Dave Doogan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I can only assume he was a used car salesman in a previous life. We need to read the small print from Labour: “We will reduce your energy bill by £300. Terms and conditions apply.” Honestly, you couldn’t make it up— [ Interruption. ] I think they are probably speaking to the hon. Gentleman, rather than me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Things do not end with the honesty tax I mentioned. This is a serious point, because 900,000 pensioners in Scotland will be stripped of their winter fuel payment in the coldest part of these islands, without so much as a by your leave to the Scottish Government—

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman says that the Tories have no plan for public services. I accept that the Labour Government do have a plan, but it is completely unbelievable, so where does that leave us?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Apache has announced that it is set to pull out of the North sea basin. How does the hon. Lady think that announcement relates to the fiscal decisions of this Government? Does she think that it is inextricably linked to this Government’s ambitions for North sea oil and gas, and their failure to fully understand how the industry works?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is defending the changes that he is making to the fiscal regime as it relates to the North sea and the production of oil and gas. Can he identify another oil and gas-producing nation that taxes its industry higher than the United Kingdom does?

• 26 Nov 2024 · COP29 · Hansard source

  More

  We learned three things from the statement. The first is that the climate finance will come from the existing UK aid budget. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the increase in the UK aid budget will be greater than the amount that has gone on climate finance, so that we can be confident that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul in the developed world? Do the important agreements on deforestation mean that the UK will stop spending almost £11 billion on subsidies to burn trees in England to generate electricity—is that one of the important elements that he talked about on deforestation? He claimed in his statement that GB Energy is set up. Can he tell us where we can go and see it? [ Laughter. ]

• 20 Nov 2024 · Defence Programmes Developments · Hansard source

  More

  Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the last 14 or the last 30 years. Either way, it results in the situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in. Given the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and with one more Type 23 to bite the dust, can he advise how many escorts and frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement project on Type 45 —before Type 31 and Type 26 are available? What about the AW149 new medium-lift helicopter? Why is this Government moving at a snail’s pace, as the last Government did, on new medium-lift helicopters? What message does the 31 rotary-linked platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships coming out of service send to the outside world? What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that situation? Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants, but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend will be now in the MOD?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. What’s not to like? I am very happy to support that. I have two questions that I hope the Minister will address in his summing up. Will the commissioner have the power to investigate the challenges faced by serving personnel within the nuclear enterprise, or will personnel in this service have to continue to suffer in secret? Scotland, as usual, is out in front with our veterans commissioner, so what learnings will the UK commissioner for serving personnel be able to take from their Scottish counterpart? How does the Minister envisage the commissioners working together? Moreover, given that Wales and Northern Ireland also have veterans commissioners, and that the commissioner proposed by the Bill will not have responsibility for veterans across the United Kingdom, what is the timeframe for veterans in England to enjoy the same benefits as those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting to be taking part in a debate that has such an outbreak of consensus—indeed, it is a bit unsettling in this particular Chamber. However, the Scottish National party will be doing nothing to rock the boat given that we welcome the role of Armed Forces Commissioner, especially their authority to investigate welfare complaints from our armed forces. This has been a long time coming. The welcome superseding of the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a vital element that allows servicemen and women recourse to a functioning complaint system outwith the chain of command is only going to be good news, and will be in step with the ambitions of many right hon. and hon. Members. I take this opportunity to commend the foresight of my friend and colleague, the former Member for West Dunbartonshire, Martin Docherty-Hughes, who brought forward his Armed Forces Representative Body Bill in 2019. If that Bill had been supported, it would have achieved many of the same aims as this Bill but five years earlier. Nevertheless, a key development now is the ability of the commissioner to visit defence establishments unannounced and commission reports on what they find there. That is a central and vital improvement over the demonstrably inadequate powers of the ombudsman. The reports will face the scrutiny of