Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

I am a great admirer of the hon. Lady—she joined me on the Russia sanctions list this week and I pay credit to her for her work for the children of Ukraine—but I am somewhat surprised that, given those growth figures, she has now turned out in favour of independence! We all know what happened when Scotland remained part of the UK and the hit that we took. It is disappointing that Labour has embraced that. I will take a second intervention before I make some progress.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the epiphany the Secretary of State for Scotland has had in the intervening decade about the merits and de-merits of Brexit. Is it not the case that no matter what this Minister thinks—or what any other Minister thinks in any British Government, Scottish or otherwise—they are not in thrall to the realities of the economy; they are in thrall to voters in middle England?

[Stephen Gethins]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

I want to come on to the way in which we discuss and debate migration. Migration is a good thing. It benefits all of us. All of us throughout time have benefited from migration. I have been deeply disappointed by—I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker—the poison that often seeps into our rhetoric whenever we discuss this issue. We need to be honest: nobody is talking about uncontrolled migration and we need a migration policy. I want to talk about some of the industries that have talked to me, in a really sensible way that I think this House should listen to, about how we deal with migration.

I said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) that I would mention Labour. Analysis by the Labour Mayor of London reckons that Brexit, which this Government have embraced—I do not know what happened to the Secretary of State for Scotland; I consider him a colleague—loses us £40 billion a year. So when the Government are making cuts to the winter fuel allowance and cuts to the disabled, that is all to go and pay for a Brexit that nobody voted for and nobody wants.

While I am talking about people embracing a hard Tory Brexit, I want to refer to a former Member of this place, Michael Gove. Even before the Brexit vote, the architect of Brexit could see the damage that would be caused to Scotland’s economy. What did the architect say?

“If, in the course of the negotiations, the Scottish Parliament wants to play a role in deciding how a visa system could work, much as it works in other parts of the European Economic Area, then that is something we’ll look into.”

He went on to say that

“the numbers who would come in the future would be decided by the Westminster Parliament and the Holyrood Parliament working together.”

That is a commitment made by a Conservative Minister prior to the Brexit referendum. I remember listening to it on Radio Scotland.

I am loath to quote Michael Gove. Frankly, when the history is written of this place hence, there can be few politicians who, along with former Prime Minister Johnson, will have caused as much damage. His legacy will be one of costs and damage economically, as well as in terms of opportunities for our young people. But in that moment of self-reflection, Mr Gove did say that Scotland needed a particular solution. I also thought that I would quote him because I was going to appeal to Scottish Labour today, and they appear to have embraced Michael Gove. They are now getting prepared to stick him in the House of Lords to make him an unelected bureaucrat for life—something he railed against. The Secretary of State is making faces; I am not sure if he has signed off on that yet, or how keen he is on it, but the Government, having heard what Mr Gove said about unelected bureaucrats, are about to stick him in the Lords. I understand from the Press and Journal—I believe everything that I read there—that he is about to become Lord Gove of Torry. I am not sure what the good people of Torry think of that, or what they have done to deserve it—my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) will have a better idea than I do—but I am not sure they will think an awful lot of that. Having embraced a hard Tory Brexit, Scottish Labour is now—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are quite right to keep us on track.

The Bill fails to account for its impact on the broader UK internal market. If Scotland is granted the power to admit migrants under its own criteria, we will be left with a host of unanswered questions. What is the mechanism for managing the flow of people across borders? How will we prevent an influx of people from moving to other parts of the UK without proper oversight?

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member, who until about two minutes ago was one of the few people on the Government Benches I had any time for, talks about what a catastrophe it would be if Scotland could unilaterally control who comes to work on our shores and who comes to invest in our economy. Ironically, he forgets that that is exactly the encumbrance under which Scotland exists now: we get what England says we can get. It is a disgrace, and he is trying to defend it. Defend it now!

[Mr Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him that—for his calm and measured intervention, as usual, but I do believe that there was a referendum, and we are all fully aware of the result. I am sure I will still enjoy chatting to him in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The SNP Members are right—I am really rubbish at Roman numerals. I have suffered with that since I was a child, so I put that down to my lack of intelligence around Roman numerals. My notes do actually say “VI”—I just cannot do them, but at least I can admit to my failings. When James VI of Scotland became James I, did he ever think that after 400 years and multiple Acts of Parliament and referendums, we would still be having these conversations? Either way, he had a more successful career in the monarchy than Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the last prince of Wales.

As a Welsh MP who is the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, perhaps I was destined to be involved in a debate on Scottish devolution. I believe, of course, that devolving powers is right, and I appreciate that 14 years of a Tory Government here has left a very sour taste in the devolved nations’ mouths, including in Wales. But I cannot agree with devolving immigration to the Scottish Government. First, the notion that this should be a priority for the SNP here or in Holyrood is, frankly, for the birds. After a shocking result in the general election for the SNP, surely now the priority is to rebuild trust before the Scottish elections, and rebuilding that trust is difficult, guys. If we look at the record in Scotland, we see that almost one in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list. We see falling standards and rising violence in our once world-leading schools, while the poverty-related attainment gap in highers is at its widest ever, and hon. Members know how much I care about that.

