Dave Doogan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  I do not understand industrially or militarily why the F-35 is the default choice. If the F-35 can be delivered only by the end of the decade, why is Tempest, which is more than capable of being delivered by the mid-2030s, not being considered? That is if we agree with the decision to be part of the nuclear sharing enterprise, and I do not agree with that, because no other nuclear-armed state takes part in nuclear sharing, no other P5 member delivers any other nation’s nuclear deterrent, and no nuclear power in the world delivers anyone else’s nuclear weapons.

• 19 Jun 2025 · UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The denial in this statement is truly breathtaking. This UK Government could not come up with a 10-year strategy that would survive first contact with reality on anything, and the statement comes against a backdrop of challenging cuts off the backs of the poorest while we are fitting £10 million new doors to the House of Lords and providing £100 billion for a not-very-fast railway that will not be finished for some time. There was nothing for Scotland in the Chancellor’s spending review, there is nothing for Scotland in this statement, and there is nothing for Scotland in the UK’s 10-year infrastructure working paper. On that latter document, it is interesting to note that it does not mention devolution, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland once. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think that simply mentioning Acorn will make private capital hang around and wait for the Government to put a number on it? How much of this will be a rerun of Labour’s disastrous private finance initiative projects, which Scottish councils are still haemorrhaging money on, and why is he heralding working with the Welsh Government but not the SNP Scottish Government? Is he a democrat or not?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When the Bank of Scotland branch closes later this year in Pitlochry, the town will desperately need a banking hub. That is why I was disappointed that the independent assessor and Link assessed only access to cash, not access to banking. I challenged Link on that, and it said that that is because of the mandate set for it by the Financial Conduct Authority; so I challenged the FCA on that, and it said that that is because of the regulatory framework in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023; so I challenged the Treasury on that and asked it to change its regulatory framework and imposition on the FCA. The Treasury said it will not do that. In opposition, Labour tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would have mandated a survey of access to banking services, not just access to cash. Can we have a debate in Government time about how we fix this utter guddle?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the U-turn on the winter fuel payment—of course I do, and lots of my constituents will do likewise—but there is no respite in this spending review for farmers in Scotland, business owners in Scotland, GP surgeries in Scotland, or the disabled in hospices in Scotland. Despite what the Chancellor says, there have also been real-terms cuts to the Home Office, Foreign Office and local government in this spending review. The Chancellor is an open book. She plays roulette with the economy, but I would not encourage her to play poker any time soon, because she mentioned Reform and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in her speech more times than she mentioned Scotland—what a disgrace! She mentioned that she has finally got around to Acorn, but without a figure attached. What funding is she going to allocate for Acorn? We know that if it is Merseyside or Teesside, there is £22 billion for them. How much for Acorn?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister a little worried that the unexpected growth in the first quarter of this year was businesses making capital investment to get in ahead of tariffs?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree; I would rather not agree, but I do agree. That is why I implore the Treasury Minister, who is in his place, to have whatever private conversations Ministers have in their Departments about things that they may have got wrong. They cannot U-turn or row back on everything, but honestly, agricultural property relief and business property relief is an absolute landmine for businesses to be pulled across by this Government. He does not even have to address it in his summing up; he can just go back and quietly look at it again and have a review—kick it into the long grass at least. I want to speak briefly on quantitative tightening by the Bank of England; I probably will not have too many supporters in the Chamber on this issue, but no change there. I have raised this matter a couple of times with the Chancellor and she talks about all manner of things in response, none of which are quantitative tightening. The over-zealous nature of the Bank of England’s disposing of Government bonds is hugely costly to the Exchequer. There is no need for the rate of quantitative tightening that the central bank of the UK is undertaking. It is not replicated by other central banks. Even if the Bank was to go to a passive model of quantitative tightening that would have substantial, multibillion-pound savings for the Exchequer, at a time when the Chancellor returning from China was getting excited about £600 million for the whole UK economy over five years; £600 million is not even the annual budget of my local health board in Angus and Perthshire Glens. If those types of numbers are important to the Chancellor, the total quantitative tightening cost of £45 billion since 2022 should really be nearer the top of her red box for her attention.