Dave Doogan MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hesitate to thank the right hon. Member for his intervention— [ Laughter. ] I will need to fact check his 13 million figure—I will get back to him on that. But let us be really clear—I will touch on onshore wind in a minute—that once those trees are burned in a former coal-fired power station, the only products are CO2 and electricity, but where trees have been cleared to create onshore wind in Scotland, there is a lifetime of renewable, clean cheap energy coming out the other side, so it is a false comparator if ever I saw one. Do the Government believe that waste to energy is also clean energy? That does not seem to be what GB Energy should pursue, and I am not certain there is much support for that in the country. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman should have made his intervention in a minute, because I remain unclear on this point. The Bill sets out that it applies to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. However, constitutionally and administratively, in policy terms I do not see how it can apply to Northern Ireland. If the Minister could update us on what possible role GB Energy has in the entirely different energy market that exists in Northern Ireland, that would be helpful. Community energy is essential to how we make our journey to net zero, but like much else there is scant detail on that. If the Government had properly consulted the community energy sector—they can probably still do that—they would know that access to consumers is one of the principal drawbacks to developing these schemes. It is disappointing that no lateral thinking is being applied on how to connect the will to create community energy with the market. Ofgem has created an environment where one can deliver an extraordinary example of community electricity generation, but trying to connect with consumers is almost impossible. GB Energy, if it is nothing else—and it does appear to be not much else—could have been part of the gig economy. It could have been the Uber of retail energy. We could have bought community energy and passed it on to the consumer base, but that is not going to happen. The Government want to mirror the ambition of Vattenfall or EDF, but those companies, which are actually companies, sell to the retail market. Will the Government update us on the paltry amount that the previous Government allocated to community energy? It was £10 million just for England. What will GB Energy deliver? Pushing ahead, zonal energy is one of the most important transformations that can come into the energy market on GB. The Government advised that electricity market reform is key—

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on a really wonderful maiden speech. It is heartening to see how much love and passion she has for her adopted home in Cornwall—and who does not like Cornwall? I am sure her constituents will be tremendously well served by the passion we saw just now. The Government must accept that the messaging around GB Energy was muddled at the very least during the election. It was almost as though it was rushed through as a manifesto headline, rather than resulting from the strategic development of careful, thought-out, optimised planning, but there we are. We understand that there will be limited co-production from the company, no retail arm and no public sector comparator role. It will be a provider that does not do much provision and a decider that does not make any decisions. Talk about net zero—there is zero detail in the Bill to give us an indication of what will actually happen on the ground. It was going to sell energy to the public, and then it was not. It was going to generate energy. Then it was not, and now it will again. I think we are still in that space. I heard in the Secretary of State’s opening remarks that there has now been a modification to the brand: it is now GB Energy generating company. The “generating” bit has been shoehorned in there at the last minute to try to make it a little bit more believable. It that will not own any assets outright, but will make a return on the sale of energy from the wholesale market by the principal operator of the energy schemes it latches itself on to. Well, I can see why the Labour part never put that on a leaflet—goodness me. Why is it not considered a Government trading fund? It is not a company; it is a Government trading fund that they are branding as a company. It absolutely meets all the criteria of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, so it would be interesting to know why that is. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s commitment in this area. I have seen it over the past five years. I am sorry that his initial, much more ambitious plans for £28 billion have been torpedoed by the Treasury and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If he is feeling sorry for himself, he can speak to the millions of pensioners around these islands whose ambitions for the future have also been torpedoed by the Chancellor and the Treasury. On a substantive note about the lack of detail in the Bill, it is a great pity that the Government want us to believe that clean energy means energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels. It is hard to imagine a more one-dimensional analysis and qualification than that. It is narrow and incoherent, and out of step with the science and the public. It does not really matter where or what carbon is locked into. If you burn it to release carbon dioxide in the process of making energy, then you are a carbon emitter contributing to the climate crisis. It is as simple as that. We should not be hostage to a technology where hundreds of millions of pounds in Government subsidies are used to create millions of tonnes of CO2 a year. We know that subsidies for large-scale biomass generators in England will end in 2027—I know the Minister is up to speed on that—and the Government claim they are reviewing evidence on potential support beyond this. Will the Minister, in summing up, be clear with Parliament today? Does he believe that chopping down millions of trees on the other side of the world and shipping them to England, to then burn them to make electricity, is acceptable? If not, will he commit to ending public subsidies for large-scale biomass in 2027?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am fully aligned with the hon. Member’s priority for national security in energy not to rely on other nations. Of course, within the UK, Scotland generates vastly more energy than we can consume. Although we are in the same state—in the United Kingdom—Scotland is a different country and a different nation. Does he think it is appropriate that Scotland should reap no benefit whatsoever from its energy endowment relative to anywhere else on these islands?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Support for Working People · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. He will know that the Scottish Government have their own tax-raising powers. He will remember criticising the Scottish Government for not using them, then criticising the Scottish Government when we did use them. Nevertheless, this generates £1.5 billion of extra revenue in Scotland, and taxing those who earn more slightly more allows us to tax those who earn slightly less even less than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. What advice would he give the Chancellor to mirror those efforts in Scotland to have a more progressive and fair tax system for our workers?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and that rundown of her fantastic constituency. I want to go there now that I have heard about it, although she might be surprised to know that I am quite familiar with that part of the world around Portsmouth North, Fareham, Gosport, Hayling Island and Southsea. It is a beautiful part of the world, and while it cannot compete with Scotland in scenery, it certainly wins the day when it comes to weather in the summertime. She might also be surprised to know that there is a fairly high concentration of Pompey supporters in Perthshire. That is a legacy of the Royal Naval aircraft workshops outside Perth, when people used to go down to the Royal Naval aircraft yard in Gosport, and picked up a loyalty to Pompey from there. I offer many congratulations, not least on a fantastic maiden speech but also on those exceptional shoes. I am concerned, indeed troubled as many people will be, about the role of the Treasury and Chancellor in the last couple of months. We are here to talk about budget responsibility, and I wonder what answer we would get if we were to ask the 80% of pensioners on these islands who are about to be stripped of their winter fuel payment what they think is responsible about that budget intervention. We could ask the millions living in poverty across these island—a disgrace in and of itself—what they think about budget responsibility in their lives, now double scuppered by Labour’s two-child cap. We could ask the millions of working poor across these islands, who are trying to do right by their children, their employer, and just pay their bills to get by, and who put their kids to bed every night and then sit up all night worrying about everything, what difference this fiscal lock will make to their lives. The Chancellor’s first two acts on taking up her role was to make life harder for the poorest families in society who have the least. Once she had dispatched them, she turned her fire on pensioners, removing their winter fuel allowance. Austerity 2.0—it does not matter to Scotland whether austerity comes in a Labour or Tory wrapper, it is still as caustic. That is relevant because the Chancellor wants us to believe that the Bill and the fiscal lock will make everything okay, but it does not. The Office for Budget Responsibility will take no view on the qualitative merits or otherwise of any Treasury decision, but merely on the quantitative dimension in fiscal terms. There are no locks in the Bill to protect the people of these islands from this Labour Chancellor. We hear ad nauseam that the Chancellor had no choice in any of these actions, and the worst inheritance since the war, and it goes on and on. Well: “The numbers may be a little bit worse than they thought at the time, and I think there were some things that were hidden from view, but the overall picture over the next four or five years is very, very similar to what we knew before the election.” Those are not my words, but those of Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. If that is not good enough, the SNP warned throughout the election that if Labour stuck