[Dave Doogan]

Before the hon. Member gets to the end of her prepared litany of apparent failures in Scotland, she might want to touch on the far greater spending on education and health in Scotland. But just to get clarity on this issue, in this grotesque thing that is the United Kingdom, can she give me one measure—because I know she is super-smart—on which the devolved Welsh Government perform better than the SNP Government in Scotland?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

That old chestnut, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been part of that system as a teacher, and I know what the high points are. Actually, I do not think there is any comparator when the Scottish Government have had a lot more money to play with from their Barnett formula consequentials.

I want to move on to something that is very close to my heart: the Supreme Court judgment, for which Scottish women had to bring a case to the Supreme Court. I just think we have not done anybody right, and that comes from the SNP Government and their agenda in Scotland. We have seen how NHS Fife is treating the nurse, Sandie Peggie. We know how they are treating women and girls. There is a brilliant book called “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht”, by Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Susan Dalgety. It has 30 essays with 30 women’s voices on the situation in Scotland, from the frontline of the battle for women’s rights. It is a compelling read, Madam Deputy Speaker—I can get you a copy. So many women have had their reputations thrown under a bus and their jobs ruined, and their relationships with family and friends have gone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

It ill behoves me to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I was not talking down Scotland; I was talking down the Scottish National party’s record. I know the SNP thinks that it is Scotland and that Scotland is the SNP, but it most certainly is not. As for setting out a long litany of failures, I have only just started, believe you me—but as this debate must conclude at 2.30 pm, we simply do not have time to go through the list of failures of the Scottish National party in government over the past 18 years. The people of Scotland will have the chance to demonstrate at the polls next year whether they have confidence in the Scottish National party to continue in government. That is the only poll that matters, and we will see what happens in May 2026.

Let us address the utter absurdity of the Scottish Government’s proposed additional Scottish graduate visa, which would allow graduates four unsponsored years. It is even possible that those on the four-year graduate visa would qualify for permanent residence. Members have also raised the issue of Scotland’s declining birth rate. Proposing immigration as a quick fix for a declining population is wrong-headed and short-sighted. High immigration to solve low birth rates and an ageing population is a pyramid-scheme response. Working-age immigrants initially slow the growth of the age dependency ratio; however, they will in turn age and perpetuate the same crisis. Nations across the developed world face the myriad issues that an ageing population presents. The Scottish National party should be more focused on supporting working families and improving the economic outlook and prosperity, rather than proposing unfettered immigration. It might take the radical approach proposed by the Scottish Conservative party of making Scotland the lowest-taxed, rather than the highest-taxed, part of our United Kingdom and see what that does to attract people north of the border.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I am always delighted to give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member is too kind. Will he identify which SNP elected Member has prescribed unfettered immigration to Scotland, because I would like to know?

[Andrew Bowie]

As I often used to say when I was on the Government Benches, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with my answer—I am sure there is one. The idea that immigrants to a country as compact as ours would not seek job opportunities in other areas of the UK, should they so wish, is for the birds. Are we talking about border posts at Berwick, or papers being checked on the Caledonian sleeper? We are talking about a party founded over 90 years ago with the sole aim of achieving Scotland’s separation from the rest of the UK—but it still cannot tell us what currency should be used in that separate Scotland. The idea that SNP Members could design an intuitive scheme so foolproof and clever that nobody could take advantage of the situation is absolutely absurd, and nobody takes that seriously.

Turning back to the Government, it is a real shame that the Labour Government are choosing to talk out this private Member’s Bill rather than be forced to take a stance, but that is unsurprising, because we are well used to Labour Members demonstrating the utterly supine nature of the Scottish Labour party on Scottish issues. When faced with the madness of the SNP’s gender recognition Bill—this was raised this morning—Labour whipped their MSPs to vote to allow male offenders into women’s prisons. When the Labour leader in Scotland pays lip service to the plight facing oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland as a direct result of the Government’s damaging policies, Labour MPs stay silent. They refuse to stand up for women in Scotland; they refuse to stand up for working people in Scotland. Time and again, they refuse to do the right thing. Devolving immigration policy to the Scottish Government is clearly not the right thing, and Labour should have the courage of its convictions and say so.

As set out this morning, there is no case for the devolution of immigration. This is an invented exceptionalism. Scotland is no more dependent on immigration than the rest of the United Kingdom, and the purported crises—funding for universities, the rural workforce and the declining birth rate—are not solvable by this supposed silver bullet. This is a lazy solution to a series of complex issues that the SNP in Holyrood have neglected to resolve with the power already in their hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I do not think we can determine birth rate issues through the welfare system. The hon. Gentleman is essentially saying that people are choosing not to have larger families because of the welfare system. The fundamental problem of depopulation in Scotland has been around for 100 years—he mentioned that himself—but he sits on one small part of the welfare system to try to make a point that is not relevant to the debate.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to give way. Can the hon. Gentleman intervene less angrily than he has in the past?

