Dave Doogan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to explain that to the hon. Lady when I get to that element of my speech, which I will in due course. The other thing that really irritates me about this Government is the way that they talk about the just transition. They say, “We will be using fossil fuels for another 50 years, and we will be producing them in the United Kingdom”, as though they hold all the levers. Let me explain something to Members on the Government Front Bench: if they continue to apply Labour’s atrophying interventions in the North sea oil and gas sector, the industry, which is global—I do not know whether that is news to Ministers—will go somewhere where it can make a living and a profit and does not have some sort of nefarious Government taxing it out of existence. The specific 5p fuel duty referred to in the motion, is regressive—that much is pretty clear—and iniquitous. It is particularly iniquitous to people who live in parts of these islands that are more remote, such as my constituency. I see that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is back in the Chamber. She detailed that her constituency is 2,076 sq km. This is not a competition, but Angus and Perthshire Glens is 5,525 sq km and 166% larger than her constituency, actually.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Jobs: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  There was a pork-barrel stench when the first defence growth deal was awarded to the Minister’s constituency. Over six months later, he has finally got around to making an award to Scotland, but for Scotland, the £50 million has turned into £20 million—and he wants the Scottish Government to foot the bill. Can he be clear with the House today about why, while there are no strings attached to the £50 million for the Welsh defence growth deal, there are strings attached to the Scottish defence growth deal, and does he expect the Scottish Government to top up the £20 million that he has allocated, so that it becomes the £50 million that every other area has got?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  We have just heard a 40-minute, self-aggrandising monologue on how wonderful everything is in the economy. Does the Chancellor have any clue how her tone-deaf monologue will have landed in the real economy, where growth has been downgraded, unemployment is soaring and the cost of energy has just spiked? There was nothing in her statement about what she intends to do on a strategic level when energy goes to the price it was during the height of the Ukraine crisis. Rather than reading her pre-prepared SNP attack lines, will she guarantee that she will step in and protect bill payers if those prices endure?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. First, I would like to correct the record; as you can clearly see, Sir Alec, the SNP are very much in this debate, contrary to the claims of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is only fair that I accept both of those from the hon. Member. We are here because of the 121,000 signatures on the petition, and many of the constituencies with the highest counts of signatures are in Scotland, where gun ownership per capita is much higher than it is elsewhere in these isles, for entirely predictable and understandable reasons. Angus and Perthshire Glens has the highest response rate in the United Kingdom; 550 opponents of the Government’s proposal have come forward from my constituency. They have good reason, because whether someone is up Glen Prosen, Glen Isla, Glen Clova, Glen Esk, or Glen Lethnot, or in Strathtay, Strathtummel or Strathmore, their possession, operation, use and discharge of their shotgun is just a part of everyday life. It is an essential tool for the maintenance of a rural way of living. As other right hon. and hon. Members have attested, concern is growing that perhaps this Government are not fully conversant—or nearly conversant enough—with what goes on in rural communities. In terms of the evidence On public safety, I do not think that anybody in the Chamber is minded or motivated to get in the way of something that would improve firearms or shotgun control to protect the public. No one would object to that. What people in this Chamber, and many people outside it, object to is a vast increase in the bureaucratic burden that will deliver no significant increase in public safety. As other Members have pointed out, during this debate we should remember those who have suffered at the hands of delinquent use of shotguns and firearms. That is vital, but so too is ensuring that any measures to modify the regulation around public safety are effective. Where it is seen to not be effective—and it is clearly demonstrated that these measures will not be effective—we should be very sceptical indeed. I will not cover again the points that others have made on the well-documented difference in effect and lethality between firearms and shotguns. That substantial difference in lethality is why, dating back to 1920, they have been categorised differently. That difference has not changed; it is the same difference in 2026. If we look to tragedies such as that which happened in Plymouth, the problem that facilitated that tragedy was one not of regulatory impropriety, but of application of the regulation. If the regulation had been applied effectively in that instance, there is a good probability that that tragedy would never have happened. Around 25% of firearms applications already take more than a year to process and 30 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales have missed the four-month processing target already. Licensing fees have risen by 133% and applying section 1 checks to all shotguns risks overwhelming an already underperforming system, which will present clear demonstrable challenges to our rural communities. Police Scotland operate a single national licensing unit, which consistently outperforms forces in England and Wales—I say that not as a cheap political point but because, quite clearly, if we centralise, standardise and properly resource the licensing regime, we will see substantial improvements in turnaround