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot help but agree with the hon. Lady. At the very least, that is what the Government should do, and other hon. Members have suggested that too. To be fair, it cannot be easy to form a new Government—it certainly does not look easy. Any new Government must come in, make decisions and quietly think, “Och, I wish we had not done that.” I am certain that APR was put under the nose of a Minister by a civil servant, in the full expectation that the Minister would have the wit to say, “We are not going there—we are absolutely not doing that.” And blooming heck, they have gone and done it. I am sure that when the civil servants walked away they were saying, “Oh God, we never expected that.” And so it is with business property relief, because of the consequences. The cost-benefit relationship between what they are doing to enterprise and business and what they will accrue to the Treasury is out of all kilter. The damage is way in excess of the potential accrual, and that is before behavioural changes are brought into effect. I recently spoke to a large-scale potato farmer near Kirriemuir, in my constituency, who has massive cold storage, a vital element of potato production, so that farmers can keep the potatoes in tip-top condition and ensure that the supermarkets are supplied as and when, just in time. I sometimes think that the Government think that farmers are trotting around in their tractors, chewing on a bit of straw, but these are really switched-on businesses that are doing the utmost to keep food prices down. We have some of the lowest food prices in Europe, and that does not happen by not investing seriously massive sums in capital and equipment. At a stroke, the Government have catastrophically disincentivised the very behaviour that helps keep food prices down and is anti-inflationary. Look what is going to happen with that.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be speaking up for Scottish constituents on such an important issue. I see that one of my Conservative colleagues, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), will be speaking up for his Scottish constituents. Nobody on the Government Benches has turned up to speak for their Scottish constituents on this issue. I want to start with the good bits. Now that we have got that done, we will get into the meat of this. As has been said, we see an incredibly wrong-headed brake on investment and enterprise in the jobs tax—the increase to employers’ national insurance. I do not think that measure is a sleight of hand; it goes beyond that. To say that employers’ national insurance is not a tax on working people stretches disingenuousness to its absolute limits. The measure is also counterproductive. The £22 billion or £23 billion—whatever the Government’s target amount was to take in from employers—has already been attrited to well below £10 billion. If they actually did the right thing by hospices, it would go down even further. The measure is a massive burden for a modest gain for the Treasury, and that does not take into account the consequential costs of imposing such a burden on businesses and employers. The impact has already been felt in care homes in Scotland, with five closing ahead of this disaster for enterprise. The Office for National Statistics has predicted that 25,000 jobs will be lost across the United Kingdom as a result. When the policy was introduced, I ordered a pint at one of my local pubs and jokingly asked the barman if the penny was already off the pint. He said, “Yes it is, and I have stuck on another 20 for your national insurance increase.” Although that is anecdotal, it speaks to the gulf in understanding between UK Treasury Ministers and the real economy that makes things tick. The Scottish Government estimate that, on average, the policy will cost £850 per job per year in Scotland. Except for the Scottish living wage and the slight difference in the income tax regime in Scotland, I see no reason why that figure would not be broadly the same across the whole of the United Kingdom economy. It is utterly unrealistic. The genesis of the measure is the UK Government’s insistence that they had no idea that there was a £22 billion black hole in public finances—there probably was, although they probably made about a third of that with what they decided to do when they came into government. There is a brazen willingness by the Labour party to reinvent reality—it is bare-faced. Despite being engaged on that repeatedly in debate during the election campaign, the say that they did not know there was a multibillion pound black hole in the UK public finances. What were they debating if they did not think it was real? It is totally disingenuous. Inflation jumped again in April to 3.5%, up from 2.6% in March. That was not caused by an economy firing on all cylinders or by a rejuvenated consumer sector, high on the output from a new Government, full of ideas and creativity. No, it is driven by electricity and gas prices and by water bills that consumers can do little or nothing about, but which they are still having to fight to pay on top of higher interest rates, as the Bank of England tries to get on top of inflation in a deeply dysfunctional economy. The Government should seek to address the