Future of Rail

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I hear you, Sir Charles. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on securing this important debate. She set the scene very well and spoke proudly—quite rightly—about York’s magnificent railway heritage. She spoke about modal shift, including freight—a point that was echoed by the hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who, along with many other Members, brought up pricing.

Decarbonisation was mentioned. The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) mentioned that the Government are not electrifying the track quickly enough. I completely agree and I will come to that in my speech. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) mentioned East West Rail using diesel on its trains. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter)—apologies for my pronunciation—mentioned decarbonisation and HS2 with regard to Wales, and the fact that Wales gets no Barnett money, but Scotland gets 100% Barnett. It is a point I have raised before.

Connectivity and capacity were issues mentioned by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for West Dorset (Chris Loder)—who is my comrade on the Transport Committee—and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). This debate became about the location of GBR’s headquarters. Many strong cases were made for York, not least by the hon. Member for York Central and the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). If I have missed any hon. Members, I do apologise. It is a very good case that they made, but it is one that I cannot support, because there are six Scottish bidders—Dundee, Edinburgh, Fife, Motherwell, Perth and Stirling—and I am not choosing one of them either.

The hon. Member for York Central finished her contribution with a tribute to all our public transport staff for the work they did to keep us moving through the pandemic. It is a tribute I very much echo. Despite the significant impact of the covid pandemic, I believe that the future of rail is bright and green. I believe also that the future of rail is in public ownership. I think it is a policy that both the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) would also support.

I want to talk about the future of rail in Scotland. The future of rail in England and Wales is a little more debatable. The action by the Scottish Government to take ScotRail back into public control just under four weeks ago should be a template for railways elsewhere. Public ownership is a fresh start for the railways in Scotland. Already we can see innovation in the shape of the spring fare deals that far exceeded DFT’s plans. If the issue is about tempting travellers to use rail on a national and transformational basis, it should be up to Government to set the priorities of our railways and, more widely, set out how those priorities integrate with other modes of transport.

It is disappointing that the Williams review ruled out real public ownership, instead opting for operating concessions. It is a real missed opportunity to begin revitalising rail services in England and across borders. The chance to provide real accountability within the system has been missed. Instead, the DFT has settled for a halfway house, where blame continues to be placed on operators where expedient. Meanwhile, the real direction of travel is set by GBR and the DFT.

I know that the team at the top of GBR are leaders in the industry. The Transport Committee recently heard Andrew Haines give evidence, and we were impressed by his track record, knowledge and genuine enthusiasm for building a railway fit for the future. However, all the talent in the world will struggle against a structure that is not fit for purpose from the start. I worry that behind the glossy reports that the Secretary of State likes to show off on his bookshelves whenever he appears on the TV, the new GBR will simply be a rebranding of Network Rail, with some of the DFT and Office of Rail and Road’s current functions.

There also must be an appetite for real change right across the industry from those who hold the purse strings, and the signs from the DFT and Treasury are not good. We have a ludicrous situation where ScotRail is paying over double the amount of track access charges that Northern Rail is liable for—£340 million versus £150 million—while running only slightly fewer services by distance travelled.

Indeed, ScotRail pays the third-highest total access charges of any train operator in Britain. That might be worthwhile if that funding gave Scotland the kind of railway of the future that people and passengers in Scotland are looking for, but even with that kind of expenditure, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government had to plough in an additional £630 million in capital and infrastructure investment in 2020-21, in line with the Scottish Government’s plans for decarbonisation of our passenger rail services by 2035. That is £1 billion toward track and infrastructure every year, funnelled to Network Rail and under its command, while Network Rail remains out of devolved control and reports to the DFT and the Office of Rail and Road.

As things stand, GBR will take over control of infrastructure in Scotland in the same way that Network Rail controls it. That is a missed opportunity to do the sensible thing and fully devolve responsibility and control of the entire rail network to the Scottish Parliament. Already ScotRail and Network Rail work closely together as part of the ScotRail Alliance. Full devolution would strengthen that alliance and finish the work of fully integrating track and train that started in 2005 with the transfer of franchising and services to Holyrood. We will have a situation whereby a publicly owned train company will have to negotiate with the publicly owned network operator, whose primary job will be dealing with private concession operators that are running services on behalf of the Government-owned GBR. Inevitably, the culture and institutional knowledge of GBR will skew towards that needed to deal with the private operators rather than a publicly owned company. Full devolution of Network Rail in Scotland, before it ends up under the auspices of GBR, will avoid that happening. Given the inevitability of all transport in Scotland coming under the control of the Scottish Parliament once we are independent, it would be real planning for the long-term future, but that future has to be cleaner and greener.

Scotland’s rail decarbonisation target of 2035 is hugely ambitious. It is 15 years ahead of DFT’s target for England. Hundreds of miles of our network run through areas of extremely low population, and maintaining and improving them over time is technically challenging. At this stage, full electrification of such routes would be disproportionate to passenger numbers, but in the longer term we should be looking to invest in these railways in the same way that Norway has electrified many of its rural routes. However, the development of alternative fuel trains, such as the zero-emission train developed under Transport Scotland and fuelled by hydrogen fuel cells, along with battery electric solutions, shows that no corner of our rail network will be untouched by the zero-carbon revolution that is not just desirable but critical for the future of our society and the planet.

That all said, our track record—apologies for the pun—on rail electrification since devolution has been excellent. Over the last 20 years or so, Scotland has electrified track at more than twice the rate that DFT has in England, which has resulted in a 44% increase in routes electrified since devolution, compared with just 17% across Britain as a whole. Moreover, this rolling programme of investment, which has been much lauded not just by me but by the industry, has resulted in far lower costs, with electrification costs 50% higher per single track kilometre in England than in Scotland, and there is a target to lower the cost to around half of the current English electrification cost.