times. As well as that, we need far more robust public protections. Do not let me forget to mention that, despite the work that Police Scotland’s licensing unit does, many of my constituents and others in Scotland still have to run the gauntlet with the general practice regime, which is by no means straightforward; that is certainly also something that should be looked at. Strengthening firearms licensing units throughout the United Kingdom would be positive; standardisation of it would be positive; electronic record keeping would be positive, and so would closing the gaps in private shotgun sales by requiring sellers to verify buyer certificates directly with issuing police via a secure online portal. Those are all reasonable and practical changes that can be presumed to have a positive effect on the regime, in contrast to what the Government are proposing with their merger of the two sections. Today’s debate is well attended and people are speaking passionately about the strength of feeling that they from their constituents all up and down these islands—mine included—that there is enough burden on ordinary people in rural communities trying to maintain the countryside in the way that we all expect them to. They are trying to make their farm businesses work properly and deal with the effects of challenges ranging from the family farm tax to employer national insurance contributions, and from the business property relief to the tax on crew cab pickups. Many people across rural Britain are thinking, “What next from central Government?”.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that the Government have to look again at it and listen carefully. I know it is a serious Minister who has come to speak to the debate today, so I am hopeful that we will get clear remarks on how the Government intend to properly interrogate the consultation and divine from the responses precisely how seriously licence holders take the issue. Licence holders are not looking for an easy life—if they were, they would not be in the employment they are in. They are not looking for any shortcuts. They are looking for a robust regime, but one that respects and understands the rural way of life.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 10 February, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry was called to the House to answer an urgent question about a meeting between Palantir, Peter Mandelson and the Prime Minister in February 2025, after which there was an uncompeted award of £245 million from the Ministry of Defence to Palantir. No fewer than four times, the Minister said that he did not know whether there were minutes for that meeting in existence, yet following my inquiries, the Cabinet Office had confirmed back in October 2025 that no such minutes existed. Can you advise us on whether MPs should continue to endure this disgraceful level of briefing of Ministers, who tell us in the House that they do not know something that another element of Government plainly knows very well?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  It shows yet more extraordinarily poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister that he met personally with Palantir—a highly questionable organisation that is complicit in the ruination of Palestine and the devastation wreaked in the US by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Palantir are into the United Kingdom taxpayer for half a billion pounds, half of which was not competed. We should be concerned about Palantir, full stop. We should be concerned, in addition, about a direct award. We should be further concerned by the company being a client of Peter Mandelson and then having a meeting with the Prime Minister—for which there are apparently no minutes. When will Downing Street come up with a confirmed position on whether minutes were or were not taken in that meeting with Mandelson?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Consumer Energy Prices: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The energy market in Scotland operates in surplus in both generation and transmission, whereas the energy market in England operates in shortage in both generation and transmission. Unfortunately, that means that in a GB energy market, Scotland gets sucked in to subsidising energy costs for English consumers. Over and above that, Energy UK has made it clear that there will be no meaningful reduction in energy bills until some indeterminate point in the 2030s. Will the Minister recommit—just before the Scottish elections—to energy bills in Scotland being £300 lower in 2029 than in 2024?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Consumer Energy Prices: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps he is taking to help reduce consumer energy prices in Scotland.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  It does not say “English Business Rates” up there on the annunciator, so I assume the Minister can confirm that the budget—the departmental expenditure limit—for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will increase with the new money, which will mean Barnett consequentials for the devolved nations. What will the quantum of that be, and when will it be delivered?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Constituents of mine have restored the Alyth hotel. It has gone from near dereliction to being an outstanding venue for dining and drinking, and a hotel. However, they are smothered by the compound burden of VAT rates, wage costs, duty increases, employer national insurance contributions, energy costs and the squeeze on spending. That is why there were 8,000 fewer jobs in hospitality in December than in November, and 20,000 fewer than in September. Will the Chancellor consider reducing VAT on hospitality to the 7% it is in Germany, the 9% it is in Ireland, or the 10% it is in Spain and Italy?