actual drivers of inflation and take on those energy prices. Let us not forget that not that long ago, at the election, we were promised a £300 reduction in energy bills. It was not “maybe”, “around” or anything of that nature; the message was that if people voted Labour, they would get a £300 reduction in their energy bills. In less than a year, however, energy bills have gone up by £281, so they are now almost £600 higher, emptying consumers’ bank accounts and driving inflation. What is Labour’s response? Labour Members say, “That is because of our reliance on gas.” Well, we were reliant on gas before the election as well, so there are two possible reasons for that to have happened: Labour was playing fast and loose with the truth; or it did not understand how energy in GB works. I know which one I think it is, but either way it does not reflect well on this Labour party. In under a year, business confidence is falling, job losses and unemployment are rising, borrowing costs are soaring, prices are rising, growth is sluggish and there is rampant inflation. When speaking about growth at the beginning of the year, the Chancellor said that she was pleased but that she had got more to do. Well, God help business if she has got more to do. We have seen quite enough damage in the first nine months of this Labour Government. I turn to agricultural property relief. In the garden of Scotland that is Angus and Perthshire Glens—I will take no dispute on that fact—we have some of the most productive agricultural land on these islands. As hon. Members would anticipate, with such productive agricultural land, we have extremely high-performing food producers who invest heavily in the latest technology and equipment, and ensure that there is a tremendous return on investment, so that they get the best yields possible so that they can drive down prices and deliver good-value food for tables across these islands and beyond. What will happen now with agricultural property relief? What signal is being sent out to farms and farm businesses? Is it for those businesses to invest in their farms, so that they have to give it all away when somebody dies? Older farm owners in Angus and Perthshire Glens are now petrified of dying, and it will be the same everywhere else across the United Kingdom: what an ignominious, invidious position for any Government to put the people who produce our food into—it is incorrigible. I say to the Minister, with as much sincerity as I can muster, that quietly with his colleagues in the Treasury, at the spending review or some other opportunity—call it a review or whatever he likes—he should call off the dogs from our farming businesses up and down these islands. They deserve better. Business property relief is not unrelated, and we have heard some of the testimony from other right hon. and hon. Members on the necrotic effect that has on investor confidence. There is good reason why large-scale family businesses are really good for economies, especially local economies. They employ local people, they headquarter locally, and they try, as much as possible, to establish and stand up their supply chains locally. They sell nationally and internationally. It is a virtuous conveyor of capital from outwith to within. It is excellent for the economy. It is far better than the same economic output from a public limited company, although of course PLCs have their role. But what large-scale businesses in Scotland and elsewhere are speaking to me about is that disincentive to invest.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about a couple of points. When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It seems that what has been agreed with the United States is a tariff deal and what has been agreed with the European Union is a modification to our pre-existing arrangement. What does he think the US trade deal will mean for beef farmers in his part of Scotland?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister takes a casual swipe at the business acumen of Ministers, and I wonder whether I can encourage him to develop that point. When I speak to businesses in Angus and Perthshire Glens about the changes that have been instituted since July last year, they are incredulous that anybody with even a passing knowledge of business, enterprise or entrepreneurialism of any nature would put such roadblocks in the way of business and wealth creation. Would he like to expand on that?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is making great play of the way in which his new Government have increased wages across the United Kingdom since the election, but will he concede that 91% of earners and workers in Scotland were already earning more than the living wage level that his Government have recently set?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I am on dangerous territory here—it ill behoves me to defend the party to my extreme right—but does the hon. Gentleman not remember the note that was left by the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2010 about all the money being gone?