In Scotland, we already have the Edinburgh-Falkirk electrification scheme, with the Shotts line, Paisley canal and Alloa all seeing the wires go up. Future projects will connect East Kilbride and Barrhead to the electric railway, and some lines have been reinstated after the short-sighted closures of decades past, including the Borders railway—a huge success story, as passenger numbers hugely exceed expectations. The Levenmouth link is currently under construction.

It pays to invest, to give certainty and to allow decisions to be made closer to the local people, communities and businesses that they affect. The fact that it took devolution for Scotland to get on and start our decarbonisation journey should be a red flag for the Government, and it makes an indisputable case for full devolution of rail. By the end, if there is one, of what has so far been a two-decade-long process—a process, incidentally, that was ignored by Westminster when it had control of rail in Scotland, but which has been driven forward by all political parties in Scotland, bar the Conservatives—we will have a railway that is fully fit for the future.

I want the future to include constructive relationships with GBR and the Department for Transport across borders—not just in Scotland but in Wales—but I fear that the overriding urge to centralise and the inability to let go, even when it makes very little sense not to do so, will mean that we still have the same outdated and outmoded structures of railway governance that have dragged the industry down over recent years. That cannot be allowed to happen, and if the Minister takes on board one thing from today, I hope it is that the new GBR cannot follow the centralising model that has been a dead hand preventing the devolved Administrations and many areas of England from taking the decisions that best support their priorities. Decisions on investment and growth are best taken by those on the ground, not by a DFT trying to extend its reach across the UK. That needs a real transfer of power to national Parliaments and regional authorities, and I hope that the future plans for rail mean that that task can be completed sooner rather than later.

Urban Transport: Future Funding

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for securing today’s debate on a really important issue. I stayed down to make sure I spoke in this debate because it is such an important issue. I am sorry it has not had the support that it merits—perhaps Members are demob happy on the last day before recess. Nevertheless, the hon. Member managed to cover the whole range of issues in his speech, so he made up for the fact that nobody else is here to speak in the debate.

The hon. Member said that 45% of those in the lowest income quintile do not have access to a car, which is something we often forget. Outside London, that represents a real restriction on people’s mobility, freedom and opportunity to secure a job. He spoke about cheaper bus fares for young people. He might be interested to know that as of the start of this year people under the age of 22 can travel for free on buses in Scotland, which is an excellent new policy, not least because I have two daughters who can take advantage of that scheme and not have to be ferried around by mum and dad so much.

I do not plan to highlight too much more of the hon. Member’s speech, simply because he gave it just a second ago, but he did speak of the importance of devolving transport powers, which I will speak to.

Urban areas account for over half of the UK’s overall carbon dioxide emissions. If the UK Government are to meet their own target of reaching net zero by 2050, it is critical that towns and cities are equipped and funded properly to renew and transform their transport systems from the fossil fuel-based networks in place at the moment to zero emission and low-impact structures. Sadly, the Government’s record so far does not inspire confidence that that key part of the transition is a priority. The Minister, who in my opinion has one of the best jobs in government—I am quite jealous—has a hard task in being able to do the job properly and secure the required funding, because decarbonising transport is a mammoth task. I do not think she will enjoy much of my speech, so I give her that warning at the start, although she probably expected it.

Colleagues—certainly the Minister—will have heard me outline the Scottish Government’s transformational plans for active travel. I make no apologies for bringing them up again because they show the kind of ambition that is needed from the Department for Transport here in London. The active travel budget in Scotland will rise over the next three years to account for 10% of the overall transport budget, bringing the annual investment to at least £320 million a year—in UK terms, over £3 billion a year.

This year alone will see a 37% increase on last year, and within two years we will have seen a threefold increase in the active travel budget, representing £60 per person per year. The DFT’s plans amount to £2 billion over the next five years, which works out at just over £7 per person per year of active travel. The difference is utterly stark. Indeed, by 2024-25, Scotland, with less than a tenth of the population, will be within touching distance of what England spends on active travel. That represents a lack of ambition and an absence of vision. If we are serious about meeting net zero targets, we need game changers across society, and we need to ensure that in urban areas, where, in Scotland, 70% of our population lives, citizens are given real options for that change.

This is not just about the national and global picture. Members from nearly every constituency can see the tough time that our high streets are having. A combination of the pandemic, an increase in online shopping, and the hollowing out of household income over the last decade has left our town centres hanging by a thread. Supporting active travel and the idea of 20-minute neighbourhoods in Scotland can also give a boost to town centres, encourage more local spending, and give local authorities a more sustainable income stream generated by flourishing local businesses. Buying and selling locally also helps to cut carbon emissions, creating a virtuous circle that gets even more bang for our bucks.

Active travel is key to that change, but on the evidence so far the ambition from the Treasury and the Department for Transport simply is not there. I genuinely hope to be proved wrong in that respect. As has been said already, buses are fundamental to urban transport. There are nearly 40,000 buses in use on Britain’s roads but they need to be replaced, not only as part of the switch to zero-emission vehicles but to provide a more attractive service to people considering changing from private transport.

I have lost count of the number of times that I have asked the Department for Transport for figures on buses, in particular how many of the 4,000 zero-emission buses promised through the ZEBRA scheme are actually on the road, transporting passengers and contributing today to reducing emissions. The Prime Minister promised those 4,000 buses by the end of this Parliament, which at the very most is less than three years away, although if we believe the chairman of the Conservative party it might be only a year down the road. At the current rate, however, there is zero chance that the Prime Minister’s pledge will be met and that simply is not good enough. It is letting down the residents of towns and cities across England yet again.