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP is broadly supportive of the contents of the Bill. It is an important Armed Forces Bill; it is hard to remember another Armed Forces Bill that stepped into such a yawning breach between the armed forces capabilities that we have and the armed forces capabilities that we need. Notwithstanding the fact that clauses 5, 9, 48 and 49 and schedule 2 and elements of schedule 3 will not have effect in Scotland, much of that which is in the Bill is long-overdue legislation that begins to address the systemic problems of the recruitment, training and upkeep of our armed forces, what we expect our armed forces to do and the conditions in which we expect them to live. I will restrict my remarks to the measures that address the important elements of housing, sexual harm and the numbers within our armed forces. I will not labour the point, except to say that the provisions for sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders in clause 5 are still sadly very much required. We must have confidence that our young people who decide to join the armed forces can do so knowing that while it may or may not prove to be the career or job for them, they can sign up, train, qualify and serve in the knowledge that they will not be predated upon by either their peers or their superiors. Clause 5 will not directly apply in Scotland, but will of course benefit from legislative consent motions in order that a similar effect will be established there for the safety and security of our uniformed personnel. The Bill needs to address the recruitment crisis in our armed forces, so it remains a concern that the Government are seeking in the Bill to ensure less parliamentary scrutiny over the size of the armed forces instead of facilitating more. The most recent targets were set in 2021. Currently, the UK armed forces overall are 6% below target at almost 9,000 personnel short—a loss of 11,128 personnel across the UK since 2014. In April 2014, there were 11,100 regular armed forces in Scotland; in April 2021, that had gone down to 10,440. In 2014, the UK Government committed to increasing the number of Scotland-based personnel to 12,500—I would be interested if the Minister could advise what the figure is now. The UK has a relatively small per-capita standing army by European standards, so it was disappointing that the SDR merely recommended no further reductions in the size of the regular forces, instead of showing the patently required ambition to grow in order to ensure that our armed forces are able to maintain the defence and resilience of the homeland and our commitments to NATO. I support the taking back into public ownership of service accommodation and the ending of the appalling commercial contracts, which have been well documented in countless debates in this place. I also welcome the Government’s establishment of the Defence Housing Service. However, in March 2025, the MOD could not confirm via written parliamentary questions how much would be spent on maintaining and improving SLA, with the amount ranging from £445 million to £619 million. I wonder whether the Minister can narrow that figure down for the House this evening. Moreover, those figures have not been broken down to differentiate between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As such, there is no confirmation of how much will be spent on SLA for personnel serving in Scotland. The House of Commons Library confirmed in 2024 that the MOD managed 47,700 properties, 91.5% of which were in England and Wales, with 6.6% in Scotland. How will these much needed and urgent improvements be marshalled across each establishment and each nation? With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish the Minister every success with the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way again. He is setting out a seriously curious sequence of events for a well-intentioned Government relative to a vital industry. Is he concerned, as I am, that this is more about the beliefs of the Secretary of State than the industrial imperatives of these islands? The Government are failing in their pursuit of decarbonisation, but they are succeeding in deindustrialisation.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right that the UK Government said that they are not in the business of saving failing businesses, but they have washed their hands of some of the key factors that contribute to those businesses failing. For example, they are signalling about new licences in the North sea, but these refineries use vast amounts of energy. In the UK, we enjoy the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. That is the Government’s responsibility.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady talks about our need to scrutinise what was deemed a credible bid. Will she ask the Minister whether the Government will apply “commercial in confidence” rules in order to cover their tracks when it comes to what was and was not a credible bid?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP delivered yet another ambitious budget for Scotland yesterday. It saw almost £1 billion for rates relief, £5 billion for energy and climate change and a 10% uplift for Scotland’s colleges. [ Interruption. ] The SNP has delivered 10.5% growth since 2007, compared with the UK’s 5.1%. The question is not about what the UK Government will do for Scotland’s economy, but what they will do to stop damaging it. [ Interruption. ]

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With clause 86, the Treasury in Westminster continues to treat Scotland’s vital Scotch whisky sector as a cash cow, with duty rising again in line with inflation in the Budget. As the Scotch Whisky Association warned, the previous 3.65% increase to spirit duty reduced revenue by 7%, costing the Treasury £150 million, so it seems an opportune moment to remind the Minister that her ambition, and that of her colleagues, should be to increase tax receipts, not erode them. Dewar’s, Blair Athol, Edradour and Glencadam—just some of the distilleries in my constituency of Angus and Perthshire Glens—are four of the many distilleries striving to deliver global excellence, all while being gouged year after year by the Treasury in London. Through the hiking of duty, for the third time in two years, in the November Budget, a sector that is already mitigating job losses, stalled investment and business closures will face substantial additional headwinds. If the Labour Government genuinely value industry in Scotland beyond the grasping hand of the Treasury, they should work with us to amend or remove clause 86. That would have been a lot easier if SNP amendment 30 had been selected for debate. Nevertheless I can but appeal to the Minister’s better and last-minute judgment on this matter. A Scottish coalition of drinks, tourism and farming representatives warned in October that duty increases had already contributed to around 1,000 job losses, and claimed that duty can make up around 70% of the cost of a bottle of Scotch. That same coalition emphasised spirits’ outsized role in hospitality margins, as they represent a smaller share of sales but a larger slice of profits, meaning that duty uprating can squeeze already extremely fragile margins in venues, especially in Scotland’s towns and rural areas where footfall is thinner. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that this tax rise could be the final nail in the coffin for many hospitality businesses that are already on the margins of solvency, especially those in rural settings, such as my constituency and those of many other hon. Members. I do not hold with banning Labour MPs from pubs, because pubs are about being in the company of people from all walks of life. If people wish to select the company that they keep, they can do that in their own house. In a public house, we convene with the whole community and visitors alike—that is the magic of it.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have heard a range of cases from right hon. and hon. Members about that differential, and I would certainly like to see nothing happen that would jeopardise the drinks, hospitality or agricultural sectors in the west country, but I will leave that to be divined by others with a more material interest, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Pubs are revered institutions, and they are under threat as never before across these islands, so let me put the situation in simple terms. Let us not forget that before the election hospitality was already struggling with the post-covid recovery, the highest taxes since the war, a punitive and unrelenting business rates regime, the disastrous misadventure of Brexit and labour shortages, and 16 years of the UK without any meaningful economic growth. On top of all that, we had the highest energy costs in the developed world. Since the election, Labour has added to that. At the outset of the debate, I expressed my concern and the Minister was kind enough to take my intervention on the compound effect, which many other Members have mentioned. She should really take cognisance of that, because since the election, Labour has added to the hospitality sector’s pain with a massive rise in employer national insurance contributions, even higher energy bills, even greater economic despondency pervading across society, an entrenched cost of living crisis keeping people at home, an increase to the minimum wage with no increase in revenue to support the payment of that wage, and no respite or consideration for the VAT millstone around hospitality’s neck. Labour should really listen, because on top of all that, there is now a 25% increase in unemployment, with 352,000 people now unemployed who were not before Labour came to power.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that she has considered carefully the fairness of the changes in this clause. Has she considered at all the compound effect of this and all the other taxes that are currently killing hospitality businesses?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member refers to his belief that the Scottish Government are engaged in anti-jobs policies. Can he therefore explain why unemployment in Scotland is substantially lower than it is in England?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I reflect on the fact that, following the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government’s Budget today in Scotland, 93% of hospitality, retail and leisure businesses in Scotland will be paying no rates or reduced rates. That is because the SNP is responsive and closer to people in Scotland. Further to that, not wishing to shoot the hon. Gentleman’s fox again, he spoke about the taxation rates for people in work in Scotland. I am sure his constituents will be grateful to know that 55% of taxpayers in Scotland are paying less tax than they would if they were part of the fiscal regime in the rest of the United Kingdom. The problem with the figure for unemployment, which is a scandal—352,000 people are unemployed who were not unemployed before Labour came into power—is that unemployed people cannot afford to go to the pub or go out for a meal. It is against that backdrop that the Minister seeks to defend this latest hike in alcohol duty. That is totally unforgiveable. I do not think the Minister believes a word that I am saying, and she certainly will not refer to anything I say in her winding-up speech, which I take as a kind of contrarian compliment. I do not know whether she has a local that she goes to; if she does, she can take my list of 12 life-threatening headwinds for pubs, all caused by the UK Government—mostly by Labour—and see if the landlord and landlady in her pub disagree with my analysis. She should do that before she introduces the 13th headwind—unlucky for pubs—with clause 86. The SNP will back new clause 9, because, as many Members have said, we really need to review the way in which alcohol is purchased and consumed in the United Kingdom and the fiscal burden that follows that. Off-sales are getting far too easy a run of it, and on-sales will disappear before our eyes. I also support new clause 26. It is too late today, as we have not been able to stop Labour coming to assault our pubs, but I look forward to standing up for Scotland’s hospitality sector again on Report. I hope the Minister will then have had a change of heart, or at the very least be in possession of a revised cost-benefit analysis that stacks up for hospitality.