[Dave Doogan]

The Secretary of State always enjoys the better side of my face. He characteristically paints Scotland as some sort of economic basket case, which I find a little offensive. If he wants to be robust in that accusation against our industry and our enterprise, how does he explain why Scotland is persistently in the top half of economic performing regions of the United Kingdom, and oftentimes on certain measures in the top quartile?

[Ian Murray]

I am tempted to say that Scotland is not a region but a country, but I will not go down that rather juvenile route. The clear point is that the No. 1 priority and mission of this new UK Labour Government is economic growth, because we require it in our communities. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that everything is rosy in Scotland, he should go to his communities and see whether he thinks that is indeed the case. There are lots of wonderful opportunities in Scotland in terms of economic growth, and we should be exploiting those to create the jobs and careers of the future. That is a key part of what we should be talking about.

It is clear that levels of immigration need to be reduced. The Prime Minister has also been clear that we will not be introducing an arbitrary cap. This issue will not be resolved by gimmicks, unlike what we see from Opposition parties. It is simply not enough to cap numbers. Without a joined-up approach, our economy will be left without the skills it needs to grow. By creating a fair and properly managed system, we will reduce net migration back down to sustainable levels. We will achieve that through the hard work of tackling the root causes of reliance on overseas recruitment, not through gimmicks such as arbitrary targets. We want to ensure that businesses are helped to hire domestic workers first. We will ensure that different parts of Government draw up skills and workforce improvement plans in high migration sectors.

When the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry introduced his Bill, he challenged the Labour Government on what we were actually doing. Let me just read our manifesto to him, because actually it reflects much of what he was asking for, but that is not what his Bill wants to try to achieve. It states:

“We will strengthen the Migration Advisory Committee, and establish a framework for joint working with skills bodies across the UK, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions. The needs of our economy are different across the regions and nations, and different sectors have different needs. Given skills policy and employment support are devolved we will work with the Scottish Government when designing workforce plans for different sectors. This will ensure our migration and skills policies work for every part of the UK.”

It also states:

“The next UK Labour Government will also ensure that UK-wide bodies are more representative of our nations and regions, this includes representation for Scotland on the Industrial Strategy Council, and Scottish skills bodies working jointly with the Migration Advisory Committee.”

Before the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry pops up and says, “Well yes, but who is on the Migration Advisory Committee?”, I refer him to Professor Sergi Pardos-Prado, professor of comparative politics at the University of Glasgow. He was recruited to the Migration Advisory Committee because of his knowledge on migration-related issues in devolved areas. All of the accusations laid by the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry through his 51-minute speech have been completely dispelled by the manifesto and the actions of this Government already.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; I know this issue means a lot to her. We are clear on the principles for reform: protecting those with the most severe disabilities, who will never be able to work, as she refers to, and making sure that people with the most severe disabilities and health conditions will never again face the prospect of being constantly reassessed. We are making sure that extra financial support is based on the impact of a health condition or disability, not the capacity to work, and I can reassure her that we are carefully considering options for transitional protection.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Q15.   His Chancellor’s economic policies started off badly and have headed rapidly downhill from there, his Energy Secretary’s policies ensure that energy-rich Scotland lives under the highest domestic and commercial energy prices in the world, and his Foreign Secretary provides diplomatic cover for the atrocities committed in Gaza by the Israel Defence Forces, to the horror of the people of Scotland, but the Prime Minister is the incompetent-in-chief who refuses to bring his Ministers into line. That is just one of the reasons why independence enjoys an 11-point lead over remaining in this dysfunctional, broken, Brexit Britain. Does he understand why the people of Scotland are so dissatisfied with his latest iteration of dysfunctional British rule in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the electorate in Scotland answered that question in July of last year? I remember that there used to be quite a few SNP Members sitting on the Opposition Benches; now it is a distant cry from up on the Back Benches.

Budget: Scotland

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregor Poynton]

The largest settlement ever received by the Scottish Government in the history of devolution is driving up additional funding that can be spent in Scotland. The SNP has nowhere to hide; it has no more excuses. It cannot continue to blame others for its economic and financial incompetence, because the problems in Scottish public services are not solved by simply having more money to spend. The Scottish Government need to get much, much better at spending it.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for chuntering from a sedentary position earlier; that was not very polite of me. He says that we need to see an end to the SNP’s “buy now and pay later” approach. Of course, he will be familiar with the fact that the SNP Government, or any other Scottish Government, must have a balanced budget every year, so what does he mean by “buy now and pay later”?

[Gregor Poynton]

You can borrow to invest. Also, the hon. Gentleman’s party has announced that it is ending the two-child cap but with no money to pay for it—that, to me, is “buy now and pay later”.

Scots can see that the SNP has lost its way and is out of ideas, and that its Ministers are incompetent and wasteful with public money. Scots earning over £29,000 a year pay more in tax in Scotland than people in the rest of the UK, which Scottish Labour will look at if we win the next election. What do Scots get for those higher taxes? They get a Government who waste millions on delayed discharge and agency staff in our NHS, ferries that do not sail and pet projects that do not deliver for Scotland, all while decimating local community funding, which means that vital services are lost.

