Dave Doogan
MP for Angus and Perthshire Glens · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“Industrial hemp is at the forefront of innovation in agriculture, and my constituent Martin Cessford is a farmer at the forefront of that in Scotland. Hemp has great promise for industrial, health, climate and building applications.”
“In the coming weeks, energy bills will rise again for households across the United Kingdom; within the last few days, five major mortgage lenders have pushed up mortgage prices for households across the United Kingdom; and within the last few hours, the cost of a barrel of oil has gone to over $100, pushing up prices at the pumps for moto…”
“Just to develop the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s theme, the Minister is taking some steps to control foreign contributions and donations to politics, but why not just ban them?”
“I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In so doing, I extend my best wishes not only to him but to his family, as he takes up the manifold burdens of his new role.”
“The Minister will know that the Secretary of State is regularly to be heard talking about his many, many good friends. Does she believe that the Prime Minister-elect is one of those good friends, and, while we are on the subject of young Scots, will it not be awkward when the Secretary of State’s job is taken by another young Scot in the…”
“I note the Minister’s doughty protestations on behalf of the Secretary of State, but noting that is one thing. What message does she have for the 800,000 young Scots who were unable to vote in the 2014 referendum about her party’s continued dogma preventing young people in Scotland from having a say on their constitutional future?”
The complete record
Every one of 605 lines we hold for Dave Doogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“The SNP is broadly supportive of the contents of the Bill. It is an important Armed Forces Bill; it is hard to remember another Armed Forces Bill that stepped into such a yawning breach between the armed forces capabilities that we have and the armed forces capabilities that we need. Notwithstanding the fact that clauses 5, 9, 48 and 49 and schedule 2 and elements of schedule 3 will not have effect in Scotland, much of that which is in the Bill is long-overdue legislation that begins to address the systemic problems of the recruitment, training and upkeep of our armed forces, what we expect our armed forces to do and the conditions in which we expect them to live. I will restrict my remarks to the measures that address the important elements of housing, sexual harm and the numbers within our armed forces.”
“The SNP delivered yet another ambitious budget for Scotland yesterday. It saw almost £1 billion for rates relief, £5 billion for energy and climate change and a 10% uplift for Scotland’s colleges. [ Interruption. ] The SNP has delivered 10.5% growth since 2007, compared with the UK’s 5.1%. The question is not about what the UK Government will do for Scotland’s economy, but what they will do to stop damaging it. [ Interruption. ]”
“The hon. Member is right that the UK Government said that they are not in the business of saving failing businesses, but they have washed their hands of some of the key factors that contribute to those businesses failing. For example, they are signalling about new licences in the North sea, but these refineries use vast amounts of energy. In the UK, we enjoy the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. That is the Government’s responsibility.”
“The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way again. He is setting out a seriously curious sequence of events for a well-intentioned Government relative to a vital industry. Is he concerned, as I am, that this is more about the beliefs of the Secretary of State than the industrial imperatives of these islands? The Government are failing in their pursuit of decarbonisation, but they are succeeding in deindustrialisation.”
“The hon. Lady talks about our need to scrutinise what was deemed a credible bid. Will she ask the Minister whether the Government will apply “commercial in confidence” rules in order to cover their tracks when it comes to what was and was not a credible bid?”
“The Minister says that she has considered carefully the fairness of the changes in this clause. Has she considered at all the compound effect of this and all the other taxes that are currently killing hospitality businesses?”
“I remember precisely the dynamic that the hon. Member sets out in his local high street. We used to have it in Scotland, too, until we introduced minimum unit pricing, which took the very large volume, high-strength alcohol products off the shelf in Scotland, or at least put them way up in price. He can check with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who I am sure would endorse that SNP policy.”
“The hon. Member refers to his belief that the Scottish Government are engaged in anti-jobs policies. Can he therefore explain why unemployment in Scotland is substantially lower than it is in England?”
“That same coalition emphasised spirits’ outsized role in hospitality margins, as they represent a smaller share of sales but a larger slice of profits, meaning that duty uprating can squeeze already extremely fragile margins in venues, especially in Scotland’s towns and rural areas where footfall is thinner. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that this tax rise could be the final nail in the coffin for many hospitality businesses that are already on the margins of solvency, especially those in rural settings, such as my constituency and those of many other hon. Members. I do not hold with banning Labour MPs from pubs, because pubs are about being in the company of people from all walks of life. If people wish to select the company that they keep, they can do that in their own house.”