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I remember precisely the dynamic that the hon. Member sets out in his local high street. We used to have it in Scotland, too, until we introduced minimum unit pricing, which took the very large volume, high-strength alcohol products off the shelf in Scotland, or at least put them way up in price. He can check with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who I am sure would endorse that SNP policy.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and I genuinely mean that in this instance. Every drug death in Scotland is a tragedy, and the painful reality is that the number of drug deaths remains far too high. The latest figures indicate that 898 people are suspected to have died in the first nine months of 2025. Those are preventable deaths, and the SNP Scottish Government will continue to do everything possible to reduce them. Full figures for 2024 show that there were 1,017 drug-related deaths in Scotland, a decrease of 13%, but I do not think we can take a huge amount of comfort from that, given the trajectory in 2025. It shows that a very stubborn mass of deaths are occurring, and addressing it needs a concerted effort from all stakeholders. The last Scottish Budget included record funding for the prevention of drug and alcohol misuse, including £13 million for grassroots organisations supporting residential rehabilitation, but drugs law ultimately rests with Westminster. The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971, and the decades since have shown that the focus solely on criminalisation and a war on drugs is simply not working. The UK Government have said that they will not make changes to drugs law to pave the way for the creation of more legal drug consumption rooms following the launch of the Thistle’s pilot scheme in Glasgow. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended that the UK Government should change reserved legislation to create a new legal framework for similar facilities to open in different parts of Scotland, if that were deemed to be desirable, but UK Ministers have advised that they will not accept that recommendation. In a letter responding to the Committee’s recommendations, the UK Government said they had “no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”. I wonder if the Minister might address that the UK Government may not need to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, as they could instead pursue mechanisms within the Scotland Act 1998 to allow a section 30 derogation or to devolve elements of the Misuse of Drugs Act to the Scottish Government in a very narrow way. That would be an option for a workaround. The UK Government’s response confirmed that Westminster does not intend to amend the Act to enable the framework for safer drug consumption facilities to be more widespread in Scotland. It is extremely disappointing that the response confirmed that that is the intention even if the independent evaluation of the Thistle deems the pilot to have been a public health success. The Home Office’s approach effectively places a ceiling on how the Thistle model can further evolve. Reaching a decision in this way, before the pilot concludes, flies in the face of claims that the UK Government are taking an evidence-based approach. The Scottish Government continue to urge Westminster to work with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the policy development reflects public health evidence rather than creates legal barriers that risk further avoidable deaths. The Thistle pilot in Glasgow is being comprehensively and independently evaluated by a collaborative of academics and institutions, working with health and social care partners. UK Ministers must take evidence into consideration when they reach a position on safer drug consumption facilities, rather than letting emotional dogma or Home Office convention set the policy. The aims to reduce drug-related deaths from overdoses and to minimise the impact of public injecting on local residents and businesses are central to the ambitions of the Thistle and the stakeholders behind its creation. The Thistle received international recognition following a visit by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and last month a report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland found that the facility had had a “small but significant” impact on reducing drug deaths. Crucial is a public health rather than criminal justice approach. The Thistle is staffed by a multidisciplinary team including nurses, psychologists, harm reduction specialists, social workers and other medical staff. Records show that in its first 10 months, the Thistle recorded 9,333 visits from 522 people, 6,366 supervised injection episodes, and staff responding to 78 medical emergencies. There are people alive today who would likely not be with us were it not for the Thistle facility. The Scottish Government are open to considering well-developed proposals for further facilities, and welcome proposals from other parts of Scotland to establish them. That would have to be done while meeting the criteria set by Scotland’s Lord Advocate and the constraints placed on her by the unyielding stance of the Home Office and its brittle application of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is older than I am. The further development of services to prioritise the further reduction of harms in our communities and premature deaths from drugs should be seen as a shared priority for all legislators in Scotland. I pay tribute to the Scottish Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for the way they have approached this issue, which could easily have descended into a party political mud-slinging session, but in my view never once did.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is not enough just to freeze rail fares; they should be cut, as the Scottish Government have done in Scotland. It is fair to say that English rail commuters should enjoy the lower level of cancellations enjoyed by rail commuters in Scotland. That is why ScotRail, with its public ownership, has the highest customer satisfaction of any rail operator in the United Kingdom. Would the Secretary of State like to facilitate a meeting with the Scottish Government to find out how to optimally run a rail operator?