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reassurance, particularly as I actively did not anticipate any reassurance. Total costs for quantitative tightening are predicted to be in the region of £130 billion, all borne by the taxpayer of the United Kingdom. The one relevant thing the Chancellor did say to me when I raised this with her during Treasury questions was that she highly values the operational independence of the Bank of England, and so do I, but that does not mean she cannot chat to them about what is patently unnecessary and extremely expensive to the public purse. Finally, we see a very unsavoury lurch to the right from a Labour Government on immigration. I will not rake over those coals but it is clear that the Prime Minister regrets some of his more florid language on immigration, and the Chancellor has provided no costings and no analysis of this dangerous policy that has been dreamt up on the back of a fag packet. Scotland has a declining birth rate, as do many other parts of the United Kingdom. We actively need immigration. We need it for our care sector, for our hospitality sector, for our agricultural sector and for our energy sector. It is not just low skilled seasonal work that we require, but all manner of people to come and work in our broad and diverse economy. In Scotland we have no idea why we have been dragged down this route—actually we know fine well why we have been dragged down it—but it is hugely damaging, again, for a Government whose stated ambition is growth, and choking off the labour component from the economy is really not consensual. This relates to the whole debacle on the EU. I heard the Chancellor say the other day that there is no going back on Brexit and there will be no regulatory alignment and no free movement of people and they will honour the vote of the people—not the vote of the Scottish people, let me add—and Brexit is water under the bridge. Well, it is not water under the bridge, or rather in so far as it is water under the bridge it is a pool of stagnant, rancid water that refuses to shift its acrid whiff from across society in Scotland and elsewhere. I heard a Lib Dem getting all doe-eyed earlier about seed potatoes; and he was right. Seed potatoes are very important in my economy, but I remember when a Lib Dem would give a full-throated endorsement to membership of the European Union, rather than doffing their cap to a Labour Government for frittering around the edges. This is frittering around the edges, and it has come at a tremendous cost to the Scottish fishing industry. Some 70% of the revenue from aquaculture and fishing in the United Kingdom comes from Scotland, and the Scottish aquaculture and fishing industry is 50 times greater a part of the Scottish economy than it is of the UK economy, yet no discussion was had with the Scottish Government or sector ahead of that, just as no discussion was had in 1970 when the Scottish fishing industry was thrown under a bus at that stage as well. The Minister might say, “Well, you can’t have it both ways, you SNP type: you can’t say you want to be back in the EU and then lament the loss of your fishing rights to EU boats”—the Minister can score that point out now. Although of course we want to be back in the European Union with all our other European nations, and we would have to take some of that pain on fishing, we would get the gain to go with it. What Labour have foisted on Scotland is all the pain of conceding our fishing grounds to European boats and none of the gain of being in the European Union, and nothing they have agreed this week is remotely like being back in the European Union. There is an ill wind blowing through the political landscape on these islands, and the actions of this Labour Government are simply making matters worse.

• 20 May 2025 · Spending Review: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  What changes will the Chancellor introduce in the spring statement to compensate for the growth-threatening sword of Damocles she has just placed over the Scottish fishing industry? She should know, but probably does not, that 70% of revenue from fishing and aquaculture comes from Scotland, and she should know, but probably does not, that the fishing industry in Scotland is 50 times larger for Scotland’s economy than for the UK’s. Can she explain what discussions she had with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation or the Scottish Government before making this damaging decision?

• 19 May 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that last week Mr Speaker granted an urgent question to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to discuss the Government’s adherence, or otherwise, to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code. During the proceedings following the urgent question, I asserted that “there is no such duty on Scottish Government Ministers”— —[ Official Report , 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 378.] I wish to make it clear to the House that my office has since clarified the position for me, and that provisions 10.1 and 6.24 of the Scottish Government’s ministerial code do confer broadly the same duty on Scottish Government Ministers. I have never misled the House before, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to correct the record.

• 19 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The number of nuclear safety incidents at Faslane and Coulport is on the rise. They include six incidents in the last 12 months in which there was actual or high potential for radioactive release into the Scottish environment. The Ministry of Defence has ceased providing information to either the Scottish Government or the Scottish people about the nature of these incidents. Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence has stopped providing information to the Infrastructure and Projects Authority so that it can grade nuclear projects on value for money and success likelihood. What does the Secretary of State think about this veil of secrecy over the nuclear enterprise?

