Seamus Logan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate and the petitioners for succeeding in bringing the debate to the House today. It is remarkable to be here in Westminster Hall and find such unanimity among Members from both sides of the Chamber—indeed, from all parties, it would appear. The current income requirement for family visas simply means that, in my constituency, social care positions go unfilled, the NHS struggles without the necessary workforce, and care packages are in some instances impossible to deliver, even though the funding is there. The additional money for the NHS and the overall Scottish budget is of course welcome, but money alone will not solve our problems. I remind hon. Members that the previous minimum salary threshold, before April 2024, was £18,600, so the increase brought in by the previous Government represents a significant increase in that requirement. As has been said, would-be migrant workers are also hit by other rules, such as the extraordinary fees and the up-front health charges that provide yet another brutal barrier. It is not as though the Government’s stated intention of training local people to fill labour shortages has any hope of success. We are at virtually full employment in my constituency, but there are shortages in health and social care, in the farming and fishing sectors and in hospitality and tourism. Those are vital issues in my constituency, and I think the hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) would agree. This utterly unacceptable position is a betrayal, and it shows how vindictive the Tories were in their ill-fated and crude attempts to control migration numbers in the post-Brexit world. Remember, if we were still in the single market, we would not have this issue with the free movement of people. Scotland is already suffering as a result of Westminster’s Brexit and migration policies, and the old Tory and now new Labour proposals will inevitably undermine our public services. It is interesting to note that the current leader of the Labour party in Scotland claims that he is in discussion with the Westminster Government about a bespoke Scottish visa; I welcome clarification from the Minister in her speech if that is the case. As a former colleague, Stuart McDonald, so eloquently put it last April: “The Government are basically saying to many of our children and to future generations, ‘You can fall in love with whoever you wish, but if you want to marry a non-UK national and you are not earning whatever arbitrary sum we decide, you will need to go and live somewhere else. You can have the love of your life. You can have your country and the right to live here. But you can’t have both.’ That is just not normal.” —[ Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 223WH.] International students and academics make a contribution in excess of £5 billion annually to the Scottish economy. If the Government recognise the contribution of international students and academics, why would they defend this inherited policy that threatens to prevent future cohorts from making a similar contribution? The SNP stands totally opposed to the current measures, never mind the increases or any potential increases. This is our motivation—and, it would appear, the motivation of the leader of the Scottish Labour party—for asking for devolved powers in this area. We have voted against these measures in the past, and we continue to call for immigration powers to be devolved to Scotland. I say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that money alone will not fix our problems. If the Labour Government want to reset our relationship with the European Union, here is one of the key areas to consider. We do not need simply to resist any increase in the earnings threshold; we need to bring it down. Can the Minister defend the current salary threshold and explain its logic, given that she inherited this figure? I for one—as well as other Members and the wider public, I am certain, some of whom are watching this debate—would like to know the evidence on which it is based.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the humane remarks that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her speech, but is she not now guilty of continuing to slur migrant workers who come to this country as representing a net fiscal drain on the economy? These workers contribute to our economy, and they represent a contribution to its growth.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), speaking for the Opposition, described the public’s perception of these rules as being of great concern, as if there were a homogeneous view across the country. We know that is not the case: there is a different view in Scotland. During my speech I asked the Minister to confirm whether the leader of the Labour party in Scotland was in discussions with the Government regarding a bespoke Scottish visa. She has not answered that question yet, but I hope she will. Perhaps she can also confirm whether that might extend to partner visas as well.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Covid-19 Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also completely agree with him that in these matters the public do not care about party political differences. I note his commitment to an independent, whole-systems civil preparedness and resilience process going forward. I am just looking for some reassurance that the devolved Governments will be consulted and fully involved. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I want to press the Minister on recovery from some of the very wasteful PPE contracts that were awarded during the pandemic.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report said that a compensation scheme would be “impractical”, with “significant challenges” and the potential for “unjustified payments”, and that there were significant concerns about the robustness of the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is untenable, given the stark contrast with the way that sub-postmasters were treated?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member will possibly be familiar with my constituency—one of the richest farming areas in the UK. The Treasury continues to insist that only about 520 estates a year will claim APR in the way that it is describing, and it has set the threshold at £1 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to provide clear evidence for this threshold, and is he aware that at the evidence session in December, the NFU claimed that the actual figure, rather than 520, is 2,000 estates involved?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State repeatedly tells us that all roads lead to Westminster when it comes to funding. Does the hon. Member agree that the Scottish Government can do only what is possible with the resources made available by Westminster?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for securing this important debate, and for his heartfelt contribution. I imagine that there is no one in this House, or even across these islands, whose life has not been touched by hospice care, and I want to pay a personal tribute to my niece, Dr Róisín Etchells, who works in this field. Recently the House had what was by all accounts a respectful, informed and emotional debate on the concept of assisted dying, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Perversely, this Government have introduced additional employer national insurance contribution charges on the independent hospice sector, which can only be described as an attack, an assault on the very concept of assisted dying as we currently deliver it—for that is what hospice care is and does, and what others who deliver palliative care in the independent sector within the community do. In Scotland one of the leading providers of such care, both in residential settings and in the community—within people’s homes—is Marie Curie. It operates at least two residential services and community care in almost every local authority area in Scotland. Here I declare an interest as a proud supporter of Marie Curie, and as someone who has helped to raise significant funds for it. It does wonderful work, providing skilled care and brightening the lives of patients as they face the prospect of their last weeks, days and hours. Ask any family who have benefited from this support; I defy anyone to find a critic. Of course I understand that the Government must balance their books and that public sector pay rises must be funded, but the failure to offer mitigations in key areas of these self-same public sector services is misguided, ill-informed, clumsy and counterproductive. “Where will we find the money for these services?”, Ministers will cry, but they know that there are alternatives. In their populist haste to win the trust of the electorate, they rashly promised not to increase income tax. They should look at Scotland, where those with the broadest shoulders pay a little more, where in every tax bracket more people are coming to pay their taxes in Scotland every year, where 60% of taxpayers pay less than their counterparts in the rest of this disunited kingdom, and where the Government responsible for this alleged mismanagement have enjoyed public support for close to 20 years and continue to do so. We in the Scottish National party estimate that if the UK Government had matched the Scottish tax bands, they could have raised £16 billion. In the recently announced Scottish Budget, it was encouraging to see that the Scottish Government committed themselves to increasing hospice funding by £4 million, and to providing additional funding for hospice staff to match NHS pay awards. To me, that is the difference between the Scottish and UK Governments. While the UK Government hike national insurance on employers and vote against amendments to exempt hospices from that hike, the Scottish Government increase hospice funding, and put more money in the pockets of hospice healthcare workers. Like other Scottish MPs, probably, I received a heartfelt plea from Children’s Hospices Across Scotland. If the Minister had read it, he would know how desperate the situation is. I implore the Government to think again, to engage with the Scottish Government to ascertain the cost of mitigations for hospice and palliative care service providers and others, and to provide the same mitigating support that has been given to the NHS and other public services in Scotland.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Windrush: Victim Support · Hansard source