The truth is that six months after the Prime Minister made his pledge on 4,000 buses, the Scottish Government have got on with delivering. Their Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme, or SULEBS, delivered 272 buses, and just four weeks ago the Transport Minister, Jenny Gilruth, announced the first phase of the £62 million zero-emission bus challenge fund, or ScotZEB, for a further 276 buses. That is 548 buses delivered or ordered in Scotland, which is the equivalent of nearly 5,500 buses in England. To my mind, that is incredible progress given the challenges of the last few years and the budget pressures that have been forced on Scotland by Westminster.

Despite the long-awaited but very welcome recent announcement of the ZEBRA funding for 943 buses, which the Minister will probably touch on, that is—according to the Government’s own data on the website that accompanied that announcement—only 1,678 buses since the pledge was made. Scotland has delivered 327% more zero-emission buses in this Parliament than England and we are far from finished.

There should be no reason why the DFT is lagging so badly behind the Scottish Government. We have broadly the same goals; we both drive on the left. To my mind, therefore, something has gone badly wrong for the DFT, or perhaps, in fairness, more likely with the Treasury. I hope that the Minister will ask searching questions of her Department but she will more likely have to ask them of her Treasury colleagues, because at the moment the Government are just not delivering on the pledge that the Prime Minister made.

The situation in England is an indictment of the lack of urgency that seems to pervade the DFT’s attitude to the kind of transformational change that is required if the net zero targets, both in transport and more generally, are to be met at a UK level. That attitude has been perfectly demonstrated by the priority of the Treasury when it comes to funding local bus services; as has been mentioned, the Treasury’s priority has been to slash those services. The UK Government’s Bus Back Better strategy, complete with a fairly gushing foreword by the Prime Minister in which he boasted of his love of buses, might as well have been stuck in the shredder just months after it was published, because local authorities were told earlier this year that their budget pot would be slashed.

We know that urban areas are more dependent on public charging points for electric vehicles, which is down simply to the different balance of housing stock in more built-up areas. That situation requires local and national Government to raise their game to ramp up the installation of public chargers radically. I am pleased that Scotland is leading the way. Outside Greater London, we have the highest number of charging points per head of any part of these isles, including double the number of rapid chargers per capita that England has.

However, we cannot transition to a future without combustion engine vehicles by leaving flat-dwellers and anyone without a driveway with no route to switch to electric. In Scotland, 36% of people live in a flat, but in Edinburgh that figure rises to 64%, in Glasgow to 71% and in Dundee to 50%. That pattern is broadly similar across England and Wales. We cannot end the sale of carbon-fuelled cars in the coming years without making sure that urban areas have their public charging network properly designed and properly funded.

The National Infrastructure Commission review found that 300,000 public charging points were needed ahead of 2030. Currently, only 35,000 are in use. Norway, with a population only one twelfth that of the UK, has around 17,000, so we urgently need rapid expansion of the charging network if the NIC’s target is to be met, and that expansion is particularly needed in built-up areas.

The Transport Committee, of which I am a member, recently published its report on road pricing. It is clear that as internal combustion engines are phased out, a new way of collecting revenue will be needed, because fuel duty and vehicle excise duty will dwindle to zero under the current system. That sea change in financing, on which I think the debate is just beginning, must also apply to local and regional transport funding. Frankly, it is unacceptable that an organisation such as Transport for the North can see its core funding slashed by 35% at the whim of the DFT.

Local and regional authorities need long-term certainty in their funding streams and, given the types of capital-intensive work that they want to carry out, annual budgets cannot be turned on and off like a tap whenever the Treasury is feeling under the cosh. Urban renewal and the net zero transition are huge long-term projects, and the bodies responsible for delivering them on the ground need the long-term certainty on where the money to pay for them is coming from.

We saw that with the Tyne and Wear Metro, with nearly 40-year-old rolling stock replaced only when the Chancellor signed off on the funding. Up until that point, the transport authority could not be sure whether the trains—built when Jim Callaghan was Prime Minister—would be replaced any time soon. That is no way for transport investment to be carried out. Local authorities need certainty in the medium-to-long term on how the renewal investment will be funded—whether through raising revenue locally or national Government cash.

To conclude, as with so much that is sub-optimal in the UK, the over-centralisation of power through a single Government Department is hindering towns and cities across the country and our ability to meet the challenges of the coming decades. Getting the Treasury to release its grip and devolve power to towns, cities, metropolitan areas, and the devolved Administrations, is fundamental to allowing local decision makers to build the transport networks of the 21st century. The dead hand of Whitehall is holding millions of people back, and it is high time that the Government accepted that.

P&O Ferries

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Yes, that is certainly something we are considering. I thank my hon. Friend for his work, and that of his Select Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which brought the P&O boss here. I think it astonished the House but also the whole country to hear that testimony, which has directly led to the package that we have today, item No. 6 of which goes some way towards addressing my hon. Friend’s specific point.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I genuinely welcome the action that he has outlined today, although the strength of his words must be followed by the strength and urgency of his actions. There are areas where I hope he can be persuaded to go further. However, I am pleased that those who perpetrated these shameful actions against P&O workers are being held to account and shown the consequences of their law-breaking.

As I have said to a few people in this House, I feared that there would be a delay to the national minimum wage measures due to international maritime labour laws. I commend the Secretary of State for trying to find a work-around, but perhaps he can give us more detail on that. In the meantime, will he indemnify ports for any action they may take against ferry operators?

The movement on fire and rehire is welcome, particularly given the work that I and many Members across the House have done in recent years. However—this is where I depart from the praise for the Secretary of State—as I have said to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), many British Airways workers have contacted me in the past few days asking this progressive, nay socialist, Transport Secretary whether British Airways workers were being threatened with fire and rehire. The Secretary of State’s statement says that the Government “will take action to prevent employers who have not made reasonable efforts to reach agreement through consultation from using fire and rehire tactics.” No threat of fire and rehire, whether followed by consultation or not, is reasonable. It must end, and now.