“Through the hiking of duty, for the third time in two years, in the November Budget, a sector that is already mitigating job losses, stalled investment and business closures will face substantial additional headwinds. If the Labour Government genuinely value industry in Scotland beyond the grasping hand of the Treasury, they should work with us to amend or remove clause 86. That would have been a lot easier if SNP amendment 30 had been selected for debate. Nevertheless I can but appeal to the Minister’s better and last-minute judgment on this matter. A Scottish coalition of drinks, tourism and farming representatives warned in October that duty increases had already contributed to around 1,000 job losses, and claimed that duty can make up around 70% of the cost of a bottle of Scotch.”
“With clause 86, the Treasury in Westminster continues to treat Scotland’s vital Scotch whisky sector as a cash cow, with duty rising again in line with inflation in the Budget. As the Scotch Whisky Association warned, the previous 3.65% increase to spirit duty reduced revenue by 7%, costing the Treasury £150 million, so it seems an opportune moment to remind the Minister that her ambition, and that of her colleagues, should be to increase tax receipts, not erode them. Dewar’s, Blair Athol, Edradour and Glencadam—just some of the distilleries in my constituency of Angus and Perthshire Glens—are four of the many distilleries striving to deliver global excellence, all while being gouged year after year by the Treasury in London.”
“Labour should really listen, because on top of all that, there is now a 25% increase in unemployment, with 352,000 people now unemployed who were not before Labour came to power.”
“On top of all that, we had the highest energy costs in the developed world. Since the election, Labour has added to that. At the outset of the debate, I expressed my concern and the Minister was kind enough to take my intervention on the compound effect, which many other Members have mentioned. She should really take cognisance of that, because since the election, Labour has added to the hospitality sector’s pain with a massive rise in employer national insurance contributions, even higher energy bills, even greater economic despondency pervading across society, an entrenched cost of living crisis keeping people at home, an increase to the minimum wage with no increase in revenue to support the payment of that wage, and no respite or consideration for the VAT millstone around hospitality’s neck.”
“I have heard a range of cases from right hon. and hon. Members about that differential, and I would certainly like to see nothing happen that would jeopardise the drinks, hospitality or agricultural sectors in the west country, but I will leave that to be divined by others with a more material interest, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Pubs are revered institutions, and they are under threat as never before across these islands, so let me put the situation in simple terms. Let us not forget that before the election hospitality was already struggling with the post-covid recovery, the highest taxes since the war, a punitive and unrelenting business rates regime, the disastrous misadventure of Brexit and labour shortages, and 16 years of the UK without any meaningful economic growth.”
“She should do that before she introduces the 13th headwind—unlucky for pubs—with clause 86. The SNP will back new clause 9, because, as many Members have said, we really need to review the way in which alcohol is purchased and consumed in the United Kingdom and the fiscal burden that follows that. Off-sales are getting far too easy a run of it, and on-sales will disappear before our eyes. I also support new clause 26. It is too late today, as we have not been able to stop Labour coming to assault our pubs, but I look forward to standing up for Scotland’s hospitality sector again on Report. I hope the Minister will then have had a change of heart, or at the very least be in possession of a revised cost-benefit analysis that stacks up for hospitality.”
“The problem with the figure for unemployment, which is a scandal—352,000 people are unemployed who were not unemployed before Labour came into power—is that unemployed people cannot afford to go to the pub or go out for a meal. It is against that backdrop that the Minister seeks to defend this latest hike in alcohol duty. That is totally unforgiveable. I do not think the Minister believes a word that I am saying, and she certainly will not refer to anything I say in her winding-up speech, which I take as a kind of contrarian compliment. I do not know whether she has a local that she goes to; if she does, she can take my list of 12 life-threatening headwinds for pubs, all caused by the UK Government—mostly by Labour—and see if the landlord and landlady in her pub disagree with my analysis.”
“I reflect on the fact that, following the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government’s Budget today in Scotland, 93% of hospitality, retail and leisure businesses in Scotland will be paying no rates or reduced rates. That is because the SNP is responsive and closer to people in Scotland. Further to that, not wishing to shoot the hon. Gentleman’s fox again, he spoke about the taxation rates for people in work in Scotland. I am sure his constituents will be grateful to know that 55% of taxpayers in Scotland are paying less tax than they would if they were part of the fiscal regime in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for the way they have approached this issue, which could easily have descended into a party political mud-slinging session, but in my view never once did.”
“The Scottish Government are open to considering well-developed proposals for further facilities, and welcome proposals from other parts of Scotland to establish them. That would have to be done while meeting the criteria set by Scotland’s Lord Advocate and the constraints placed on her by the unyielding stance of the Home Office and its brittle application of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is older than I am. The further development of services to prioritise the further reduction of harms in our communities and premature deaths from drugs should be seen as a shared priority for all legislators in Scotland. I pay tribute to the Scottish Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon.”