• 14 May 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, this is a red-letter day: we are in the Chamber to discuss something positive that is happening with GB Energy. I commend the Minister and his colleagues for that, although it is consistent with the function of a significant U-turn in Government policy. I thank Members of both Houses for their work in bringing Lords amendment 2B to fruition. The amendment would ensure that no material or equipment produced as a function of slave labour is used in GB Energy’s enterprises, but I heard the Minister talk about “expectation” and “striving”, which are much less unequivocal than “ensure”, so I would be very grateful if he could reassure the House that “ensure” means ensure. Consistent with comments from other hon. and right hon. Members, there is a very straightforward way to do that. It is maybe not legislatively or bureaucratically light, but this is an extremely important issue. If it does not attract a burden of administration to ensure that our collective consciences are clear, what will? As an engineer, I know that many products that we purchase come with a certificate of conformity. In pursuance of ensuring that there is no slave labour in any enterprise of GB Energy, it would be very straightforward for the Government to mandate that a certificate of conformity must be produced for all equipment, which would explicitly guarantee that the supply chains are free of slave labour. That does not seem to be an especially demanding expectation. I will make a final point. Can the Minister explain something to me? I am genuinely not seeing this with the clarity that I suspect he is—or maybe he is not. In what enterprises will GB Energy be involved as the decider, rather than the provider, in delivering generation, transmission or storage capacity on the ground and in a meaningful way? How will GB Energy scrutinise or mandate bills for materials to say whether they are provided from this provider or that provider? That is not my understanding of the nature of GB Energy. As has been explained in this House and elsewhere, GB Energy is a derisking device that will inject capital into the market and clear the blockages—it will not introduce purchase orders from this company or that company. I would be genuinely grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  We have seen the contempt in which the Government hold the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, pensioners and the disabled, and their contempt for Scotland’s energy sector, job creators and the hospice sector, but that is all a function of policy. Policy is discretional and therefore, for better or worse—usually worse—legitimate. Adhering to the ministerial code is not a matter of discretion. To be honest, it is a little beneath the Leader of the House to say, “We don’t announce things to Parliament first every time, but we do some of the time, and sometimes the House isn’t sitting.” Every example presented to her today relates to a time when the House was sitting. When will she relay to the Government and the Prime Minister that Members are severely annoyed by the Government’s repeated inaction? For her information, contrary to what is being said by the three Scottish craws sitting on a wall behind her, there is no such duty on Scottish Government Ministers as that set out in section 9.1 of the ministerial code. [ Official Report , 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 782.] (Correction)

• 13 May 2025 · Mansion House Accord · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past 10 years, the Dow Jones has grown by 133%, the German DAX by 115% and the Nikkei by 87%, while the FTSE 100 has grown by 23%. It is against that backdrop that there is concern about investment in the United Kingdom. As other Members have said, given the fiduciary duty on asset managers, would they not be investing in the UK anyway if they thought that they were going to get the best return for their policyholders? If they were not already doing so, what has changed to ensure that that fiduciary duty is upheld as asset managers are coerced by the Chancellor to invest in markets that they would not otherwise have invested in?