colleagues in this Chamber and of the Defence Committee, which is welcome. I know that that scrutiny will be applied with rigour. The Bill should go a long way towards shining a light on the manifold circumstances in which many in our armed forces and their families have been treated poorly by successive UK Governments. Much of that has been caused by disastrous privatisation misadventures pursued for short-term gains at the expense of long-term value; our men and women in uniform, together with their families, pay the price for that suboptimal policy in their daily lives and routines. We should also note that the issues facing armed forces personnel are already extremely well known, documented and understood within and outwith this Chamber. What the commissioner must reveal, therefore, is the depth and scale of these issues. As has already been touched on, that will necessarily make difficult reading for the ministerial team. I salute their ability to leave themselves open to that scrutiny. A key factor driving the poor experiences of armed forces personnel is the perpetual misallocation of funding and a lack of political will to establish a verifiable balance between the demands of the state on the armed forces to deliver defence and security, and the vote of funding allocated to the armed forces by the same state to deliver against that priority. Everything has an upper elastic limit, and if the Government do not get their act together on allocating 2.5% of GDP for defence, I greatly fear that our armed forces will exceed their upper limit very soon—commissioner or not. From the junior ranks to the Chief of the Defence Staff, they are asking for nothing other than long-term clarity to allow them to deliver long-term stability. A key performance indicator of any large organisation, especially one with such an unenviable relationship with recruitment and retention, is morale. That is a key reason why people are leaving in such huge numbers, at tremendous cost to defence in financial and operational ways. The solutions to many of these problems are fairly straightforward, but expensive. They include properly maintained housing stock, better mental health support, better support for families when people are deployed, and decent pay—all of which are outwith the remit of any commissioner. The Bill represents a welcome stride forward, but it is no silver bullet to fix life in the UK armed forces. As we have already heard, almost 60% of personnel report low morale. Only a third are satisfied with the welfare support that their family receive when they return from deployment, and many personnel live in poor accommodation. Perhaps most importantly for the commissioner, only 23% of serving personnel think that leaders will take meaningful action to address issues identified in the continuous attitude survey. That is not a great report card for this or the previous Government, but it is certainly a starter for 10 for the commissioner.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State speaks to a UK commitment to “NATO first”, and that is great, but we have just seen the election of a US President who is putting America first and the defence of Europe in the hands of European states, which makes the prevarication over 2.5% all the more difficult. Will he accept that a commitment without a date is watery and that only a date will provide a commitment? Will it be in this Parliament—yes or no?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that the principal way to defend national security is to stand fast behind the international rules-based system, and that the principal way to do that is to adhere to the rulings of institutions such as the International Court of Justice? A great deal of concern has been expressed during these exchanges about the sovereign democratic will of the Chagossians. What mechanism will the UK Government put in place to ensure that the House can be confident that the sovereign ambitions of the Chagossians as a people will be respected in this treaty, and not simply sacrificed for convenience?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  We are going to need a warm homes plan, because with the snow and ice coming in on a cold front, Scotland is seeing a “sum front” heading north from this Labour Government: a £600 cut to the winter fuel payment and the pensioners’ cost of living payment—for winter weather that is here now. That was not in the manifesto. What was in the manifesto was a £300 cut to fuel bills, but those costs are now up by £450. When will this Government do a single thing for people facing fuel poverty?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Four months ago the people took the Labour party at its word and voted for change. It did not take long for it to become clear that the Labour party was offering not change for the better, but change for the worse. Pre-election there was no mention of pushing 900,000 pensioners in Scotland into fuel poverty, yet here we are. The Chancellor said that she would not raise taxes on working people, yet we now find due to Labour’s absurdly one-dimensional yet infinitely flexible definition of “working people” that people are in line for five years of fiscal drag on their incomes and tax allowances. The Chancellor said that she would not put up national insurance, but after the election she qualified that with “on employees”, as she now raids payroll accounts for charities, care homes and local businesses for her 1.2% national insurance hike. During all that, where were Scottish Labour MPs? Where were their howls of indignation defending their Scottish constituents and the Scottish economy? They were silent, with a mere seven Labour