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 6 of 12.
“12. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of her policies on the cost of living in Scotland.”
“It is just over 500 days since this Government came to power, and the policies of the Chancellor and the Government have been a disaster for the north-east of Scotland with cost of living problems, whether that is the impact of national insurance hikes on jobs and investment, the family farm tax on the agricultural sector, the energy profits levy, which is killing jobs in the offshore sector, or the raw deal offered to our fishing industry with the coastal growth fund. Can the Secretary of State tell me and the House whether we should expect the Chancellor to fix the mess that she has made, or will the Budget be another failure for the people of the north-east—”
“In 2024-25, the NHS trust in the Secretary of State’s constituency collected £2.4 million from patient and visitor parking and a further £1 million from staff parking. Given that those costs fall hardest on the poor and the most seriously ill, will the Secretary of State consider abolishing this inequitable burden on the sick, their relatives and those who care for them?”
“First, I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing part of her statement, but I have read it. Will she confirm whether any assessment has been carried out on the economic impact on Scotland of extending the ILR wait time to 10 years and beyond? If not, why not? Whatever the needs of Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s economic and workforce needs once again appear to have been ignored. Does the Home Secretary understand that such a blanket policy risks exacerbating skills shortages, threatening vital sectors and making it harder for communities to thrive? Incredibly, for a so-called Labour Government, this lurch to the right now appears to favour the wealthy over the less wealthy.”
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Responses to a number of my written questions from Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are currently overdue. In total there are 15 written questions—14 to which responses were due by the end of October, and one to which a response was due on 5 November. Six of the 15 were tabled as named day questions. Given that written questions are one of the ways in which Members can hold the Government to account, and with perhaps as many as 100,000 civil servants based in London, may I ask whether you have any advice on what Members can do when replies from Departments are not forthcoming?”
“I thank the hon. Member for giving way, particularly because I had a magnificent speech I was not able to make. She is speaking about health-related issues, but I want to draw attention to the personal independence payment assessment process for people with Parkinson’s, and to reference the adult disability payment in Scotland. Does the shadow Minister agree that there is a much better system for assessing people’s needs, and would she recommend it to the Minister?”
“The Muscatelli report, commissioned by the Labour party in Scotland, recommended that the Scottish Government push for a bespoke immigration approach that tackles the unique issues faced by Scotland and its economy. While the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, may be a bit confused about what is devolved and what is reserved, I am sure the Home Secretary is not. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss the report further, to deliver a win for the Scottish economy and fulfil one of the manifesto commitments made by the Labour party in Scotland?”
“The chaos and confusion at the heart of this Government are deeply damaging to Scotland, to its economy and to its public services. The constant leaks, briefings and U-turns flowing from the Treasury make the Scottish Government’s task all the more difficult, and this is worsened by the Chancellor’s refusal, to date, to meet the Scottish Secretary for Finance. Can the Minister succeed in persuading the Chancellor to have this meeting, please?”
“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.”
“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”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“Significant progress is being made in Scotland, as discussions between the First Minister and President Trump during his state visit highlighted the potential for a trade deal that would strengthen ties between the US whiskey and Scotch whisky industries. The Chancellor must now show the same commitment by prioritising the Scotch whisky sector and recognising that supporting its growth means maintaining the duty freeze to allow for this world-renowned industry, and hopefully the wine sector, to thrive.”
“We know that the Government want to put growth at the heart of their strategy, but last year’s falling revenues show that excessive taxation is hurting both the industry and the Treasury. That also applies to the growing wine sector in this country. I expect that is partly to do with climate change, although I do not expect that my constituency in the north of Aberdeenshire will see any vineyards in the near future. The Scotch Whisky Association has rightly described the current excise duty system as broken. It is now up to the Chancellor to create a stable and supportive environment for the industry by freezing excise duty. With more than 1,000 jobs lost since the last Budget, it is time for the Government to recognise the counterproductive nature of this policy and set it right in the upcoming autumn Budget.”
“Despite its proven value to the economy—it supports more than 66,000 jobs across the country and had an export value of £5.4 billion last year—the industry now stands under a mounting threat that has been created by current Government policy. In just two years, Scotch whisky has faced a 14% increase in duty, meaning that 70% of the average cost of a bottle of whisky represents tax. On top of that, producers are under immense pressure from other rising input costs, higher employment expenses and global market pressures, including damaging US tariffs that threaten stability and market share. Despite that, the expected revenues from duty increases have perversely failed to materialise.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. I was delighted that he broadened his comments beyond the wine industry because, of course, the lessons we can learn from the whisky industry will apply to the burgeoning wine industry. I also acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I agree with many of his comments about the health implications, but I also acknowledge, for once, a Scottish Labour MP praising the Scottish Government rather than criticising them. The impact of alcohol duty is being felt far beyond the UK wine sector. It is critically affecting the nation’s biggest food and drink export: Scotch whisky.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“This Government came to power on a promise to restore confidence in government, and ensure that Ministers are held to the highest standards. In the light of growing public concern about standards in public life, and with senior Government figures making headlines for all the wrong reasons almost weekly, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the Nolan principles?”