Where I am disappointed is with the tools available to tribunals and courts to enforce the new code. A 25% uplift in compensation is, as P&O has demonstrated, merely a cost to be factored in for unscrupulous employers with deep pockets, and it does not hit employers that simply do not pay their tribunal-mandated compensation. Can we instead see some real teeth to allow tribunals to deploy the full range of outcomes towards employers, including recommending reinstatement where possible? That would be a major deterrent to others considering fire and rehire.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) wrote jointly to the Secretary of State earlier this week. Among other things, they called for the prosecution of P&O, the removal of its licence to operate in the UK and a review of DP World’s involvement in the freeports project. We have heard, sadly, that the DP World review is complete, but what consideration is he giving to the remaining conclusions of the two Chairs?

I welcome the beefed-up role for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in enforcing some of these new measures. However, the last financial year saw the MCA receive a real-terms cut in central Government funding. Will the Secretary of State make extra funds available to the MCA so that what he has announced today will actually happen on the ground, rather than it being great in principle but undeliverable in practice?

[Grant Shapps]

Briefly, I thank the hon. Gentleman. I mentioned that I will be working with the International Labour Organisation, but I will also be working with the International Maritime Organisation, which is headquartered globally in London, on making this a global move. Some of what he said will not apply, because once we have changed the Harbours Act 1964, it will outlaw the need to end up going to a tribunal on the 25% uplift and the rest of it. I will leave it there for brevity.

P&O Ferries

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Can I, through the Minister, thank the Secretary of State for what he has said and the content of the letter that he and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy sent to P&O today? These actions have been utterly reprehensible, but I do have to ask where the progressive zealot intent on protecting jobs was when British Airways threatened to fire and rehire 30,000 staff. If some action had been taken at that point, we might not have been in this position today with P&O. However, it is better that a sinner repenteth, and the Government are indeed on the right side of the road now, which I very much welcome, because the actions of P&O are abhorred by everyone not just in this House, but right across the country.

The Minister said in his response to the shadow Secretary of State that he cannot give any details now, but can I please reiterate that the deadline is on Thursday and this place breaks for recess on Thursday? This is of the most urgent nature, and we need details on that as soon as possible.

The Chairs of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—this is my final question, Mr Speaker—have written to the Secretary of State today with a number of points, including stating:

“The Government should prosecute P&O Ferries and remove its licence to operate in the UK.”

What consideration is the Minister giving to this action, and to showing P&O that it cannot operate where it does not abide by the law?

[Robert Courts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is quite right that, in reality, this is something that unites the House. Whatever party, wherever we come from and whatever our politics, we are all disgusted by the way that P&O has behaved. He is quite right, and I am very aware that the deadline is pressing, which is why the Government are working so hard on this. As soon as we are able to do so, we aim to come back before the House and update the House on the package of measures we are looking to take—[Interruption.]

Sorry; the hon. Gentleman reminds me, as I am on my feet, that there are a couple of questions I have not answered. I will consider the point he has raised about licences in particular, and we can consider that as we are going along. I know that some letters have been written. I have not yet seen those, but I will be very keen to see the suggestions that are made in those as well. As I said when I was in front of the Transport Committee last week, I am very keen to work with the Select Committee and the unions on any constructive suggestions they have made. If you will pardon me for taking just a second longer to say this, Mr Speaker, there have been some very constructive suggestions from all sides of the House.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

We in the SNP welcome this debate secured by the Labour party, not least because, as the shadow Secretary of State says, there is unanimity on how deplorable P&O’s actions are, but how many times do we have to come to the House to debate the actions of a business before the Government take any action? P&O’s actions have sickened nearly everyone in the country and achieved a rare feat by uniting the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the CBI and the RMT in condemning what happened last week. When even the directors of DP World cannot stomach their company’s actions, with one non-executive director resigning, saying that he

“cannot support the way P&O Ferries has carried out this restructuring”,

it shows just how low the company has sunk. But it is okay, because it might rename some ships!

One small example of P&O’s complete lack of self-awareness came in an email to the remaining 2,200 staff. The P&O chief executive officer said that it was natural for them to be uncomfortable with the media coverage of its actions—not uncomfortable, angry, and deeply anxious about P&O’s crass and inhumane treatment of 800 of their now former colleagues, but with the media coverage. That is institutional arrogance writ large.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My Garthamlock constituent Mark Stewart has gone from being a cadet to a chief officer on these vessels. Indeed, he, as a professional seafarer, has experience of working on vessels that are more than 20 years old. May I say to the Government, through my hon. Friend, that my constituent is not worried about the media coverage of P&O. What he is worried about is the idea of people being paid less than £2 an hour to do a job that is very reliant on safety—the very expertise that he has. It would be good if the Government could take that into account and come forward with a much more stringent and robust approach to P&O ferries, which has acted disgracefully.

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend is not often wrong, and he is right again on this. Sadly, I am not entirely sure that those on the Government Front Bench were listening to the message that he wanted to pass on. Nevertheless, I hope that they will look in Hansard and consider what was said.

I understand that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy wrote to P&O last week asking for further information on its actions with a view to investigating possible breaches of criminal law. I do welcome that, but that investigation must happen as quickly as possible. I fear that shredders and mail servers here and overseas will be allowed to work overtime if delays are introduced. Those involved in this enterprise must be held to account for their actions and for the pain and misery that they have inflicted on P&O staff in this country. I would welcome more detail on the scope and the proposed timescale of that BEIS investigation in the Minister’s summing up.