MPs rebelling on the two-child cap, and not one of them from Scotland. The national insurance increases are a direct assault on Scotland’s businesses, workers, and growth plan. Scotland’s vital hospitality sector—our pubs, hotels and cafes—are already hamstrung by Brexit, and will face an increased burden as a result of the changes today. This punishing tax hike will hit many of Scotland’s 340,000 SMEs hardest—the very companies that drive growth, that reinvest locally, that sustain 1.2 million Scottish jobs and 42.4% of all private sector turnover in Scotland and that sponsor local groups and clubs. They are caught in the crosshairs of this anti-small business Labour Chancellor. Like much else, raiding employment taxes was not in Labour’s manifesto, and many ordinary self-employed people with modest incomes from local businesses—they deliver essential economic activity where the capital generated remains local, turning an average profit of £23,000 a year, and many of them may well have voted Labour—will fall foul of Labour’s rank duplicity in this change to tax orthodoxy, unlike those working for public limited companies or the public sector earning six-figure salaries. The national insurance hike, with the threshold down to £5,000 and the rate up to 15%, represents a £25 billion double whammy tax on jobs—plain and simple. The resources that will fund the Chancellor’s raid on payroll are the same resources that businesses would have used to recruit more people into work, reducing unemployment, growing their own business and assisting in the ambition of greater growth in the wider economy. The Chancellor has just torpedoed that. It is the same resource that would have delivered pay rises for ordinary working people next year. Where will that resource come from now? The Chancellor notes that she is not putting up taxes on working people, and that may technically be true this year, but with next year’s pay claims guaranteed to be suppressed by her raid on employers’ NI, she is baking in lower wages for workers next year and in subsequent years. The Scotch Whisky Association has described the duty on whisky as “a hammer blow”. The Prime Minister promised to “back Scotch producers to the hilt.” He should have told his Chancellor, because she has just taxed Scotch whisky to the hilt. It is completely unacceptable, and it is part of Scotland’s burden. None of this is acceptable. We are not content to continue footing the bill for decisions that we had no part in. We went into this election with the highest taxes in living memory, and they have just gone up again. Ten years ago, we were implored to lead the UK, not leave the UK, and what have we got now? We have Government Benches awash with Scottish Labour MPs, while Scotland waits with bated breath for just one of them to stand up for their constituents, where their interests lie at odds with Westminster. The Scottish Labour MPs have backed the Chancellor’s two-child cap, snaring 87,000 of our constituents’ children in poverty, and voted to strip the winter fuel payment from 900,000 Scottish pensioners in ours, the coldest part of this island. If that is a local Labour champion, I do not fancy meeting a local Labour villain on a dark night. All of this is justified by the fabled £22 billion black hole. With all this black hole hyperbole, I would like somebody in the Treasury to put the lights on, because it might shine the white light of truth on the black holes that Labour fears to mention. They include the £30 billion black hole where, by ripping ourselves out of the EU, we have been mortgaged to the twin burdens of increased administrative costs and the lost opportunities of membership of the world’s largest trading bloc. There is the black hole of nuclear energy sucking billions from the taxpayer, producing the most expensive energy at some time indeterminate in the future, and the Bank of England’s £24 billion black hole for quantitative tightening, which has not been discussed once in this House. I welcome the £12.21 minimum wage. It falls short of the £12.60 Scottish living wage, but it is a start. I welcome the £2.9 billion for defence, but I would be interested to know if any of that is ringfenced. Alarm bells will be ringing on farms across Scotland about agricultural property relief, especially as Labour has said consistently—it was specifically said by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs prior to the election—that it has no plans to review agricultural allowances. It is deeply worrying. It is good that Budgets will now be annual. Investment in capital investment should be 3%, and that should be a floor, not a ceiling, but long-term certainty is needed for the devolved nations.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed I will not accept that. I will get on to that—and to the block grant in particular—in just a minute if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a second or two. Infrastructure is like a sport: if you do not do it very much, you tend not to be very good at it—see smart motorways, Hinkley Point C and HS2. The Chancellor claims that there is no return to Tory austerity, and she is right, because this is Labour’s austerity, plain and simple. It is all the same to Scotland, though. She has called on Government Departments to make 2% efficiency savings. There is literally no precedent for that, ever. No Government have ever achieved that, so those efficiency gains will not be realised, and those 2% savings will turn into 2% cuts. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) asked about the Scottish Government’s position. We are led to believe that the block grant is going up by £3.4 billion. Clearly, that is welcome, but let us look at the back story, because that is what is important. The Scottish Government now receive a lower share of UK spending than at any point in the last decade. Total UK Government expenditure has decreased since 2020, and Scotland’s share of that expenditure has decreased faster still. In 2014, the adjusted block grant represented 8% of UK Government expenditure; however, that figure has fallen to 7.6%. That attrition represents a real-terms cut to the Scottish budget every year since 2020, and the Scottish block grant is now worth £6.4 billion less than it was in 2021, a drop of 12.7%. Of course, as we always do, the Scottish Government will put the £3.4 billion to tremendous use, but it still leaves us £3 billion short of where we were just four years ago. That is the problem with this Union. Moreover, last year the Scottish Government’s capital block grant was cut by 9.6%, a real-terms cut of £600 million, and we face a further cut from Westminster of 3%, or £200 million, to our capital grant this year. That is money not available to build schools, hospitals, roads and so on in Scotland. The Chancellor did not address that in the Budget today. We have fresh austerity and a fresh cost of living crisis delivered by this Labour Government—a Hobson’s choice for Scotland in broken Brexit Britain, where things can only get worse. Nine hundred thousand Scottish pensioners will have watched today in the vain hope that the Chancellor would U-turn on her winter fuel payment cut. Well, she finished that hope today. The winter fuel payment raid is a political choice with the most serious consequences. Labour’s own figures show that it could result in 4,000 excess deaths this winter, and estimates suggest that the cost to the NHS will be just shy of £1 billion and just shy of £100 million in Scotland. In leaflets that went out across Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, Labour promised to reduce energy bills by £300; instead, they have risen by £149, so where is Labour’s £449 saving coming from? Speaking to us from Manchester, the chair of GB Energy could not say when any savings would materialise, and last night Labour moved to block any move to put that on a statutory footing in the GB Energy Bill. It is heads Westminster wins and tails Scotland loses. This Budget has done nothing to atone for the 4.3 million UK children living in poverty, a situation that is further entrenched by Labour’s two-child cap impacting over 87,000 Scottish children. Over 100 children a day fall into poverty with Labour’s two-child cap. That is 10,000 children since Labour took office in July. What a record! This is a know-your-place Budget for children, the disabled and those living in poverty. It is a wait-a-little-longer Budget for WASPI women. It is a kiss-goodbye-to-your-family-farm Budget. It is a hand-over-the-money Budget if you are in Scotch whisky. It is a show-some-gratitude Budget to Scotland, to get a piece of what was already ours to begin with. And it is a grim reaper Budget for the 4,000 pensioners across these islands who will not survive to see another.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Economic Investment and Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Chancellor tell us, to the nearest £10 billion, how much extra would be available for long-term investment were it not for the fire sale of UK Government bonds by the Bank of England, costing the taxpayer dearly?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I politely disagree. No amount of emphasis on her part will change the detail in the Bill, and that is what MPs are concerned about.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, indeed. Will the Minister advise us whether we are talking about GB electricity or GB energy? I would be keen to know what investments and ambition this supposedly state-owned company—I have to grit my teeth when I say that, because it is actually little more than a trading fund—will be involved in? Will it be involved in carbon capture, utilisation and storage? Will it be involved in attenuated hydro? Will it be involved in pumped storage, geothermal or hydrogen? What are the limits of GB Energy? That is not in the Bill, and we do not understand what it will deliver. As other hon. Members have asked, what is the Government’s ambition on GB Energy when it comes to Grangemouth? Is it just limited to the common or garden production of electricity? I will not vote with the Government on the Bill. I do not want to condemn it as an election prop that is now desperately looking for some sort of function—I hope it amounts to more than that—but I will vote for the amendments, and so will my colleagues, to try to make some sense of the Bill.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 1, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), and amendment 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I am supportive of the Bill in the abstract, and I am certainly supportive of its headline ambitions, like many Members, but I trust that the Minister is hearing what the House is saying today about the substantive lack of information and detail, and the troubling direction of travel, which will place significant executive authority in the hands of the Secretary of State in discharging GB Energy’s responsibilities. It is a pity, too, that the attrition to the original budget of £28 billion has nearly quartered it to £8 billion. I hope that the jobs associated with this implied investment do not go the same way as the budget, before they get the chance to take root in the north-east of Scotland and support my constituents and many others in that part of the country. It is