“The Thistle received international recognition following a visit by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and last month a report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland found that the facility had had a “small but significant” impact on reducing drug deaths. Crucial is a public health rather than criminal justice approach. The Thistle is staffed by a multidisciplinary team including nurses, psychologists, harm reduction specialists, social workers and other medical staff. Records show that in its first 10 months, the Thistle recorded 9,333 visits from 522 people, 6,366 supervised injection episodes, and staff responding to 78 medical emergencies. There are people alive today who would likely not be with us were it not for the Thistle facility.”
“The Scottish Government continue to urge Westminster to work with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the policy development reflects public health evidence rather than creates legal barriers that risk further avoidable deaths. The Thistle pilot in Glasgow is being comprehensively and independently evaluated by a collaborative of academics and institutions, working with health and social care partners. UK Ministers must take evidence into consideration when they reach a position on safer drug consumption facilities, rather than letting emotional dogma or Home Office convention set the policy. The aims to reduce drug-related deaths from overdoses and to minimise the impact of public injecting on local residents and businesses are central to the ambitions of the Thistle and the stakeholders behind its creation.”
“The UK Government’s response confirmed that Westminster does not intend to amend the Act to enable the framework for safer drug consumption facilities to be more widespread in Scotland. It is extremely disappointing that the response confirmed that that is the intention even if the independent evaluation of the Thistle deems the pilot to have been a public health success. The Home Office’s approach effectively places a ceiling on how the Thistle model can further evolve. Reaching a decision in this way, before the pilot concludes, flies in the face of claims that the UK Government are taking an evidence-based approach.”
“The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended that the UK Government should change reserved legislation to create a new legal framework for similar facilities to open in different parts of Scotland, if that were deemed to be desirable, but UK Ministers have advised that they will not accept that recommendation. In a letter responding to the Committee’s recommendations, the UK Government said they had “no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”. I wonder if the Minister might address that the UK Government may not need to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, as they could instead pursue mechanisms within the Scotland Act 1998 to allow a section 30 derogation or to devolve elements of the Misuse of Drugs Act to the Scottish Government in a very narrow way. That would be an option for a workaround.”
“The last Scottish Budget included record funding for the prevention of drug and alcohol misuse, including £13 million for grassroots organisations supporting residential rehabilitation, but drugs law ultimately rests with Westminster. The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971, and the decades since have shown that the focus solely on criminalisation and a war on drugs is simply not working. The UK Government have said that they will not make changes to drugs law to pave the way for the creation of more legal drug consumption rooms following the launch of the Thistle’s pilot scheme in Glasgow.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and I genuinely mean that in this instance. Every drug death in Scotland is a tragedy, and the painful reality is that the number of drug deaths remains far too high. The latest figures indicate that 898 people are suspected to have died in the first nine months of 2025. Those are preventable deaths, and the SNP Scottish Government will continue to do everything possible to reduce them. Full figures for 2024 show that there were 1,017 drug-related deaths in Scotland, a decrease of 13%, but I do not think we can take a huge amount of comfort from that, given the trajectory in 2025. It shows that a very stubborn mass of deaths are occurring, and addressing it needs a concerted effort from all stakeholders.”
“It is not enough just to freeze rail fares; they should be cut, as the Scottish Government have done in Scotland. It is fair to say that English rail commuters should enjoy the lower level of cancellations enjoyed by rail commuters in Scotland. That is why ScotRail, with its public ownership, has the highest customer satisfaction of any rail operator in the United Kingdom. Would the Secretary of State like to facilitate a meeting with the Scottish Government to find out how to optimally run a rail operator?”
“I am interested to know how keen the Minister is to adhere to that distinct element of the Labour party’s manifesto, because it seems clear to rural communities up and down Scotland and elsewhere on these islands that it is pick-and-mix as the Government introduce things that were never in the manifesto and fail to deliver that which was. When did the manifesto become such an important compass for the Minister?”
“Is the shadow Minister as aghast as I am to hear Labour Back Benchers taking credit for the substantial U-turn on the family farm tax, as though it was inevitable, when it was they who introduced the tax?”
“I wholeheartedly endorse the resolve across this House to continue to help Ukraine to prevail against this aggression. By extension, I therefore commend the armed forces personnel who enabled and assisted the US in this very slick interdiction of a rogue vessel—a key element of the funding of Russia’s war in Ukraine. There are other challenges in the High North as we speak. Our allies in the United States are apparently very concerned about the vulnerability of Greenland to Russian and Chinese aggression. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with our partners in the Joint Expeditionary Force nations about discussing with the Greenlandic peoples and the Government of Denmark how the JEF may deploy to Greenland, to allay those US fears?”