We have been here before. Those seemingly tough words must be followed with tough action. The Government will not be forgiven if they allow this action to stand unfettered and unpunished. The fact that Ministers and officials knew of P&O’s plans and did not act beforehand to stop it or to minimise disruption is a damning indictment. It was claimed that only a limited number of officials knew about this, but further developments show—and, indeed, the Secretary of State has said this—that the Secretary of State was made aware of it at 8 pm the night before. This is an absolute abrogation of responsibility by the Government.

If P&O wants to squirm out of its obligations under UK employment law by claiming that it is not covered, let it repay every penny that it took from taxpayers, including the ones that it is trying to sack. It took that money while claiming to serve these islands. P&O has pocketed millions from the public purse—over £10 million in furlough payments, and £4.4 million in freight subsidy payments in the early stages of the pandemic. By sacking via Zoom the very same workers whom Government funds supported, P&O is laughing in the Government’s face.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the hon. Member agree that time is of the essence, and that the object of the exercise is to get those 800 workers reinstated? Does he get any reassurance from the Secretary of State, or does he share my complete lack of reassurance, that anything will be done to coerce P&O to do the right thing and reinstate those workers?

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I have always been a glass half full type of guy, but, sadly, I have to completely agree with his interpretation of the situation. I do not see the urgency that is required to deal with this situation. If P&O thinks that it has the right to bring its weight to abuse its staff, the Government should be looking at what weight they can bring against its owners. Why should DP World be allowed within a mile of the London freeport project? It has shown itself to be a company without morals and without a care about regulation or legislation. Why should it be involved in one of the UK Government’s flagship projects? If the aim of freeports is to provide less regulation within each zone, we can have zero faith that even a minimal rulebook will be followed by DP World or any of its companies.

Until the despicable actions of last week are rectified, DP World should not be allowed anywhere near any Government projects or funding. Today we have found out more about how much P&O value its staff—this time, its new staff. Evidence has emerged, as has been mentioned, that those being used to bust workers at P&O may be paid just £1.81 an hour. P&O’s plan is to exploit the maritime employment regulations and give the bare minimum to the staff that it recruits. This means paying the International Labour Organisation minimums of £16.27 a day for an able seaman, or just £3.54 an hour for a cook. That is the reality of what P&O is trying to pull off here. It is plumbing the depths of wage slavery so that it can save a few quid.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Minister say that because some of this was commercially confidential, he was limited in what he could do or say the night before. When we hear stories about “balaclava-clad security guards” dragging people off ships, surely commercial confidentiality goes out of the window?

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which speaks once again of how this Tory Government care more about the businesses than the employees. That is at the heart of this particular issue. The truth is—[Interruption.] We are being barracked from the Government Front Bench, but actions speak louder than words.

The truth of the matter is that this is a race to the bottom, pure and simple, with overseas workers on starvation wages and workers here tossed on the scrapheap for having the temerity to expect a decent salary. It is about exploiting the global south for cheap labour, with people shipped thousands of miles from their homes, with virtually no employment rights, and used as pawns by the likes of P&O in their attempts to break UK-based staff.

Over recent years, we have seen how P&O and other shipping companies have made mass use of ILO contracts to pay their staff the bare minimum. I have mentioned able seafarers, but cabin stewards on North sea routes receive £2 an hour and cooks less than £5. It is a scandal that, having driven wages so low across the maritime sector, P&O is now using that as an excuse for its victimisation of loyal, hard-working staff.

Back some quarter of a century ago, when I started my first ever part-time job at a certain well-known fast food restaurant at Glasgow airport, I was paid £2.70 an hour. That was thought of as a low wage even at that time, and it was, but here we are in 2022 and people are asked to move across the world and break their backs for pennies. Since the staff operate from UK ports but work for companies or on boats registered in other countries, they are exempt from the minimum wage legislation that governs the rest of us. That is a disgrace, and something that the Government and international partners must resolve as soon as possible.

It is shameful that this country allows such poverty wages and employment conditions—close to indentured labour—on boats that ply its waters day in, day out. That race to the bottom has meant the loss of hundreds of jobs at P&O and the continued exploitation of hundreds of other people.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many of my constituents have been in touch to express their concerns. Is he also worried about the precedent this sets? City of Glasgow College in my constituency provides excellent maritime education, but what is the point of people’s going into that education if they can be undercut by wages from around the world?

[Gavin Newlands]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The college will be looking on in horror at the current story, as numbers applying for courses perhaps plummet.

This is modern-day slavery on the high seas and in our ports. It must end. I would like to hear the Minister state that he will take a lead on trying to secure the required changes in international maritime law when he speaks from the Dispatch Box. The role of the agencies involved, Clyde Marine Recruitment, Columbia Shipmanagement and International Ferry Management, must also be called out. They have provided support to this action without telling any of the proposed replacement crew what was happening—in fact, as I heard on BBC Radio Scotland the other day from a Paisley merchant seaman, actively lying to the replacement agency staff.

A former worker who had been working on a P&O vessel just three weeks prior and who had asked for opportunities on non-P&O vessels was told that this was a brand-new vessel that required to be crewed. Agency staff were told nothing while they were holed up in an East Kilbride hotel for three days; in fact, they set up a WhatsApp group called “Mystery Ship”. He and several others walked away when it became clear what was happening. They viewed going on to that ship as tantamount to crossing a picket line.

For the past two years I have worked to end the practice of fire and rehire, with colleagues from across the House. We said to the Government at the start of this problem that if they did not act when British Airways made fire and rehire threats to 30,000 people, more would follow. The Government did nothing. Then British Gas, Weetabix, Marshalls and even Tesco made similar threats. The Government response? A change to the guidance. The actions of P&O go beyond fire and rehire, however; they are a supercharged version, complete with balaclava-clad human resources and handcuff-trained personnel to enforce P&O’s interpretation of employment rights.

