Business of the House

Debate between Dave Doogan and Lucy Powell

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

That sounds like quite a worrying development—Bidfood breaking the recognition agreement with its trade union. My hon. Friend is right to say that the evidence is clear that where recognition agreements exist, they work in the interests of the business and its employees. That is why we are strengthening measures on some these matters in the Employment Rights Bill, but I will ensure that Ministers take a look at this case.

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

Yesterday, in my trademark balanced and consensual way, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she would review her tax and spending plans. I gave her three principal examples of how she could raise substantially more revenue, which would, I hope, enable her not to cut disability benefits quite as much, or possibly even at all. She gave me a response about the Trident nuclear deterrent. I know what my position is on that, and I know that it is at odds with that of most of my colleagues in this Chamber, but so too did my constituents when they elected me—twice. Can we have a debate in Government time about the minimum standard of responses that elected Members, whatever the colour of their rosette, can enjoy from Ministers in this Chamber?

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Member has very politely raised this issue with me today, and I thank him for that. He will know—he is a regular attender at business questions—that I take ministerial responses very seriously, in that they should be forthcoming, open and timely, so I will certainly look into that issue.

I think the hon. Member was raising with the Chancellor the question of whether we could raise more taxes from the wealthy. Just for the record, I would say to him that we have been doing that in a number of ways, lots of which have been controversial, whether it is by reducing VAT breaks for private schools, increasing taxes on those who own private jets, increasing capital gains tax, taking on the excess profits of the energy companies and, of course, dealing with non-dom tax status. All that has raised billions of pounds for our public services, and for what we are doing. We absolutely think that those with the broadest shoulders should pay the highest price. As he has requested, I will make sure that he gets forthcoming replies.

Business of the House

Debate between Dave Doogan and Lucy Powell

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises a really important matter, not just for independent publishers but for national news publishers, who are subject to the whims of tech giants when it comes to algorithms, and finding important journalistic work and news. I think the topic would make for a very well attended debate.

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

This week, we witnessed the unedifying spectacle of Scottish Labour MPs labouring under the misapprehension that if they put forward an idea that was to the benefit of Scotland, Ministers in the United Kingdom would take it forward. I am talking about the Scottish immigration visa system. Can we have a debate in Government time that lays bare the fact that when Scotland’s ambitions are at odds, or even at variance, with those of England, Westminster will put Scotland aside—not just sometimes or most of the time, but every time?

[Lucy Powell]

I am sorry to say this, but the last time I looked, Labour MPs in Scotland won many seats in the recent election, and Scottish nationalist MPs lost many. Labour Members who represent Scottish seats in this House have done a fantastic job in standing up for Scotland, resetting the relationship, and ensuring that the people of Scotland benefit from this new Labour Government.

Business of the House

Debate between Dave Doogan and Lucy Powell

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I am sorry to hear about that historic church in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is right that coastal erosion is one of the key challenges that his community and many others face, and it is one of the issues that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is prioritising in his work on the flood resilience taskforce and on coastal community resilience, so I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s comments have been heard and that he gets a full reply.

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

I strongly disagree with the hon. Member’s question. Great British Energy is not only very popular, but very popular for a reason. It will transform our ability to produce clean energy, which is much needed in this country, so that we are no longer reliant on imported fossil fuels, which are subject to global energy spikes, as we have seen. We are leading a transformation to being a clean energy superpower by 2030, and Great British Energy is absolutely core to delivering that mission. He will be aware that there will be a debate on this issue tomorrow. We will have the Second Reading of the Bill when we return, when I am sure he will hear how wrong his conclusions on Great British Energy are.