Where, for example, is the vision for reform of Scotland’s NHS, which lurches from crisis to crisis? What was once an annual winter crisis now stretches further and further into other seasons. Our heroic NHS staff do a fantastic job under the most difficult circumstances, but they and the Scottish public are being badly let down by their political leadership, who waste millions on delayed discharge and agency staff.

This week, we have seen the UK Labour Government commit to a plan to get waiting times down from 18 months to 18 weeks, and to put in place the firm foundations to deliver proper social care services. Where is the SNP’s ambition on either of those two issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz—we always have to say that, but in this instance, I genuinely mean it. I am grateful to speak on this issue. When I saw this coming up on the agenda for Westminster Hall, I thought, “Goodness me, who has brought this?” It turns out that it is the Government. I thought, “That is all right. Well, let’s see what the facts are because this Budget had precious little in it to be welcomed in Scotland.”

I will start with that which could be welcomed for Scotland. Thankfully, the Chancellor heeded the SNP’s manifesto call to change the fiscal rules to allow more investment in capital infrastructure. That was good and welcome, and it will be helpful. They also heeded the SNP’s pre-Budget call for greater investment in the NHS, which will be very welcome as we try to recover from covid and staffing challenges. But aside from those two things, on which the SNP gave the Government a menu, the Budget has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland and Scotland’s economy. It has imposed billions of pounds of service cuts and tax rises that will hit working Scots in the pocket and do very little, if anything, to deliver on the promise that the people of the United Kingdom were offered as a prospectus in the run-up to the election.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman describe £50 million for Argyll and the Isles and £20 million for the Western Isles as a “disaster”?

[Dave Doogan]

I hope that that money will be spent and make a great difference, but it will not compensate the Western Isles and the Northern Isles one bit for the money that they have lost as a consequence of Brexit. The hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and many of his colleagues herald this as the largest Budget settlement for the Scottish Government, as though Budget settlements go up and down. But they continually go up: every latest Budget settlement is the biggest Budget settlement since the last one.

As various Bills have passed through the Chamber, I have not run out of opportunities to point out to the Government how the basics of fiscal policy and economics work, and here we are again. All power to the communities of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). I hope they get great benefit from that money but it does not fully compensate them for what they have lost, and no mistake.

The tax rise of £40 billion represents the biggest since Norman Lamont in 1993. Do not forget that when this Government came in, they inherited the highest tax burden in living memory, or certainly since the end of the second world war at least—

[Martin McCluskey (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West) (Lab)]

The highest!

[Dave Doogan]

Yes, the highest—so it is not as if there was some kind of low-taxation holiday spree and the Labour Government came in and put taxes up to compensate for it. Taxes were already the highest that anybody can remember and now they have gone up again by the highest amount in 32 years. It is absolutely eye-watering. The Chancellor’s refusal to step back from cutting the winter fuel payment from around 900,000 pensioners is absolutely—[Interruption.] They are chuntering that the winter fuel payment is devolved.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

No.

Let us get it on the record that the fuel payment did not use to be devolved and that, at the same time as it was devolved, they went and cut the budget. That is the Labour Government at a UK level for you. So yes, I know it is devolved.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

No. If the hon. Gentleman can get one of his colleagues to intervene, I will give way to them.

The Government’s decision to raise national insurance was like them showing that they do not know how the real economy works without showing that they do not know how the real economy works. It is a punitive lowering of the floor and increasing of the rate to try to wring out of employers the money required to recover the economy. It is a drag on employment, investment and wage rises. It is absolutely unforgiveable and totally counter to what the Labour party stated, ahead of the election, was its aim: to create a Budget for growth. There will be absolutely no growth as a consequence of that autumn statement. The Government think they will raise over £20 billion but, by the Treasury’s own measure, that figure is down to around £10 billion after they have made all the compensations. It is a massive swage of pain for very little gain in investment.

In moving the motion, the hon. Member for Livingston said that we in the SNP are keen to spend the extra money we will get but not to say how we would raise it. Actually, I will tell him how we would raise it, and our way would be much more cogent than what the Labour Government in Westminster have said they will do. Over and above that, in a Scotland-specific context the hike in duty on Scotch whisky was, in the words of the industry itself, “an indefensible tax grab”. Yet somehow we are expected to believe that everything will be okay because Anas Sarwar is going to speak to the Chancellor about it. The Chancellor will presumably then do what the UK Government always do when Labour in Scotland ask them to do something: absolutely nothing, if not the exact opposite.

The hon. Member for Livingston also talked about energy. He should go up to the north-east of Scotland to talk about energy: we are six months into this Government and there is no evidence whatever of GB Energy making any impact in Scotland. The last time I checked, it had one employee and was based in Manchester. The hon. Member also talked about the investment that would be realised. Somehow, the Acorn project in Scotland —the most deliverable carbon capture, usage and storage project across GB—is still not being funded by the Labour Government, despite their funding a further two CCUS projects in England, in addition to the two already there. Sadly, it is England 4, Scotland 0—it is like a football match.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

The point about green jobs and giving consent at Berwick Bank was made earlier. I ask the hon. Gentleman: when will that happen, to enable investment to come forward? That is another example of things being held back.