  More

  The Windrush scandal involved people coming to this country in good faith who were then falsely labelled as illegal immigrants. One thing that the Minister could do to avoid such circumstances happening again is make it easier for people to come here through a reduction in the English language requirement. Is that something that she would consider?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Access to Primary Care · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Secretary of State aware that the increase to employer national insurance is actually reducing patient access to primary care? I met GP representatives in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen recently, and they told me of two ways in which that is happening: first, they are having to let staff go; and secondly, some GPs are considering meeting these costs from their own pockets. Will he consider an exemption for GP practices from these charges?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate and for his excellent contribution. If the Labour Government thought that the national insurance controversy would die away as we moved into 2025, I am afraid they will be very disappointed. They have offered Scotland an additional £300 million to meet the additional costs, but the Scottish Government estimate that the actual cost is in the region of £750 million. This past week, 48 organisations from across civic Scotland have joined with First Minister John Swinney and president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Shona Morrison to call on the Chancellor to cover the additional costs and to ensure that that is extended to the full range of organisations delivering public services. They are all facing a huge rise in their costs. According to the Scottish Government, the UK Government did not even bother to consult with them on this change. How is this change contributing to growth? It is reducing services for vital support at a dark time in people’s lives.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned a number of mitigations for charities, and she said that she thinks that virtually all charities will benefit from those, so where are the Government actually obtaining the resources to fill the hole in the public finances?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

