliance were identified by audits and 69% were self-reported. That can hardly be described as a robust inspection system. In 75% of cases—three quarters—the only sanction was “inspector advice”.”
“I am particularly interested in a couple of the Minister’s comments. She said that where a non-animal alternative exists, no approval should be given—absolutely. She drew attention to the need to move as quickly as the science allows. I am sure the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, noted her invitation to meet Lord Vallance to discuss these issues. That would be very welcome indeed. It simply remains for me to mention my own little pet cockapoo, Lola. Anyone who knows anything about dogs know how sentient and clever they are. They have an amazing vocabulary, and they can count. The only thing they cannot do is speak—more’s the pity—although that is maybe not a bad thing in some ways. I will conclude by thanking everyone who took part, and the members of the public who attended.”
“I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman)—a colleague who is no longer here once referred to him as the Member for aloha—and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). I also thank the Minister for her very thoughtful response. I cannot think of many topics on which there is such a tremendous cross-party alliance, which has included the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Members. As the Minister said, virtually no MP would disagree with our intent here, so that is very encouraging.”
“Yesterday, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in the Chamber that was incorrect, misleading and disrespectful to Lord Brodie—”
“What does the Leader of the House propose to do to put a stop to Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and repeating falsehoods, and will he call on the Deputy Prime Minister to apologise for undermining Lord Brodie?”
“I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in the Chamber that was incorrect, inadvertently misleading and disrespectful to Lord Brodie, who is chairing a public inquiry into events at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. He stated that the Scottish Government had “sided with the health board and dismissed families who went through tragic circumstances.” —[ Official Report , 28 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 900.] That is categorically untrue, given that it was the SNP Scottish Government who set up the public inquiry. [ Interruption. ] Worse, it was a naked pre-election smear and an act of desperation on behalf of the Labour party, which is struggling to make third place in the polls.”
“The Secretary of State knows that the SNP believes that this is a pragmatic Bill that will have a net-positive outcome for the health service in Scotland. We welcome the Bill and are glad to support it. However, there are specialty fields, such as general practice, which have a high number of international graduates. Because of Government policy, there are significant challenges in supporting the retention of some individuals. For example, the new requirement for settled status is 10 years with some exceptions, whereas training programmes are often only three years long. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want the UK to be a hostile environment for our vital overseas medical staff. Will he therefore make representations to the Home Office so that it is aware of the anomaly?”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for this debate, those hon. Members who supported his application, and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time on this important subject. However, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) used so much of their time to attack the SNP Scottish Government. The plain fact of the matter is that I am elected, as are they, to deal with matters in this place. My advice to them is: if you are so concerned about Scottish matters in Holyrood, please stand for election there. I want to give some context before I deal with those matters that are relevant to Westminster.”
“The Scottish Government were sidelined in the allocation of the coastal growth fund, with the pathetic excuse that they had requested a devolved approach. Now we learn from the Fishing News that the application of the Barnett formula was because of a decision by the Treasury to baseline the marine allocation for 2024-25, rather than ringfencing it. To clear this up for Members who commented on it, at no point did the Scottish Government say that the allocation should be Barnettised; they simply asked for the devolution of the decision making on that fund to Scotland.”
“The Prime Minister said that this UK-EU deal was a “win-win”, but that characterisation is risible. Then, as if to pour salt in the wound, the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund allocations saw Scotland receiving just £28 million over 12 years, or just over £2.3 million a year—7.8% of the fund. How on earth is that approach sustainable? It is an unmitigated disaster for Scottish fishers. Trading away access to Scottish waters and refusing to mitigate that policy through the coastal growth fund is simply creating the conditions for the Scottish fishing industry to fail. A sector worth £756 million to the Scottish economy faces changed conditions with no consultation, as Members have acknowledged, mitigated by a pitiful amount from this UK Government.”
“The industry is obviously important to Scotland’s rural and coastal communities; it is a key part of Scotland’s food economy and provides employment all around our coast. The issue of this debate is crucial to my constituents—but, regrettably, the decisions taken by the Westminster Government regarding the Scottish fishing industry are regarded by those constituents as treacherous. First, we had the EU-UK agreement, announced last year, which saw fishing access arrangements extended for 12 years, rather than the preferred annual renegotiation that would have ensured better leverage for fishers. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described this decision as “disastrous” for Scottish farming and described the UK Government’s view as being that the fishing industry is “expendable”.”
“No, not yet. I may allow interventions later, but I want to get to the second paragraph of my speech first. Fishing is an incredibly important livelihood for many of my constituents. Fraserburgh and Peterhead ports are among the largest fishing ports in Europe in terms of the tonnage and value they consistently bring in. Across Scotland, the Scottish Government’s Scottish sea fisheries statistics show that the value of the Scottish fishing industry in 2024 was £756 million—the highest in the past 10 years. Scotland’s sea area is six times larger than our land area and accounts for 63% of the UK’s exclusive economic zone. It is therefore no surprise that Scotland accounts for the largest part of the UK’s fishing industry, generally representing around 60% of total UK landings by both tonnage and value.”