[Dave Doogan]

Like the hon. Lady, I am very hopeful that we will see Berwick Bank approved and into the construction phase as quickly as possible, to cement Scotland’s enviable position as the renewable powerhouse of Europe. She shares that ambition with me, but what we are talking about is due process. It ill behoves elected Members of any stripe or any Parliament to meddle in the statutory process of a consenting major development; that will unwind in the way it unwinds, but I very much hope it is positive and expedient.

I turn to the Women Against State Pension Inequality—the WASPI women. They will absolutely have been left wondering what they have done to deserve such a catastrophic betrayal by the Labour party of their very modest and reasonable ambitions. During the debate on the autumn statement, I said that it was fantastic news that the Government, to be fair, had made sure that the money was there for the infected blood scandal and that the postmasters were properly compensated. Neither of those two scandals was of the UK Government’s making—well, not deliberately of their making; certainly not the infected blood scandal—but the WASPI women’s situation was. We now know the Government have turned their back on those people in the most reprehensible way possible.

The Chancellor promised a growth Budget and the hon. Member for Livingston says it is a growth Budget, but sadly it will

“leave GDP largely unchanged in five years”.

The inflation forecast will compound that. Inflation is set to rise to 2.6% and interest rates by 0.25% just; mortgage rates, after a brief period of respite, are on course to rise again. For years, people up and down these islands, especially in Scotland, have been hammered by the cost of living crisis. They, alongside small businesses, will be looking at this hatchet job by the Labour party and wondering what on earth will be coming next. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, no less, has pointed out that somebody will pay for these higher taxes; that somebody will be the ordinary working person. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that there is only a 54% chance that the Labour Government will meet their own fiscal rules through this Budget, raising the question of why the Chancellor thinks this amount of economic pain is worth such a low level of fiscal gain.

What about investors in the agricultural sector? Scotland’s agriculture is a very much larger part of its economy than overall UK agriculture is of the UK economy, but I am sure the Chancellor never bothered to speak to anybody in Scotland about her raid on farms through her farmers’ death tax. Labour could have done something progressive to stop outside investment and farmers disrupting that market, but they did not and they threatened the very existence of Scottish agriculture.

What would the SNP have done? We would certainly not have put this colossal fiscal drag on the economy of Scotland. We would have made sure that what we did was progressive and proportionate and that it would increase economic growth. I am sure Labour Members are not very supportive of an income tax in Scotland—

[Torcuil Crichton]

Can I ask the hon. Member which taxes the SNP would raise?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens that he has spoken for 10 minutes already. If every other hon. Member takes that amount of time, we will not be able to hear from everybody.

[Dave Doogan]

That is fine, Ms Vaz; I am just closing now. I do not think Members will be speaking for 10 minutes, but that is not my job.

On the progressive income tax regime implemented by the SNP in Scotland, I should say that Labour criticised us when we had the powers and did not use them, and criticised us when we had the powers and did use them. If the UK Government had mirrored our fiscal policy on income tax, they would have raised about £16.5 billion across the United Kingdom. That would not have been reduced to £10 billion because of compensations that they would have had to make, because there would not have been a raise on employer’s national insurance; they would not have had to compensate anybody. They do not want to talk about Brexit, but I do, because it cost the UK £30 billion a year and Scotland £10 billion a year, which would otherwise have been a great increase in the economic output of Scotland and the rest of the UK.

My final point is that the UK Government could scrap nuclear weapons. In four years, the estimated budget has gone up from £44 billion to £100 billion over a 10-year period. An awful lot of investment could be made in Scottish communities with that money, which would boost Scotland even more. We already enjoy the highest number of GPs, nurses, midwives and teachers per head in Scotland; nowhere else in the United Kingdom can touch our level of provision. The Labour party are just going to have to suck that up.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member obviously has the title of Mr Scotland. I am afraid I will have to impose a very informal time limit of around four minutes so that everyone is able to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this important debate. I join him in welcoming this record settlement of more than £4 billion for the Scottish Government, but I would not want Members to go away with the impression that the SNP Government are somehow benignly mismanaging the economy, carelessly not controlling the NHS or accidentally running down educational standards in Scotland. They are involved in nothing less than the wilful destruction of the pillars of public life and public services in Scotland, because they are neglecting to make difficult decisions. They are putting off the reckoning that there must be in education; we must leave educationalists to educate and teachers to teach. They are also wilfully neglecting transport in the Western Isles and the west coast, and the health needs of constituents like mine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said that one in six Scots are on waiting lists. My constituents in the Western Isles are not on waiting lists; they are waiting for the sound of a helicopter to take them to hospital, because the NHS does not properly function in the Western Isles thanks to the Scottish Government’s neglect and the lack of resources given to it. In the Western Isles, people do not take an ambulance or a taxi to hospital; they take a bus to an airport, to take a small flight to another airport, to take a flight to a mainland airport, to take a taxi to hospital to get chemotherapy. That is the state of the NHS in Scotland under the SNP.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I will give way. I would love to hear the hon. Gentleman’s excuses.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the litany of failures, as he sees them, in Scotland’s NHS. How then does he explain that spending per head is greater than it is the rest of the UK, that the number of doctors per 100,000 people is higher than it is the rest of the UK, that the number of nurses per 100,000—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Torcuil Crichton.