to Tory spending plans, taxes would rise and/or budgets would be cut, and here we are. The SNP even challenged Labour in Scotland on that point during the election, and the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, said, “read my lips: no austerity under Labour”. He is not saying that now is he, because he cannot. Perhaps the Chancellor, or those on her Front Bench, can advise us about whether Mr Sarwar was having a stumble with the truth that day, or whether they had forgotten to let their branch office in Scotland in on the plan. Despite all that, the Chancellor and her Treasury Front Bench persist in their claims about a £22 billion black hole to defend their indefensible attacks on the poorest in society. It is unacceptable, and the Bill, if enacted, will do nothing to protect communities from that. I am also troubled by the language that those on the Treasury Front Bench seek to use to accrue some form of disproportionate credit for bringing forward the Bill. At its core, the Bill is nothing more than an additional provision to the existing Act, and the exaggerated language around it exposes the weakness of the Government’s position on this fiscal lock. Nothing is either locked in or locked out by the Bill. The OBR cannot stop any Budget or fiscal adjustment, good, bad or indifferent. That is Parliament’s role, as other right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out. On Second Reading I pointed that out to the Minister, who declined to concede on the absolute fact that the position is as I have just set out. I hope he has had a chance to reflect on the so-called fiscal lock, which is nothing more than an administrative assessment of Treasury plans on which nothing is contingent. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said that she is keen for those on the Treasury Front Bench to be held to a higher fiscal standard. Fair enough, but the Bill will not do that. This is in abstract the narrowest one-dimensional protection from bad fiscal policy. Labour Members are seemingly addicted—the Bill evidences this—to some sort of pound shop exaggeration, and a troubling reliance on hyperbole when detailing something profoundly ordinary. The fiscal lock and the Bill will not protect the devolved nations and their budgets from the austerity of the Labour Front Bench. Before the general election, when Labour in Wales was facing NHS budget pressures, the now Secretary of State said that “all roads lead to the Tories” and Westminster, in accordance with those budget pressures. Now, after the election, we have a Labour Government, the SNP in Scotland is facing those same budget pressures, and it is the SNP’s fault. They cannot have it both ways. They have got the job and they need to own it. The Chancellor claimed that the SNP should raise income taxes to pay for her cut to the winter fuel allowance in Scotland. The cheek of it! I remind those on the Treasury Front Bench that 70% of taxes raised in Scotland go directly to the Treasury. We have paid our dues, and shame on the Chancellor for trying to get Scottish taxpayers to pay twice to compensate for her axe wielding. The double standards of it all are staggering. She wants the Scottish Government to raise income taxes in Scotland, which is precisely what she refused to do ahead of the UK general election. Why will she not mirror the Scottish Government’s progressive income tax regime to increase taxes slightly on those of us who are better off, and reduce taxes slightly for those on the lowest incomes? That would raise nearly £16 billion for the Treasury. If she had done that and followed the SNP Scottish Government’s lead, she would not have had to attack our pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. A significant element of budget responsibility is ensuring that people own their decisions and their own mess. Labour will find that SNP Members are keen to help them in that pursuit. In summary, there is nothing particularly to object to in this inherently ordinary and transactional provision in the Bill, except for the behaviour of the Government advancing it.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Contracts for Difference · Hansard source

  More

  Fair play to the new Secretary of State: 5.3 GW of offshore wind is a great achievement, especially compared with the flat zero achieved by the Tories in auction round 5. It unlocks the vital Inch Cape array off my Angus constituency coast, and supports jobs in Montrose, as well as in Moray West, and there is also the game-changing Green Volt floating array off the north-east coast of Scotland. He highlights 1 GW of onshore wind, 8 MW of which is coming from England. Will he tell the House where the rest of that onshore energy is coming from? His target is 60 GW by 2030. How will he achieve that 9 GW a year from now until 2030?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor would have known, in advance of the cut to the winter fuel payment and the stripping of £160 million from pensioners in Scotland, that Scottish pensioners suffer the lowest temperatures, rural Scottish pensioners live in some of the oldest houses on these islands, and most Scottish pensioners in rural areas are off the gas grid. Knowing that, what discussions did she have with her 37 new Scottish Labour MPs about pushing Scottish pensioners into fuel poverty?