“I want to address that now. Under the European maritime and fisheries fund, when we were part of the European Union, the UK received approximately £207 million over six years, of which Scotland received 46%—46%, not 7.8%. That is why Scotland wanted that matter devolved: so that we could properly support the Scottish fishing industry, in the same way that the European Union and the UK did in the past. Why change the approach?”
“We are at full employment in my constituency, and efforts to recruit young people into this industry are simply not working—just ask Mike Park at the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. The future of fishing in Scotland is at a precarious stage, and I want to use this opportunity to plead with the UK Government: please listen to the Scottish Government, to the Scottish fishing industry and to fishermen and women to get this right. One more U-turn will not make much difference to this Government, considering the number they have already made, but it will make the world of difference to fishing and coastal communities in Scotland. It is not too late to give Scotland a fair deal.”
“Key sector stakeholders have raised concerns about the changes to visas coming into force at the end of this year and the impact this will have, particularly on processing. Their concerns about visa provision extend to hiring workers for operations within the 12 nautical mile limit, given the overlap in fishing grounds. I appreciate that this is not within the Minister’s brief, but I would be grateful for clarity from her, or at least for her to tell us that she is lobbying the Home Office on this point, so that people and industries in my constituency can thrive and contribute to our growing economy. But please do not try to tell us that we need to hire local people. This mythical workforce sitting at home twiddling their thumbs simply does not exist.”
“I can tell the Minister that that is not going to change any time soon with this approach, because this Government are stealing our money to prop up their failing support in coastal communities in England. A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made no effort—zero effort—to lobby the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a fairer and proportionate allocation, given Scotland’s massive contribution to our food sector. What is the point of the UK Government’s Scotland Office if it does not stand up for Scotland? Finally, as if the above were not enough, visa restrictions by the Home Office have been suffocating the growth of fishing in Scotland.”
“The hon. Member will know that, in reality, we do work very well together in the APPG under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I accept the point about the fishing and coastal growth fund. I think he agrees with me that we need a review of that decision, but I will come back to that later. Why did the Westminster Government change the approach and Barnettise the formula? Many of my constituents think it is because there are no votes for Labour and there is no prospect of ever winning another seat north of the Tay, alongside perhaps the seat of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.”
“The shadow Minister is speaking about the European Union. Just today, I have heard about requests from the European Union regarding the size of fishing nets, which the British Government have apparently accepted without question. Is the shadow Minister aware of that?”
“T9. My constituent Pelin Omar has asked me about the ceasefire that was announced on Sunday between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces, which has already unravelled, with fighting resuming in less than 24 hours. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to promote humanitarian access, international monitoring and a long-term reconciliation between the Kurdish people in Aleppo and northern Syria and the Syrian Government? Do the Government support more devolved government as a solution to bring about lasting peace for the Kurdish people?”
“I pay tribute to the Minister for the constructive, collaborative and collegiate way in which she has worked, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). That is in stark contrast with the disgraceful words from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), and his behaviour in this statement. This whole process has been marked by parties of all shades and hues working together. In that spirit, I want to reassure the Hillsborough families that that is the way in which we have proceeded on our work in association with the Bill, and we will continue to do so. I endorsed amendment 23—I think it is sound—and Pete Weatherby has also endorsed my amendment 20, which provides a simple role for the Intelligence and Security Committee.”
“I genuinely welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is able to praise the efforts of NHS staff this Christmas and new year, but there is good news in Scotland, too: waiting lists have fallen for the longest waiters for the sixth month in a row and threatened industrial action by resident doctors has been called off. However, there is anxiety not just in Scotland but across these islands about the new UK-US medicines deal and its impact on the NHS. Will the Secretary of State change his habit this new year with a new year’s resolution and answer my question? Where is the money coming from for the UK-US drugs deal?”
“In conclusion, the NFU Scotland president, Andrew Connon, stated: “The anti-forestalling clause, in particular, is morally indefensible. No tax policy should ever place a terminally ill farmer in the position of being financially better off dead than alive.” The House will have an opportunity later on to protect farm production from that perverse incentive; that is what my amendment would achieve. The amendment before us tonight gives us an opportunity to change this. If we fail to do that tonight, I will seek to bring my amendment back on Report.”
“If no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That creates an appalling situation where terminally ill or elderly farmers, especially those unlikely to live for a further seven years, face perverse choices: keep the farm and hope to die before April this year; sell the farm, with a potential loss of food production to the nation; or transfer the farm in the usual way and saddle their children with a huge tax bill. No set of tax measures should—nor should this Bill —create such a situation. Of course these IHT rules apply elsewhere, but this is where we see Labour failing to understand what it is dealing with. A working farm is like no other business. What it produces concerns everyone, not some segment or niche area of the economy.”