We have been forced to hear from the Government Benches for the past six years how Brexit is about taking back control. I ask the Government in all seriousness what control they think they have taken back. Anti-union, human rights-busting oligarchs in Dubai are approving plans to hire private security contractors with handcuffs and balaclavas to physically remove employees from their place of work, so what control have the Government taken back? What improvements have we seen in workers’ rights since the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said in 2019:

“In the Queen’s Speech on Thursday there will be a specific law which will safeguard workers’ rights.”?

There was no sign of that Bill in that speech.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

If I have to.

[Craig Mackinlay]

That is very kind. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to talk about fire and rehire. Is he going to discuss the issue of Ferguson Marine, with no hire at all? The contracts for the vessels that could have been used for ferries in Scotland are not even being done locally—they are going to Poland, Romania or Turkey.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Member, but I am going to move on because that has nothing to do with the current debate.

[David Linden]

Throughout the Brexit campaign we heard the Government talk about the importance of taking back control of our borders, our waters and our laws. Which part of the P&O debacle does my hon. Friend think shows that we are taking back control of our borders, our waters and our laws?

[Gavin Newlands]

The answer is absolutely none of it. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State wants us to move on because he does not want to hear the truth of the matter. We have not taken back any control whatsoever. [Interruption.] Perhaps he could calm down a little.

After my attempts to introduce two Bills to ban fire and rehire that were blocked by the Government, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) took up the issue. His Bill was talked out by Conservative Members rather than their having to vote, on the record, against a measure that would improve the lives of thousands of their constituents. Time after time Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and, in answer to questions from me and others, have told us that legislation is not needed. Indeed, the very last words spoken from the Dispatch Box during the debate on the hon. Member for Brent North’s Bill were:

“we will act and we do not need primary legislation to do so”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 1116.]

Where does that position lie now after this past week? How many companies need to treat their staff like dirt before this Government will act? The Government could bring forward their own Bill this week and have the support of Opposition Members in giving UK workers the same rights as their colleagues across much of Europe. We will be happy to support any measure that stops the duplicitous behaviour of companies like P&O. If the UK Government are unwilling to act, they should allow that power to better our employment legislation to be given to Scotland, with the Scottish Government already committed to banning fire and rehire.

The actions of P&O are shameful, but the blunt fact is that if it thought the UK Government actually took workers’ rights seriously, it would not have dared do what it did. It knows that a Government who waste three years doing nothing after pledging a workers’ rights Bill are not going to seriously tackle DP World and P&O. It knows that a Government who have consistently stuck their fingers in their ears over fire and rehire, and pleaded for employers to be nice, are not serious about protecting staff against bullying management and owners. It knows that unless and until the UK Government get serious about workers’ rights, and understand that they protect not just workers but businesses that play fair, it can do pretty much as it pleases. It is time the Government showed that they are actually interested in levelling up the playing field for workers against companies that have no scruples or basic humanity whatsoever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman presents a partial picture because he forgets that there are 300,000 chargers installed at people’s homes, with Government support. In addition, the figures that he quoted are now out of date. There are 29,500 public installations, 4,500 of which are rapid chargers—a 37% increase in 2021 alone. We will be ready for everybody to go electric.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It has been more than two years since the Prime Minister promised 4,000 new zero-emission buses—representing only about a tenth of the English bus fleet—by the start of 2025. It took them a while, and it has been a year since the launch of the zero-emission bus regional areas scheme designed to deliver on that promise, but the Government said it would only deliver funding for up to 500 zero-emission buses in England. One year on, how many buses have been ordered through the standard ZEBRA process?

[Grant Shapps]

Seven hundred and five.

[Gavin Newlands]

I very much appreciate that answer, but it is completely different to the one I received to a parliamentary question on Monday, which was that the Government have ordered zero buses through the standard ZEBRA process since it launched but that they expect to do so later this year. I hope the Secretary of State might correct the record. The truth is that six months after the Prime Minister made his 4,000 bus pledge, the Scottish Government got on with delivering, with their SULEB—Scottish ultra-low emission bus—schemes delivering 272 buses, while just a fortnight ago Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth announced the first phase of the zero-emission bus challenge fund of £62 million for a further 276 buses. The nearly 550 buses delivered or ordered in Scotland are the equivalent of 5,500 in England. The UK Government are fiddling while the planet burns. When will the 4,000 buses be delivered?

[Grant Shapps]

As we said in our manifesto, we will deliver the 4,000 buses during this Parliament, and we are on track to do so. I have just given the hon. Gentleman the up-to-date information on the number already funded. The SNP spokesman makes a big fuss of this, but—I do not think he mentioned this—the Scottish Government missed their own legal emission targets under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. They were supposed to reduce the emissions but they missed the targets.

P&O Ferries

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I repeat that this is a fast-moving situation, and we are reviewing it both as it develops and as it exists. I will certainly review what arrangements exist as we go forward, and I can certainly commit myself to working with all Government Departments to consider what relationships we have with P&O. I will also try to see whether there is anything I can do in the particular circumstances with which we are dealing, although commercial matters affecting a company are primarily a matter for the company itself, within the constraints of employment law. In this country we have high standards of employment law, and we expect those standards to be respected and upheld.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me add that I agreed with every word that was said by the shadow Secretary of State and the Chair of the Select Committee.

Earlier today I said that the actions of P&O were deeply concerning, but as more information has emerged, it has become clear that those actions were shameful, insensitive and inhumane. The Government responded to the fire and rehire scandal with lip service and warm words, saying that fire and rehire was shameful but stubbornly refusing to back those words up with any legislative action. That inaction has had consequences. What P&O has done today in sacking 800 workers over Zoom with no notice or consultation, and dragging them from their place of work using handcuff-trained private security personnel, is well beyond even fire and rehire. Of course, our primary concern must be for the traumatised P&O staff and their families. People are now jobless, having gone to work as they would on any other day. Will the Minister support the staff who remain aboard P&O vessels, and call on P&O to end its attempts to forcibly remove staff members?