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who just delivered a textbook maiden speech, and negotiated his way around the fairly awkward changes to the Glasgow constituencies. Judging by the unanimous reactions in the Chamber, the two former servants of his constituency that he saluted were hard-working representatives in this Chamber. I would like to reciprocate. He mentioned the former Labour Minister in the Scotland Office Ann McKechin, who invited me to her constituency office in Glasgow when I was a mature student around 2010-11. She gave me a good hour of her time, which I then thought was fairly generous. As an MP, I now realise just how generous that was to someone who was not her constituent and who, within two or three minutes, clearly demonstrated signs of a particularly different political outlook. I congratulate the hon. Member. I welcome the Bill and commend the Government on introducing it. I am not certain that it is what they say; I will develop that point in a wee moment. Who among us could forget the aftermath of the Truss-Kwarteng debacle, which plunged businesses and households across these islands into chaos? The pair of them then disappeared off into the sunset, leaving us here to pick up the pieces of their arrogant and economically illiterate fiscal experiment while in government. If anyone has forgotten, it is not mortgage payers up and down these islands, who are still paying the price of that Tory Government misadventure. Mortgage rates spiked at 6% after the mini-Budget. Figures out last week from Moneyfacts show that the average rate for a two-year fixed deal is still 5.79%. We in the SNP warned at the time that the mini-Budget would lead to economic chaos, so we can only support the measures in the Bill to help ensure that there is never a repeat of that ridiculous performance. An independent assessment by the OBR for major and permanent fiscal interventions is welcome. It is responsible and the SNP supports it, but to be clear it is no silver bullet. It will not fix the economy, and nor will it prevent fiscal incompetence from the current or future Chancellors, their officials or junior Ministers. It will not fix the credibility of Chancellors who, for example, on taking office say they did not know about the £20 billion black hole in the previous Government’s fiscal plan that they were adopting, even though they were warned about it repeatedly and in public by the SNP, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others. The SNP welcomes efforts at increasing economic transparency, but the truth is that Labour has also been substantially short of honest with the public in this area. The new Government are seeking to create a counter-narrative or counter-reality to uphold the belief that the cuts and tax hikes that Labour will soon visit upon businesses and communities across these islands have been done to Labour by the Tories, rather than done to the people by Labour. That is the truth of the matter. If Labour is serious about restoring faith in, and the growth of, the economy, much more action is needed from the Government. No economy ever cut its way to growth; rather, growth is a function of investment. In closing, I greatly fear that the new Labour Government are getting a bit carried away with their own success and are sailing off from reality at some knots. I cite the nauseating “Government of service” hyperbole, the Potemkin energy company that is GB Energy, which is abject nonsense, and now the “fiscal lock” set out in the Bill. An assessment by the OBR is not a lock on anything. It does not enable or prevent anything. It does not confine, nor does it decide anything. Parliament will never allow it to be used as a shield for the Chancellor. From its beginning to its end, it is simply an impartial assessment leaving the hands of the Chancellor of the day free to prosecute whatever plan they wish, consistent with the OBR’s assessment or not. And so it should be, because Parliament is here to hold the Government to account—as are the people across these islands, which we have seen recently. To be clear, this provision is certainly no replacement for the rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of fiscal policy. That is a core function of this House, which I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, agree with. In the interests of consensus, will the Minister concede this minor point of detail—that “fiscal report” is far more realistic in terms of what it actually means than “fiscal lock”, for this nevertheless welcome measure?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is trumpeting that 76% of the electorate are right behind GB Energy, and why would they not be? Why would they not want a state-owned energy company such as Ørsted, Vattenfall or Equinor delivering for people across these islands? But it is not that, is it? It is a cynical, snake oil exercise to gift-wrap a Department that already exists, and it will not deliver energy across these islands at all. Can we have a debate in Government time about why GB Energy is nothing short of smoke and mirrors?