“Refined hydrocarbon fuels are excluded from the Government’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, meaning that although UK refineries face emissions trading scheme costs of £50 per tonne, overseas fuel producers do not. That is clearly incomprehensibly damaging in economic terms and is self-evidently counterproductive when it comes to climate goals. In terms of energy security, it is pure madness. Refining at Grangemouth and Prax Lindsey are two early casualties of Labour’s failure to understand basic economics. Will the Government now act to protect the four remaining refineries in GB, or will Labour continue with its policy of deindustrialisation dressed up as decarbonisation?”
“Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker—but unfortunately for the haulage industry, 2026 promises to be a year of increasing freight crime from haulage operators up and down these islands. Whether it is Alan Davie of Forfar, Taylor’s of Forfar or McLaughlan’s of Perth, who operate up and down from Scotland to England, when drivers park up at night, they are at risk of having their loads stolen. This is a growing problem that would benefit from there being an offence for aggravated theft from commercial vehicles. I have petitioned the Scottish Government on the very same issue and I urge the Minister to look at the matter.”
“I pay tribute to the Minister: he is back out again doing a sterling job of being a totally discredited Chancellor’s human shield. He will remember the Finance Bill that we debated just before Christmas, which took three hours in this place, and two hours of that was taken up with agricultural property relief, as I pointed out to him at the time. He wants us to believe that he has moved this policy into an acceptable position, but it is no such thing: this is a policy that Labour expressly said they would not enact, and then they did it, and now they have made it slightly less bad. I and the NFU Scotland are firmly opposed to this in its entirety, so will he take a win for a hard-up Government and pause this policy pending a proper analysis?”
“The Minister will know that for the vast majority of employees in Scotland, the increase in the national living wage is redundant, because it is less than the Scottish living wage. He talks about the things that the Government increased in the Budget; was it their intention to increase unemployment by 25% as a result of their jobs tax?”
“Does the shadow Chancellor bristle like I do and like my constituents in Angus and Perthshire Glens who are engaged in farm businesses and agribusiness more generally when they hear Ministers make a false equivalence in talking about the generous rates of agricultural property relief compared with the wider economy and how long people will get to pay? They are making a false equivalence between someone inheriting their mother’s house after her death and transferring the family farm from one generation to the next. They are completely different propositions, are they not?”
“Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that this is a spreadsheet Budget concerned with little more than the number in the bottom right-hand corner? That is why everything is unravelling so catastrophically. On his BPR point, I have nothing against PLCs, but does he agree further that businesses that are owned by families and rooted in communities spend their investments locally, support local organisations and charities, employ locally and have their profits going back in locally, and that this is devastating jeopardy for those businesses?”
“I can only guess that Reform UK is polling quite high in Glasgow East. On his substantive point about child poverty, is the hon. Member relieved that his constituents in Glasgow East are benefiting from the fact that under the SNP, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty rates are falling?”
“Someone earning more than £35,000 in Scotland will pay just 90p more in income tax per week than someone in the rest of the United Kingdom, while benefiting from Scotland’s unique social contract, whereby, under the SNP, we collectively fund prescription charges, bridge tolls, the Scottish child payment, tuition fees, under-22 bus travel, the baby box, personal care, publicly owned railways and publicly owned Scottish Water, which is the best-performing water company in the United Kingdom. Not bad value for 90p a week.”
“Thankfully, the clauses on income tax largely do not concern Scottish taxpayers, who benefit from the SNP’s judicious and progressive income tax rates in Scotland. Those in Scotland earning less than around £30,300 are expected to pay slightly less income tax than they would elsewhere in the UK, with the freezes to higher, advanced and top-rate thresholds estimated to affect only the highest 26% of earners.”
“The SNP will not support a Second Reading. This Bill derives from a Budget that failed to deliver for Scotland and does nothing to move the dial for the households hammered by the cost of living crisis. Scotland was relying on a step change from this Labour Government—on investment in public services, jobs and industry, and real action on energy bills—but none of that has come to pass. Instead, we have a dog’s dinner Budget that results in an increase in funding for Scotland that does not even cover half of the Scottish Government’s exposure to the national insurance increase across the public sector, and a resource block grant that increases only 0.5% per annum on average across the spending review period.”
“The money comes out of people’s standing charge, but goes directly on their general taxation. In the interests of time, I will not dwell on agricultural property relief; I have said a fair bit during interventions, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) will contribute on that issue.”