[Dave Doogan]

His airlifted constituents—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. You have had 10 minutes, Mr Doogan. I am really sorry, but this is unfair to other Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

There are businesses across Scotland that are now seeking to lay people off, not employ new staff. In Aberdeenshire in the north-east, energy companies are seeking to lay off staff as a direct result of decisions taken by this Government. In fact, the negative impact of the Budget on growth and investment in Scotland will actually have a detrimental effect on all people in the workplace. So no, I do not agree that any of the decisions taken in the Budget will be to the benefit of hard-working Scots. In fact, I believe directly the opposite. This jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions —is an attack on our working people, our small businesses and our economy by this economically illiterate, as proven so far, Labour Government.

For family businesses such as Walker’s Shortbread, William Grant, Tunnock’s or GAP Group, the situation is compounded by the changes to business property relief brought in by the Government. In GAP’s case, that will mean that a company that employs 2,100 people and that already pays more than £50 million in taxes annually will have an additional tax bill of between £50 million and £100 million, simply for wanting to move the business to the next generation. As Douglas Anderson of GAP said to The Times yesterday, this is

“a state penalty on family businesses.”

It is simply unfair.

[Dave Doogan]

Does the hon. Member agree that money talks? Despite how we might argue here in Parliament, money talks. Is he concerned that the yield on UK Government gilts over 30 years is now 5.22%, which is even higher than when Liz Truss tanked the economy?

[Andrew Bowie]

I read that a couple of seconds before I stood up to speak, and of course it is extremely worrying. The trajectory of the UK economy under this Labour Government should give us all cause for concern, which is why it is right that we are having this debate today. I am just surprised that it was secured by a Labour MP.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on securing this debate on the impact of the autumn Budget on Scotland, and on his very dogged advocacy on behalf of those in his constituency who need the East Calder medical centre.

The UK Government were handed a challenging inheritance: £22 billion of unfunded in-year spending pressures, debt at its highest level since the 1960s, an unrealistic forecast for departmental spending, and stagnating living standards. This Budget took difficult decisions to restore economic and fiscal stability so that this Labour Government can keep the promises we made to the Scottish people. We promised to put Scotland at the beating heart of this Government; we have. We promised to end austerity; we did. We promised we would invest in Scotland’s future; we are.

It is no surprise to me that we have heard the usual carping from Opposition parties. They simply cannot face facts, because the facts are that this was a great Budget for Scotland.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I will make some progress. The Budget ensured the largest real-terms Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in the whole history of devolution, with an additional £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government to spend this financial year and an additional £3.4 billion next year. It means that the Scottish Government are receiving more than 20% more per person than equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. It delivered the most for those with the least, because that is what Labour Governments do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty McNeill]

I will make some progress. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) shared moving testimony about the impact of changes by the Scottish Government on rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked about the crisis in NHS and social care. The answer to all those challenges is the same: investment in our public services. That is exactly what this Budget is designed to do.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I will make some progress. I have been listening very intently to the speeches and chuntering from some hon. Members; I have not been taking any notes on economic credibility. The Fraser of Allander Institute, Audit Scotland and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have all confirmed that the challenges in Scotland’s public finances are a mess of the SNP’s making. As for the party that brought us Liz Truss, the verdict of the people of South West Norfolk tells us all we need to know.

I urge everyone instead to listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), for Glasgow East (John Grady), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about how to get Scotland growing. Our objective is not simply to rescue our economy from the havoc wrought by the Conservatives, but to grow it. That is why we support Great British Energy, providing £125 million next year to set up the institution at its new home in Aberdeen. That is a huge boost to the granite city, inexplicably voted against by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and his fellow SNP MPs, all sent here to deliver for their constituents but who instead sought to sabotage investment that would benefit them.

I am also pleased that we have been able to confirm our commitment to invest nearly £1.4 billion into important local projects across Scotland over the next 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty McNeill]

I will make some progress. Those are all the choices of a Government resolutely focused on the future. In conclusion, the Budget does exactly what Scottish Labour was elected to do. It secured billions for Scotland; the SNP voted against it.

[Dave Doogan]

On that point, will the Minister give way with only seven minutes to go?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I am going to make progress. The Budget secured billions for Scotland; the SNP voted against it. It delivered a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots; the SNP voted against it. It ended Tory austerity; the SNP voted against it. The simple fact is that they are out of road, out of excuses and out of time. This Budget helps us invest in Scotland and rebuild Britain. I am proud to tell my constituents that I voted for it and I look forward to seeing all the ways that it will change Scotland for the better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

Mineworkers from my own constituency of Midlothian, from my hon. Friend’s constituency and from across our coalfields powered this country, so I am delighted that our Labour manifesto committed to ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme by conducting a review of the unfair surplus arrangements and of transferring the investment reserve fund back to members. I would be delighted to write to my hon. Friend and to other Members representing coalfield seats with a further update in due course.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

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?