a shame that the only person appointed to GB Energy is not working in Scotland at all. I am not sure that was on the script going into the election, but it seems to be what has happened afterwards. Amendment 1 from the SNP asks the Labour Government to deliver upon what they said they would do ahead of the election. That does not strike me as particularly unreasonable. I do not think our amendment will be selected for separate decision, so I think we will be forced to vote with amendment 6 in the name of the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), which asks for basically the same thing. [ Interruption. ] The Minister is getting very excited. Of course, we would not have had to table an amendment if the Labour party had just put the measure in the Bill. It was in the leaflets, so I do not know why it was not in the Bill. It is also no longer £300 that we need to see reduced from hard-pressed working people’s bills. Since Labour made that claim, bills have gone up by £149, so the Government will need to get £449 off people’s bills before they can get back to where they started, certainly in terms of them having any credibility. The Liberal Democrats have a well-worded and noble ambition on community energy, and the SNP would have been pleased to support it. One of the things missing from GB Energy is a statutory responsibility to develop and accelerate community energy at pace in a measured fashion. Referring back to my opening remarks, I am supportive of the Bill’s outline ambitions, but I am worried about the lack of detail. The more we discuss and debate the Bill, the more I am concerned that GB Energy will end up doing lots of things that nobody particularly needed it to do, because they were all done by a department within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. What we do not have is what people want GB Energy to do. We do want it to generate energy independently and to have an effect on the energy market in the United Kingdom. We do want it to sell energy to the retail market. We do want it to buy community energy from community energy generators and to introduce it into the market. And we do want it to enable community energy and to lower bills.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  He can indeed. The hon. Member may think he is being terribly smart—he is a self-professed expert in the energy market—but he will know how difficult it is for someone to penetrate the UK energy market unless they happen to be a large plc or a multinational. When the Scottish Government took forward that noble ambition, they found precisely the same barriers to entry as community energy companies and trusts. If the hon. Member wants to get excited about that situation, I suggest he takes it up with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but if he wants to get in touch with me after the debate, I will be happy to discuss it further.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am going to make progress. The Minister has advised us that GB Energy will not seek to displace foreign-owned energy companies but will instead crowd in investment. In reference to the previously mentioned £300 bill reduction, he has also said that GB Energy will play a role in lowering bills but that that will not happen immediately. When he sums up, perhaps he can tell us when that will be, because it is not unreasonable for people to hear that ambition and to want to see a timeline attached to it. I also mentioned the attrition in GB Energy’s funding. Given its now drastically reduced funding, will the Minister advise us what challenges he sees GB Energy facing? When the Secretary of State was in opposition, he often made big play of the fact that there is a nationalised energy industry in the United Kingdom but that none of it is owned by the United Kingdom—it is all foreign. It seems a little odd that there is not the ambition, now that he is actually in power, to deliver that ownership.

• 28 Oct 2024 · Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  In outline terms, we welcome what the Government are seeking to do. It is important to raise the ability to generate capital infrastructure investment. Scotland invests 42% more than the UK average, and the UK average is 50% lower than the OECD average. That issue is a priority, but the Government’s move will fall on stony ground if on Wednesday the Chancellor continues with her priority to not lift people out of poverty and to go by exception after small businesses that take an income from that business by raising the cost of employment. With the four signal capital investment projects all being in England, I am moved to ask: what’s in this for Scotland?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, its content and for advance sight of it. The additional funding for Ukraine is very welcome, but it is what matériel they turn the funding into that will have the effect on the battlefield that we wish to see. With the shell production of European partners still well short of a million units per year, will the Secretary of State indicate how UK shell production has grown, either in numeric or percentage terms? If he cannot share that with the House, will he give us an assurance that it is increasing?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  After a bungled fraud investigation by Renault Crédit International, it, together with Renault-Nissan UK Ltd moved to seize the assets of a business in my constituency, Mackie Motors Brechin Ltd. This cost my constituent half a million pounds and 25% of his order book value. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the finer points of this clearly very dubious act by a UK bank?