“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?”
“I believe this to be a clear breach of public trust by a Minister and a Government who have staked their reputation on restoring trust in politics. I therefore ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the former DEFRA Secretary repeatedly to make clearly misleading statements in this place that are not supported by the facts, as demonstrated by the ONS, and whether you will call the right hon. Member to this House to apologise.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On two separate occasions in July and September, 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 about water quality in Scotland, which were repeated in writing to a Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government, on social media and in broadcast interviews. I wrote to the Office for National Statistics to seek clarification. It has confirmed that the statements lack verifiable transparency and that the broad evidence does not support them, saying that: “without appropriate discussion of the limitations of some of the more specific figures quoted”, they run the risk of “misleading the public”.”
“Last week the Chancellor accepted that Brexit has caused huge damage to the economy. This week sources suggest that the Prime Minister is being advised to go further in his realignment with the European Union, as the Office for Budget Responsibility is reportedly forecasting a new black hole of around £20 billion—again showing the impact of Brexit on growth. Is the Foreign Secretary ready to admit that no matter how people try to spin it, Brexit has been an all-out disaster for Scotland and these islands?”
“The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that because of this Government’s policies—especially the two-child cap—more than 100 children are dragged into poverty every day. That equates to almost 3,400 children between now and the Chancellor’s autumn statement at the end of next month. Here is a lever: as child poverty in Scotland is falling, why does the Minister not finally listen to reason by scrapping this cruel policy? Why is he waiting? Why does he not just act now?”
“I hear the Minister’s reassuring words, but surely he can understand the worry of the workers waking up this morning to the news that they heard. It is not just warm words that are causing the problem: it is policy, the energy profits levy and the ban on exploration. It is not just me saying that: those who are concerned include the Port of Aberdeen, Robert Gordon University, the North Sea Transition Authority, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and the Scottish Affairs Committee. What will the Minister do to address these policy problems?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the fishing and coastal growth fund.”
“I recognise that the Minister and her team may need time to get to grips with their brief, but her predecessor said he intended to engage fully with devolved Governments, and the Scottish Government have been ignored again. I urge the Minister to look at this decision. There is time before next March to take a fresh look at these allocations, and to recognise the crucial role that the fishing industry plays in our beautiful coastal communities, around our massive coastline, and in our island communities across Scotland. If the Minister is in any doubt about the strength of anger on this matter and about why it is so crucial, I repeat the offer I made to her yesterday to come to my constituency and see for herself.”
“Boris Johnson used those in the fishing industry as poster boys for his reckless Brexit campaign and then betrayed them afterwards, and now this Government have done exactly the same by reserving more than £300 million for English coastal communities over the next 12 years, while handing us pocket money. Despite Scotland representing 60% of our fishing capacity, despite it landing almost 50% of these islands’ catch, and despite more than 75% of all species caught having been landed by Scottish vessels, we have been offered a mere 7.78% of the fund. My urgent question has been co-signed by colleagues from across the House who represent coastal communities across Scotland, including those in Orkney and Shetland, the Outer Hebrides, and Wales. My Welsh colleagues are equally dismayed at the crumbs they have been offered.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. I would be failing in my duty to my constituents, and indeed to people across Scotland, if I did not reflect the anger, dismay and sense of betrayal that has greeted this set of fund allocations. On 5 March, ahead of the much-vaunted EU reset deal with the UK, the Prime Minister told me the following from the Dispatch Box: “I recognise the huge and historic importance of the fishing industry in his constituency, and others, and I am determined to make the sector more secure, sustainable and economically successful.” —[ Official Report , 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 280.] But we were once again used as a bargaining chip when EU access to Scottish waters was extended for another 12 years—way beyond what the EU negotiating team had hoped for.”
“The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to many issues that he says are the fault of the Scottish Government’s creating difference between Scotland and England. What would he say about the Brexit vote in 2016 creating such difference?”
“I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member and other Labour colleagues often refer to problems in the health service in Scotland, but they never point to the fact that Scotland’s waiting times for cancer from diagnosis to treatment are better than in any other part of the UK. They do not point to the fact that waiting lists in Scotland are falling while waiting lists in England are rising and have been for three months now. There are many, many other problems—”
“Whatever the impact of these new online services, the Opposition Front-Bench team have drawn attention to the fact that waiting lists in England have risen for the last three months. I can inform the House this morning that waiting lists in Scotland are coming down. Would the Minister like to explain why that is the case?”
“The SNP Government in Scotland have been clear: Labour must end the hostile environment for asylum seekers and deliver an effective and humane asylum system that meets the UK’s international legal obligations. That means putting an end, as soon as possible, to accommodating asylum seekers in hotels. Politicians also need to end the ridiculous disinformation around those locations that suggests they are some form of luxury accommodation. As anyone who has visited such a facility knows—the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) has visited one, so he will know—they are nothing of the sort. Labour’s proposals to consider using large industrial sites and military locations are equally concerning. These people have fled war, persecution, famine, drought and terrorism. Military bases are not acceptable, nor is a lack of support services.”