• 8 May 2025 · Water Bills: Limiting Increases · Hansard source

  More

  What assessment has the Minister made on the cost of water bills from increases to regulation 31 laboratory testing capacity? I wrote to her in December about that and she replied in January. I am thankful for her answer, although it was slightly on the complacent side because she said that regulation 31 does not cause a problem to water quality just now. That is true, but the industry is burning down its assets to chemicals and equipment that have been regulation 31-tested, so a problem is coming. What assessment has the Minister made of when the solution will be delivered, and what effect will that have on water bills?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Eighty-five years ago, we saw the forces of fascism rise up to threaten democracy and freedom in Europe—forces of darkness that would seek to control, oppress, subjugate and exploit the people of these islands if they prevailed. But they did not prevail. We owe our current reality to the bravery and heroism of those who gave their lives in order that we may maintain the way in which we continue to live our lives. In Scotland, generations were lost and villages and towns were hollowed out of their breeding-age men who were barely men at all, often in their productive prime, who were sent to die in a foreign, distant place among the deafening and unrelenting roar of mechanised warfare, seeing their friends and neighbours die and drawing their own last breath desperate for a kind word, a mother’s soothing touch or an absent reassurance before a short life slammed shut. It was a far cry from the cheerful “Boy’s Own” adventure “We’ll be home soon.” Nobody got home soon. Many did not return at all, and many of those who did would never be the same again, because that is how it is with wars in the past. There was a legitimate desire to lock it away in a box, out of sight, which was nice if they could manage it, but many could not. Many families saw the slow heartbreak of husbands who were irreparably damaged—either physically or psychologically—and the distant, silent fathers who returned, never quite able to access the men they were before the war. Total war has a long tail, and it is still visible on these islands 80 years later in society and the economy. Indeed, the war debt to the United States was fully repaid only in 2006. If the war stores had not been evacuated from Coventry to the Perthshire hills between Almondbank and Methven, I would not have got a job there in 1989, and I can guarantee that if I had not worked for the Ministry of Defence, I would not be standing here today. Scotland stood tall in those darkest of times militarily, economically, industrially and culturally, just like our neighbours in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and in Norway, Denmark and the low countries. Scotland’s shipbuilding, coalmining, locomotive manufacturing, agricultural output and production of steel were all pivotal to the war effort. While young men fought, an army of older men and women toiled in the factories and the fields, equipping those at home and those in peril defending their homeland. Scotland’s industry and geography made it a target for the Luftwaffe. The first aerial combat above the United Kingdom in the second world war happened in the Firth of Forth, where the Luftwaffe targeted Royal Navy ships anchored off Rosyth. While London’s horrendous blitz raged on for eight long months, towards the end of that period the Clydebank blitz lasted just two nights, but on those two nights in March 1941, the Luftwaffe killed 1,200 civilians, injured a further 1,000 civilians and destroyed 8,500 homes in that town. Eighty-five years ago in Europe, we saw the forces of fascism rise up to threaten our freedom. Then the superior forces of freedom and liberty rose higher still to crush fascism down where it belongs. Eighty years after the end of that war, autocracies are still alive and well in our world today. To honour those who paid for our freedom with their own lives, we must remain forever alert to the fragility of our freedoms. We owe them all so much, and the absolute least that we can do to acknowledge their selfless sacrifice is to never, ever forget that liberty and vigilance go hand in hand.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has left himself exposed to the climate deniers in this Chamber because he has come of his own volition to make a statement in the absence of any understanding of what has actually happened in Spain and Portugal, thereby denying Parliament an ability to discuss any kind of strategic comparative assessment between the resilience of the GB grid and that of the Iberian grid. If he had delayed until he had the answer, we might be having a more valuable discussion. The Minister has been forced to say that his Department is ready for all eventualities; well, tell that to the tens of thousands of radio teleswitch service customers who will be left high and dry by his Department. He says that he has every confidence in the National Energy System Operator. I did not have a lot of confidence in it on 7 January when, but for the reinstatement of the Viking interconnector, we would have had a very difficult situation on the GB link. I know that that is distribution and not transmission. There is also the matter of trying to instil confidence in GB among electricity consumers after an episode on 21 March at Heathrow, which saw global consequences for a relatively localised disaster in the UK energy market. How does the Minister have confidence after those two events?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Brexit: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  Only this Government can deliver cold comfort and warm words all in the same sentence. The fact of the matter is that, after the Labour-Tory hard Brexit, the Welsh economy suffered by £4 billion, trade has gone down by £1 billion and Wales has lost £1 billion in European structural and development funding. On top of that, the Labour Budget has kicked Wales even further down the track. When will the Secretary of State stand up to her Westminster masters and finally do something in the interests of the people of Wales?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Brexit: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on the economy in Wales.