“We need an end to the sound of screeching tyres from the Government machine as it performs another U-turn that could have been avoided. If “food security is national security”, as Labour said in its manifesto, why did Labour feel it was acceptable to make farmers face insecurity about their livelihoods, and the country face food insecurity in the face of a growing international crisis? After the recently announced threshold changes, it was very disappointing to see the failure of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to offer an apology to the people who produce our food. The anti-forestalling clause in the Bill continues to pose a perverse incentive. It penalises anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a substantial IHT bill and potentially triggering capital gains tax.”
“Here is the killer: “After listening, the Government believes the approach and timescale set out for these reforms is an appropriate one.” In the 2025 Budget, just a few months ago, the spousal transfer allowances were changed, and this was welcomed, but there was nothing further for worried farmers. As in so many areas in which this Government have been forced to U-turn, why did they not listen from the start? Is everything we say on these Benches to be dismissed as political rhetoric? Was it arrogance? Look where this has led—to a Prime Minister and a Government regarded by the public as the worst ever. We do not need a Government who listen later, if they feel like it. We need a Government who listen from the start.”
“When defending the decision in response to the Environment, Food and Rural Committee’s first report on the Government’s vision for farming, published in May last year, the UK Government said: “Ministers from multiple Government departments have had several meetings with agricultural organisations on this matter since Autumn Budget 2024, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers’ Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, and the Farmers’ Union of Wales”.”
“I rise to address clause 62 and schedule 12. I, for one, cannot believe the self-congratulatory tone of so many contributions from across this Chamber. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), pointed out that Labour Members had five opportunities to change these rules, and only one Member—the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—voted to do so. However, the initial change to APR in 2024 was described by NFU Scotland as “devastating to the vast majority of farms and crofts”. The concerns raised by farmers across Scotland, including a significant number in my constituency, were ignored by a Labour Government who appeared to be completely blind to the fundamentals of rural life and rural communities.”
“Ministers have responded helpfully to me on two previous occasions regarding the “68 is too late” campaign. On both occasions—last January and most recently in writing in September—the Government indicated that they were prepared to amend or at least review pension provisions. Indeed, a working group was established to examine similar terms currently in place within the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister provide an update on the working group’s proposals and the Government’s intentions?”
“Will he take the opportunity to do so now, in the light of the fact that our conduct and social media posts are now in scope of the review?”
“I warmly welcome the review announced today by the Secretary of State. He is right to talk about the importance of upholding the integrity of our democracy, but this is not just about malign foreign interference; it is about things that are said in this place. One of the greatest threats to our democracy is the wilful spreading of misinformation by prominent politicians, and the Secretary of State is not without fault in that regard. He has repeatedly and incorrectly claimed that Scotland’s water quality was lower than England’s, but, in fact, it is significantly higher—I have pointed that out during a debate and in a point of order in this Chamber. Even when that was pointed out by the UK Statistics Authority, the Secretary of State refused to apologise.”
“As has been said, Labour is paradoxically biting the hand that feeds it, but every family across these isles is feeling this effect.”
“The anti-forestalling clause mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—clause 62 of the Bill—and the associated schedule 12 are deeply cynical, as they penalise anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a potentially massive bill. Good for the Treasury; potentially disastrous for national food security. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out, if no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That is the problem with the anti-forestalling clause. I appreciate that Labour MPs are probably preoccupied with a different aspect of succession planning at the moment, but perhaps they could focus their minds on this issue.”
“There are 51,200 farm holdings in Scotland, and I accept that not all of them will be impacted by this policy, but studies by experts such as the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation have offered an alternative approach—one that is less harsh and that would generate similar levels of revenue, but it has been ignored by the Government. As I say, although not all farms will be affected by the change to APR, all farms could be, and maybe have been, impacted by having to take new and costly legal advice in the light of these unexpected changes. The spousal transfer allowance change is welcome, but its addition points to a recognition at the Treasury. It is a shallow attempt to placate farmers in the light of the ensuing backlash and an admission that the 2024 Budget provisions were too harsh.”
“They did not know that the changes were coming—no one did—because they were not in Labour’s manifesto. What was in the manifesto, on page 59, was a pledge to recognise that “food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming whilst protecting the environment.” The sudden application of the new rules on inheritance was deeply unfair. No farmer expected it. In Scotland, 98% of the total land area across the country is classified as rural, covering about 17% of the Scottish population. Land use in my constituency is classed as 76% agricultural, 18% forest or semi-natural and 3% built-up areas.”
“I rise to focus briefly on a small number of issues in the Bill and one associated with it—I will explain. I want to focus on how these issues will impact Scotland generally and my constituents in particular. Although the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is no longer in his place, I note his comment that persistence pays off, which I think he made in reference to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). I therefore hope that the Minister is listening to me in relation to this matter. It is just over 100 days until April, when farmers across Scotland will face changes to agricultural property relief described by NFU Scotland as “one of the most significant threats to Scottish family farms in a generation”.”