The villain in all this is P&O and its parent company DP World, which is owned by anti-trade union oligarchs in Dubai who have a shockingly bad track record on employment relations. P&O’s plan is for entirely new crews to operate vessels with zero or little time for acclimatisation. Does the Minister not agree that P&O’s aim of resuming shipping with new staff almost immediately is reckless and unsafe? The Prime Minister visited the United Arab Emirates yesterday. Was there any discussion between him and the Dubai Government, the owners of DP World, about P&O?

The Minister said that while this is a commercial decision

“for them, and them alone, I would have expected far better for the workers involved.”

I agree, but I would also expect far better protections for our workers from the Government of the day. Can the Minister tell us if there is anything—anything at all—that the Government can do to intervene and help these workers? If there is not, does that not demonstrate, yet again, just how broken UK employment law is?

[Robert Courts]

I hear the anger and anguish expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he speaks on behalf of constituents and others he represents. I would encourage all employers in any event to speak to their hard-working, loyal, long-serving employees. I would certainly urge them to engage with the unions, which I hope would have been spoken to in advance in any such incident that would cause distress to workers and certainly in one such as this. I urge them to do that. On safety matters, this is still an evolving situation and there are clearly safety regulations that have to be applied and complied with in any case, no matter who is crewing a vessel. I would expect that to be the case. Clearly there will be no shortcuts as far as safety is concerned. We will continue to look across Government and speak to colleagues, and to uphold the rights that are clear in law to protect workers.

International Travel

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Gavin Newlands.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It has become increasingly clear that the much vaunted four-nations approach often stems from situations where the devolved Governments are left with little choice, given the nature of the devolution funding settlement. Whether for furlough, community testing, or the various travel arrangements, when the devolved Governments perhaps took a different view, at least with the timing of such decisions, no public money would be made available for a different public health approach. It is not quite a “do as I say” approach; it is more a “do as we will fund” approach. Borrowed funds are obviously not available to the devolved Administrations, and as the Secretary of State alluded, the Welsh Government have said they are extremely disappointed at the dropping of testing requirements. The Scottish Government have said that they followed the UK Government to avoid the harm to tourism caused by non-alignment. Is this another example of the UK Government making a decision, and strong-arming the devolved Administrations into following them to avoid economic disadvantage?

Despite the unease that some members of society will have following these announcements, particularly given the rather nebulous commitment to continued surveillance, this is welcome news for the aviation and travel sectors, which come out of the pandemic in much poorer, smaller and less competitive shape than they entered it. That is largely a result of the extremely poor support given to the sector, in which the UK stood out among top aviation markets for its paucity of support.

The future is far from certain with events in Ukraine and covid potentially causing disruption as well as the cost of living, as has been alluded to. So I would like the Government to commit to being a bit more fleet of foot on aviation support should the need arise. Indeed, when will the strategic aviation review be published?

The UK Government have said that the UK Health Security Agency will continue to monitor variants of concern, so, further to the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), will the Secretary of State explain what measures will be part of that continued monitoring, how long it will operate for and how it will be funded? Lastly, what consideration at all did the Secretary of State give to the position of devolved Governments in reaching the decision that he has announced?

[Grant Shapps]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the UK Health Security Agency is a four-nations body made up of the chief medical officers from all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Therefore, when we came to yesterday’s discussion at Covid-O, which included Scottish Ministers, we could take into account the advice provided. I do not want to accuse him of being happy to see the forms and bureaucracy scrapped while still somehow opposing it, but it seems to me that if one is really serious about cutting bureaucracy, one should welcome this step.

The hon. Gentleman refers to support that he claims the Scottish Government have given to aviation, but it is worth reminding the House that that is not what Edinburgh and Glasgow airports have said. They were upset that Ministers in Scotland refused to meet them, which they said was “galling” and in “stark contrast” to the UK Government’s approach. Indeed, the Scottish Passenger Agents’ Association said that its industry had been “sacrificed” by the SNP—its word rather than mine. It is important to say that we are supporting the sector, not least by removing these restrictions.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic aviation review. I hope he will accept that there is no point in carrying out a review during omicron and covid—we want to do it as the industry comes out—so that will be forthcoming. He asked a sensible question about continued monitoring, which will happen in two ways. First, he will be familiar with me having said many times at the Dispatch Box when we were in the midst of the pandemic that the UK was carrying out up to 50% of the genomic sequencing in the entire world. That figure is now different, because we have helped and other countries have caught up, so, although we are carrying on our programme, much of that genomic sequencing is happening around the world rather than needing to be done specifically here. Secondly, we have the programme led by the Office for National Statistics that carries on finding out where coronavirus is in the country and the extent to which different variants might be starting to take hold. We can therefore continue to monitor things comprehensively through both genomic sequencing and the covid-19 infection survey of the population.

Smart Road Pricing

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate. He started by making a strong point—I am not sure whether it was about his constituency or whether it was about Sutton being the only London borough without a tube station. I have sympathy with that, growing up and living for most of my life in Renfrew, which is the largest town in Scotland without a train station. I thought that he made a powerful contribution at the start of the debate.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said that the case for change was pressing, if we are to maintain taxation levels and reduce road transport’s carbon footprint; Members will hear from my speech that that is something I wholeheartedly agree with. She also referenced the report by the Institution of Civil Engineers, which means I do not have to; for the purposes of time, I am grateful for that.