• 24 Jul 2024 · International Immunities and Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  If we take, as the United Kingdom has, an extraordinarily complex programme somewhere down the road, then the opportunity cost, much less the financial and operability cost, of turning back on that must be well set out. I am afraid that those are the details the Treasury has a history of not being that interested in. It is more focused on the number at the bottom right-hand side of the balance sheet, but this is far too important to yield to that level of priority. It is much to be regretted that the future combat air system and GCAP are proceeding in the European theatre in parallel. That is a grossly expensive duplication. I greatly fear that there is nothing we can do about it now. Nevertheless, it is much to be regretted. I am not certain that the partners in the competing French-led FCAS programme will be happy partners throughout, but that remains to be seen. The Minister for the Armed Forces must ensure that the door is left open for any latecomers or laggards who want to get on board with GCAP. I would appreciate his assurance, either today or at a later date, on that willing acceptability and acceptance. As it is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister who is leading today, let me say that the one thing the extraordinary aircraft I listed did not enjoy was particularly healthy export success. GCAP must have exceptional export success because, quite apart from the standard avionics engines and air frames that we have to deal with in conventional traditional aircraft, this aircraft is a breed apart in terms of its electronic warfare capability. It is a combat system, which happens to be in an aircraft, that is extraordinarily expensive. If the price of that is left to the Italians, the UK and the Japanese, we will face no small measure of difficulty. On the statutory instrument itself, article 34(2) of the convention makes provision for host countries experiencing “serious balance of payment” issues. I draw Members’ attention to the sovereign debt liabilities of both Japan and Italy—and the UK itself, although it would be the third of that list. But the convention merely seeks—to inform the Minister—to “consult” in such circumstances. It would be appreciated if we could know what type of consultation that would involve. Further, article 19(1)(c) clarifies that funding from each party will “be set out in a further arrangement”. However, the convention does set out that the steering committee will have equal representation from each of the parties. How will the convention decide what the funding will be based on? Will it be based on orders, or on the number of national employees employed in the steering committee? How will that work? It is unclear. In closing, Leonardo in Edinburgh is the brain and nerve centre of GCAP; it is the central nervous system of this world-leading capability. The system is being designed and finalised in Edinburgh, and it will be built in Edinburgh at Leonardo. That brings me on to the final provision in the SI, which states that the headquarters of GIGO will be established at a later date, but that it will be in the UK. It is really important that wherever it is established, it has close connectivity with the key prime manufacturers of GCAP: Rolls-Royce, Thales, BAE and Leonardo. It must be in a part of this island where an outstanding quality of life can be enjoyed, with access to good schools, good quality of life, transport infrastructure, an international airport and good links with London. That place is Edinburgh.

• 24 Jul 2024 · International Immunities and Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to you extending your authority to unruly fourth parties, even if they are new to that role. I welcome this statutory instrument, which gives effect to the convention on the establishment of GCAP. GCAP is not important but vital to a range of different priorities, to which I urge the new Government to pay very close attention. It is vital to the United Kingdom’s ability to play its role in defending our values against peer or near-peer adversaries and the threats that they present to our way of life. We will not do that in the very near future if we cannot command a sixth-generation capability. It is vital to developing and maintaining sovereign air capability. If we had no legacy of manufacturing complex combat air systems, we could not start it. That enterprise cannot be begun from nothing. The flipside of that inevitable truth is that if we neglect what we have developed, at great cost to the public purse over the past 100 years, we defeat the legacy of world-leading extraordinary aircraft, civil and military, that have come out of the United Kingdom over the past 100 years. We also create an extraordinary gap in our ability to defend the realm—the first duty of any Government. The programme is vital for the 600 stakeholders in the UK alone who have been engaged with GCAP to date, and it has not even got up to speed yet. Those are just a few elements of why this is vital. In a geographical sense, it is extraordinarily important to defence manufacturers in the central belt of Scotland and the north-west of England, but I see no reason to disbelieve the claim that it has positive effects for constituencies all across the United Kingdom. I seek to impress on the Minister for the Armed Forces—who I know gets it, and I am glad that he is here today—that he should challenge any rise in Treasury dogma when it comes to GCAP. It is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to repeat the world-leading performance of Harrier and the Blackburn Buccaneer, the extraordinary capabilities of the Panavia Tornado and the exceptional abilities of the BAE Typhoon. That is what it can do. What it expressly must not do is repeat the incredibly self-defeating cost to the public purse and defence capability of the TSR-2 fiasco in the 1960s. Unfortunately, an incoming Labour Government scrapped that at huge cost to our defence capability and huge cost to the public purse. It was a demonstrable exercise in a Treasury obsessed with the price of everything and myopic about the value of everything. I repeat, in case I sound political, that I know the Minister for the Armed Forces gets it. We trust him to do the right thing.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Health and Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In integrating health and social care it is vital to take the staff component along with you. It is also vital to have sufficient funding. We integrated health and social care in Scotland in 2012 and it has been a difficult road, but health in Scotland is funded £323 per head more than it is in England. Will the Minister commit to put his hand in his pocket and make sure English people enjoy the same health funding as people in Scotland?