[Kirsty McNeill]

The Member will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said this morning that the tax policies of the Scottish Government have actually cost Scotland money rather than raised it. He will know, too, that this Government have had to undertake a comprehensive audit of spending to make sure that we can clear up the mess that we have inherited. The £22 billion black hole is real, and the Treasury reserves have been spent more than three times over. He will be aware that the focus of the Chancellor is on making sure that we fix the foundations and get the economy back on track.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that important question. The Government are undertaking analysis of the technology pipeline available for contracts for difference auction round 6 against our legal obligation to ensure that the auction round is competitive. We are considering the appropriate parameters for all technologies, including tidal stream and wave energy. The final parameters will be published in the budget notice this month, ahead of the auction round opening.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

The Seastar tidal farm off the coast of Orkney is set to be the largest tidal energy farm anywhere in the world, and it was supported by EU funding through the European Marine Energy Centre. This comes after Edinburgh University’s report found that the UK Government could save hundreds of millions of pounds by bringing forward the development of tidal by years, if it worked more closely with its EU partners. It is clear that the EU’s role in this in Europe and around Scotland is very important, so if Scotland is better together with anyone, is it not better together with the EU and its investment in tidal?

[John Lamont]

What a load of nonsense. Scotland is much better served by being part of the United Kingdom, and we will continue to support all renewable energy sectors, including tidal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend is a champion for this industry, and it is the UK Government’s ambition to increase planting across the United Kingdom. I know she is keen for productive forestry to be used to support the construction and manufacturing industries, which is also the Government’s ambition.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Scotland, as in so much else, leads the way on forestry and tree planting, at 10,000 hectares, fully three quarters of all tree planting across these islands. Can the Secretary of State instruct the House on how, around the Cabinet table, he has championed Scotland’s progress in this area, or is he too cowering?

[Mr Jack]

Not only do I champion it, I plant trees myself.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is the thinnest of gruel in another Westminster Budget, and one from which the people of Scotland will benefit very little, whether they are self-employed, employed or in need of state support. There was one nugget of truth—one kernel of wisdom—in the Chancellor’s remarks: independence is better than dependence. That is something that we have known on the SNP Benches for quite some time and I am glad that the Chancellor can accept it. Later, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) trumpeted the success of Irish GDP growth, investment, dynamism and entrepreneurialism, forgetting that if Ireland were still shackled to the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, it would have the autonomy to do no such thing, to empower its people in no such way and to develop that growth not one bit.

Let me first touch on the absence of any increase or inflation to the public sector mileage rate, which was set in 2011. That would have been very well received by hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people. This Government never tire of talking about ordinary working people—I assume they have met some, at least once or twice. Increasing that mileage rate to something more reasonable would have been well received, as 45p does not begin to cover the cost of inflation, much less the cost of motoring. That should have been put up to about 60p.

Last year, this Government removed the rebate on red diesel for plant and machinery, contributing to an already dire situation with construction inflation and putting a real millstone around the neck of capital investment by the Scottish Government and Scottish councils; it is the same in Wales and in England. However, there is a difference: the Treasury pockets the benefit on English capital investment programmes, but it also pockets the benefit on Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish capital investment programmes. That is yet another example of giving with one hand and taking away with the Westminster sleight of hand.

On defence, we can see on page 31 that the combined resource and capital DEL budgets are £51.7 billion for 2024-25. This Tory Government like to march around with no shortage of puff in their chest, talking about being the guardians and vanguards of defence in the European theatre. Well, I’ve got news for them. They are claiming to want to uplift the budget to 2.25% of GDP, which would give a £58 billion budget on 2023 projections. They say that at some indeterminate point in the future they will increase that to 2.5%, which would give £65 billion for defence and please some of their critics on their own Benches. The problem they are going to have is that Germany has committed 2%, and 2% of German GDP is £72 billion. So this Government have consigned the UK’s defence force to playing second fiddle on the European stage.

I understand the Chancellor’s concern because the Ministry of Defence is guilty of eye-watering waste, but the problem they now have is that, to keep the Secretary of State for Defence in his job, they have had to give him some concessions. However, it is not enough and it is clear that the Secretary of State is writing rhetorical cheques that the Chancellor will not cash.

On pubs, there is a public health emergency with alcohol misuse in this country. A lot of that stems not from pubs or restaurants, but from supermarket off-sales, where people buy large quantities of low-cost alcohol and consume it in an unsupervised way, day after day, developing extremely damaging habits. I genuinely welcome the amendments the Government has introduced to duty on draught products, but they need to go further and take a holistic view in order to address the spectre of duty, VAT rates and energy costs over pubs. All of us in this place have pubs in our constituencies that are extremely valuable to our communities. We should all realise that when they are gone, they are gone and not coming back. So proper fiscal intervention to support pubs is the right thing to do. Failing to do that is penny wise, pound foolish.