“The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening. The increase to the block grant is spread over the entire spending review period—five years—and it does not cover more than half of the cost faced by the Scottish Government as a result of the increase in employers national insurance imposed by the same Chancellor. I am glad that I got the opportunity to say that twice. Energy bills have gone up by £340 under this Government, despite the fact that they were supposed to fall by £300. That is what people voted for—that is the prospectus that Labour gave them—and the Government are not taking it seriously. They are coming back with a £150 reduction to energy bills, which is coming out of general taxation. As sleight of hand goes, that is not very slick.”
“I get the politics of it: half of the entire Labour membership lives within Greater London, and the other half lives in other English cities, and in Glasgow and Cardiff. They probably think it is a tremendous wheeze to make people in my constituency subsidise the tax on the Labour membership’s electric vehicles, but people are smarter than that. People who live in the countryside can add up, and they know that this Government’s attack on their electric vehicle taxes does not add up. They are being swindled by a Labour Government.”
“The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. The energy profits levy should be coming to an end, but it has been extended by this Labour Government until 2030. That has caused 100 job losses from Harbour Energy, and it is causing 1,000 job losses every month, according to Offshore Energies UK. We are in this situation because the Prime Minister lacks the mettle to get rid of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is one job getting protected in Whitehall, but it is costing 1,000 jobs a month in Scotland. That is the Labour way, and it always will be. On electric vehicles, this thruppence a mile probably does not sound that much to those who live in Chelsea or Kensington, but it will cost an awful lot more to those who live in Angus and Perthshire Glens.”
“We will not be party to the injudicious and unjust damage that will be inflicted on businesses and households by the grabbing hand of Labour through this Bill. The people will have their verdict on this risible Chancellor and her bilging outflow of fiscal calamity in May 2026, specifically in Scotland and Wales, and in English councils. I, for one, look forward to the Government getting their just desserts.”
“We lead the whole of the UK, with the exception of London, for foreign direct investment, and a NatWest report recently confirmed that Scotland had one of the highest start-up rates in the UK in the first two quarters of this year. Employment across the UK is 75%, but as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister, unemployment in the UK has risen from 4.1% to 5.1% since this Labour Government grasped power last year. Thankfully for the people of Scotland, unemployment is 25% lower in Scotland, at 3.8%. I am sure that fact will not be lost on the good people of Glasgow East. Next month, the Scottish Government will deliver their Budget and continue to build on our success, but the SNP will not be voting for this Bill’s Second Reading.”
“I absolutely do agree. I am in full accord with those Members’ bravery on the APR, but I am not sure how that links directly to 3p a mile for electric vehicles. The point is made, though. The preamble to the Budget was hugely challenging and had a direct consequence on the markets. It caused people to freeze employment and investment in their businesses, and it caused pensioners to cash in their pensions. I am pleased that the SNP was the first to call on the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate the Chancellor’s behaviour, and I hope that the FCA’s position changes. Despite all that, Scotland’s economy remains one of the best performing parts of the United Kingdom. Since 2007, per-person growth under the SNP has been 10.2%. That compares to 6.8% in the UK.”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree with me—and, I think I am right in saying, with the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—that agriculture in Wales and Scotland forms a very much larger part of our economies than it does in England, and it is therefore particularly objectionable that the Government did not consult the devolved Governments on this legislation? Does my hon. Friend further agree that farmers do not own wealth; they own value?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she concede that approximately three quarters of the last three hours of debate on this Bill has been devoted to the egregious family farm tax, including two noble and articulate contributions from Labour Beck Benchers, which took some bravery? Will she take that message back to the Chancellor, and get her to finally scrap the family farm tax?”
“Defence innovation is harmed by a default America-first posture. Ironically, that is especially apparent in the so-called independent nuclear deterrent, which relies on US tech for fusing, firing, arming, neutron initiators, the gas transfer system and the mark 4 aeroshell. We can add to that the purchase of further F-35s for US-manufactured gravity-delivered nuclear weapons. President Trump will put America first, but it is difficult to understand why this Labour Government seem keen to do the same, while spurning the innovation opportunity of the £130 billion SAFE programme in the EU.”
“For the UK Government to decline to take part in the atrocity prevention programme in Sudan is regrettable, and for the UK Government to fail in their due diligence on arms export diversions via the UAE to the RSF is disgraceful, but for the UK Government to have done both looks alarmingly like ambivalence or even complicity. The Minister wants to take us around the houses in saying that the evidential basis for UK arms being in Sudan is not there—let us not do that again—but can he tell us what discussions he has had with the UAE on the sound, robust basis for saying that without the UAE, these atrocities would not be happening?”