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

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

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

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I will finally give way.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Health and Adult Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for writing to the leader of my party. I am sure that the Scottish Government will co-operate and engage fully with Baroness Casey as she does her work. The Secretary of State spoke of failure. One such failure—the elephant in the room, in fact—is the labour shortages that the NHS and social care are experiencing as a result of Brexit. I ask him not to pass the buck, but to tell me what steps he will take, after consultation with Cabinet colleagues, to address those shortages by making it easier for migrant workers to come to this country and fill the vacancies.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) calls for a fresh approach by the SNP Government in Holyrood, but she clearly expects us to do that with fresh air, because part of the £750 million additional cost from the national insurance contributions will fall on hospices. On Tuesday, she had the opportunity to vote against that cost. Will the Minister confirm that there will be Barnett consequentials for Scotland? How will she address the problems that Marie Curie in Scotland faces?

• 18 Dec 2024 · BBC: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell—my first time serving under a fellow Scottish MP. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this important debate and for his learned contribution. I declare an interest as an office bearer on the BBC all-party parliamentary group and as the husband of a journalist and former BBC employee. I will not gild the lily of the contributions that so many Members have already made; I will give a personal view. Of course, nothing is free; when we consider the new model, we need to remember that, and my remarks will address that very point. More than most, perhaps, I—along with at least one other person in the room—know the value of the BBC, because I lived, studied and worked for 30 years in a society riven by conflict, division and hatred, at times verging on civil war. It was vital during those times to have faith in an organisation that provided reliable and trustworthy news and unbiased current affairs coverage. For the most part, the BBC fulfilled that function, in both its television and its radio coverage, and for that I pay tribute to its courageous and award-winning broadcast journalism. In an ever more divided society, the need for this role is all the greater. Throughout my life, I have been a fan of much of the BBC’s output, and now, instead of being simply a viewer or listener, I occasionally find myself, as an MP, in the position of a contributor. I place on record my admiration for the work that it does, often in challenging circumstances and environments. I believe that it continues to be faithful to its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. It continues to enjoy a high level of trust and confidence, not only in these islands but across the world. Alas, there are also challenges. There are too many to list in one speech, but I want to put down a few markers, as each of them relates to future consideration of the licence fee system and charter renewal. First, especially in Scotland but perhaps further afield, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) already referred to, there is a widespread and growing perception that editorial policy is not always fair or impartial. For example, on too many occasions, audience members in political debates are not who they purport to be—that is, ordinary members of the public. On other occasions, contributors’ political perspectives are not properly introduced. Recently, for example, a so-called independent commentator turned out to be a fully paid-up member of a political party. Nor do those failings always result in public remedy or apology. As Elton John famously said, “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”. That is a problem for programme editors, not necessarily presenters, but it is a vital component in retaining the trust and confidence that I spoke of. It is not good enough to wring hands and say that everyone complains equally. I do not believe that is true. Secondly, in what is obviously a personal view, I do not think that it is only politicians who should not be double-jobbing; that should extend to the so-called talent within the BBC. Too many times, we see high-profile individuals turning up as hosts on a wide variety of programmes, with their enormous salaries offered as justification for that triple or quadruple job-holding. The BBC should recognise its responsibility to bring forward up and coming journalistic and other qualified talent from a wide range of local broadcasters, whose careers are currently being effectively blocked or blighted as a result. A final marker relates to the growing number of instances of unacceptable or illegal behaviour—often sexual harassment, or worse, of female colleagues or guests—by BBC employees or agents working on the BBC’s behalf through subcontractors. I spoke about that recently on a BBC programme. It is not good enough to divert responsibility to external production companies. The BBC needs to own that and to commit to an urgent internal review of its policies and a renewed training programme, especially for the so-called talent, where the problem often lies and where managers have been reluctant to act. That is a cultural problem that must be addressed at every level. I personally wish to see a commitment to a simple “no training, no screen time” approach. In conclusion, I look forward to an informed debate on the licence fee system, including a deep dive into potential alternatives to the licence fee, such as opt-out advertising models, as we already see in the marketplace; a pay-per-view system; and certainly a funding model that provides a much more socially just system, in which the vulnerable, the elderly and those in poverty pay much less than the current licence fee. This is a changing world and the BBC must change with it.