In this Parliament, I and my colleagues are continually harassed and Scotland is habitually derided by the superior, patronising forces of Unionism—[Interruption.] Maybe the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) wants to intervene? In reality, after 16 years of government, the progress we have made under the constraints of devolution are genuinely remarkable. I am hugely proud of those achievements, even though they cannot be accepted in here by Labour, Lib Dems or Tories. They enjoy the rhetoric; they are less keen on facts.

Scotland is the principal destination for foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom. Scotland is the most productive area in the United Kingdom out of 12 regions, with the exception of London and the south-east. Employees on a median income pay less tax in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Someone living in a band D property pays £600 less in council tax in Scotland than in England. England has a tax on ill health of £9.35 for a prescription, whereas prescriptions are funded in Scotland. There are 65 more police officers per 100,000 of population in Scotland, and 226 more nurses and midwives. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who is not in his place just now, is very concerned about how hard it is to get a GP appointment in England; we have challenges in Scotland, where there are 95 GPs per 100,000 of population, so I do not know how bad it must be in England, where there are only 79. Business rates kick in at £12,000 in England and £15,000 in Scotland.

We have achieved those gains—to the benefit of our communities, our enterprise and our population in Scotland—despite this Union. Imagine what we could do when we are rid of it.

Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I am not an expert on the Northern Ireland Bills, so I will not stray into that area, but we have been advised that protections and safeguards for women and children need to be looked in light of those adverse effects. That is what we are dealing with through section 35 of the Scotland Act.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

You would think that before pulling the trigger on section 35 the Secretary of State would be absolutely across his brief, but it seems that he does not have a clue about this at all. We have heard very little about process and even less about substance. He says that the Bill would have a significant impact on, among other things, GB-wide equality matters in Scotland, England and Wales, so what consultation did he have with the Welsh Government or the Senedd before this drastic intervention, or is this really a priority issue for the de facto English Government? With independence looming larger than ever before this crumbling Union, is this not an act of desperate democratic vandalism?

[Mr Jack]

No. The Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), tells me that the UK Government consulted a number of years ago, and Wales would have been included in that consultation. The point is that there is no democratic vandalism, or whatever the hon. Gentleman was saying. The Act that contains section 35 is entirely democratic, and we are now using that order to protect women and children’s safeguards, which we believe are undermined by the cut-across in two GB-wide laws.

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn]

The Secretary of State has opened himself up to many things, ridicule among them, by his failure to see the blindingly obvious.

To revert to my previous point about the wider Conservative position, let us be clear and in no doubt whatsoever that the Conservatives are seeking to utilise this issue for a culture war—nothing more, nothing less. These are the dying embers of a failing Government who see the polls, who know they are on their way out, and who know their Members will lose their seats. In a last gasp attempt to create division, they are using some of the most vulnerable people in society to create a culture war.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is kind in giving way. He is absolutely right. The SNP was accused earlier of trying to use this issue as a vehicle to create a constitutional schism and conflict, but like all parties in Holyrood that voted the Bill through in the Scottish Parliament, the SNP had a mandate from the electorate in Scotland. Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that the Conservative Government have no mandate from anybody for the action they are taking?

[Stephen Flynn]

I share my hon. Friend’s views. I am deeply concerned about that, and about the culture war that the Government are seeking to stoke.

Let us also reflect on what we have here. We have a Conservative Government, who have not been elected in Scotland since 1955. Perhaps most intriguing, we have a Secretary of State for Scotland who, in the coming months, will be walking out of this place. He will not be walking anywhere except along to the undemocratic House of Lords. Baron Jack, as he will come to be known, is trying to tell Scotland’s democratically elected parliamentarians what they can and cannot do, while at the same time knowing that he will end up in an unelected Chamber. Shame on him and shame on his Conservative colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The shadow Minister seeks to cast this conflict or tension—whatever we want to call it—as being between two Governments. In fact, depending on how the Labour party decides to act, the conflict and tension are between two Parliaments. There is cross-party support for this Bill in the Scottish Parliament, from the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the SNP and the Scottish Labour party, whereas in this House it is simply the Conservatives who are standing in the way. Can he advise on how the Labour party will move on this?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. What we are dealing with today is a debate between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] This is in the Scotland Act 1998, and it has to be resolved by the two Governments. If SNP Members want the Labour party to resolve this, we are happy to take the seats of Government either in the Scottish Parliament or here, but it has to be resolved by the UK Government and the Scottish Government. That is the black and white of this issue.

Scottish Referendum Legislation: Supreme Court Decision

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

This is nothing short of parody. I have been an MP here for nearly three years and I have never heard a Minister say “I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago” as many times as this. That is because the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland has his back against the wall because he is denying democracy and democratic norms. He and all the other Tories say that we cannot have another referendum because we do not want to foment the division that exists around the constitutional space in Scotland—well, it exists already, so let us lance the boil. Let us have a referendum and find out what the people of Scotland want.

[Mr Jack]

To pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the reason I say that I have answered the question so many times before is that hon. Members are asking the same question time and again—it is just a little bit repetitive. The answer is quite simple. As I have explained many times before, the route to a referendum in 2014 involved consensus between both Governments, across all the political parties and across civic Scotland. We are far from being in that place now.