The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about the difference between rural and urban. Any scheme that came in would have to take that difference into account, and there would have to be variations or exceptions for those in rural areas for that very reason.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) clearly had issues with TfL and the Mayor of London, but he made a very stark point about the £4,500 cost before running costs of any other expansions of ULEZ. I should declare that I am a member of the Transport Committee, which the hon. Member referenced in terms of road pricing. It is true: we said recently that there is no viable alternative to road pricing moving forward—certainly that we can see at the moment. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich also reiterated the point that the scheme must be national. Unless he meant Scotland having a national scheme, that is something I have a slight disagreement with, but I will come on to that later.

If road pricing is to be workable, it needs to be part of a wholesale review and replacement of our complex taxation system. The current arrangements are increasingly not fit for purpose in the 21st century, with a system that—apart from some tweaks and amendments over the decades—is, at its core, the same system that has been in place for nearly a century.

Net zero and reducing carbon emissions are obviously policies that go far beyond transport. They straddle all aspects of our society. Reducing car usage, improving public transport and developing active travel as a real alternative to private transport will have a huge impact on us all and on how we live our lives. Getting people out of cars is intrinsically linked to improvements in public transport, which, in turn, helps to support our town and city centres; again, in turn, that helps to develop local economies and provide better employment in our communities.

With private cars accounting for around 40% of transport-related emissions, bringing down levels of car usage is a key strand in the Scottish Government’s drive towards a net zero society. Their target—which, I admit, is hugely ambitious—is to reduce overall car kilometres by 20% by the end of this decade. There is no doubt that it is a tough target, but it will result in huge gains in carbon reduction if it can be met.

To salami slice road pricing as something that can be leveraged to promote those reductions while leaving other policy levers in the hands of the DFT and Treasury —as we have seen with buses, aviation and, notably, trains, for the last 20 years or so—is a recipe for delay and the danger that our large-scale ambitions will not be met. To have a situation where portions of charging and taxation policy are devolved while some remain at Westminster is a recipe for confusion and, above all, being unable to fully realise the potential that could be unleashed with the full devolution of powers over motoring taxes to the Scottish Parliament—the Minister probably did not expect me to say anything less.

Sales of electric vehicles are at record levels, despite—I would say—the UK Government’s policy at times. While we have some way to go to match the astonishing progress in countries such as Norway, the trend is clear: EVs are replacing internal combustion engines and, by 2032, every car sold will have to be zero-emission. As that switch happens, the revenues from fuel duties will drop at an ever-increasing pace; as overall emissions from private vehicles drop, so too will revenue from vehicle excise duty based on CO₂ emissions without further reform. The Transport Committee heard evidence that, without action, taxation revenues from motoring will drop to zero by 2040 if UK targets for net zero are met. Clearly, that is neither sustainable nor healthy for road users or our wider economy.

I do not pretend that the transition to a modern taxation regime will not involve a real and sometimes difficult national debate and conversation about vehicle taxation and its impact on motorists and other road users; one has only to look at the debate around a workplace parking levy in Scotland at the moment. However, the alternative is a long-term disaster on our roads, for our environment and for our wider economy. The transition must include: as I said, the full devolution of power over motoring taxation—all taxation, if in the Minister’s power, but certainly motoring taxation—to the Scottish Parliament.

The enhanced incentivisation of the extra grants for home chargers, a scheme whose scope the UK is inexplicably slashing in April, and interest-free loans, along with significant investment in much more comprehensive electric vehicle charging infrastructure in Scotland, compared with most of England, serve to highlight the differences in policy and, more importantly, the urgency with which it is delivered. Without the taxation powers to tie together the changes in duty revenue, however, along with the wider policy objectives of the move to net zero, the Scottish Government are fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Yet still, over the past 10 or 20 years, they have outperformed the UK Government on all those metrics.

Transferring full control over vehicle and motoring taxation to the devolved Administrations will allow policy to reflect the different pace at which things are moving. On nearly all indices, Scotland is outstripping the rest of the UK in the transition to net zero, and yet the fiscal and financial framework in which the Scottish Government have to operate is stuck in the last century. It takes little to no account of the different priorities of the respective Governments.

To conclude, the Chancellor has made a commitment in writing to the Scottish Government to engage with Scottish and other devolved Governments on motoring taxation. I hope that the Minister will get the ball rolling for colleagues as quickly as possible, to ensure that serious discussions can take place with the devolved Administrations on how and when those powers can be transferred to Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont as timeously as possible. What might work for Greater London—Greater London has been mentioned a lot in this debate—cannot be copied and pasted into Scotland or Wales. To sum up, I hope that the Minister will provide us with an update on that proposed engagement.

Today alone, we have seen action by the Irish Government, temporarily cutting fuel duty by 15 cents and 20 cents for petrol and diesel, respectively—to help the haulage industry and to keep the cost of living down. Whether that should happen here is a debate for another day, but it shows how a Government with the will and the power to act quickly in the face of changing circumstances can take real action on motoring and haulage costs. Road pricing and the renewal of modern motoring taxation will give Governments here in Westminster and in Edinburgh the opportunity to respond and react far more nimbly and responsively to such challenges and to provide the kind of support needed by road users and industry alike. I urge the Minister to speed her colleagues along in delivering the road taxation system of the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

The Government have taken decisive action on the HGV driver shortage, with 32 short, medium and long-term interventions. We have more than doubled the number of tests available for HGV drivers in a normal week from 1,500 weekly appointments pre-covid to 3,200 in a normal week now. I am pleased to hear from industry bodies that their current assessment is that the shortfall in drivers is lessening.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

That may well be the case, but one haulier has likened Brexit to

“death by a thousand cuts”,

as EU companies withdraw business due to each new round of post-Brexit bureaucracy, administration and delays. That is causing significant hardship for many UK and Scottish businesses; smaller ones, especially, are struggling to cope. After the UK implements import controls in July, the crisis will deepen further, with the current miles-long queues of HGVs on the A20 simply getting longer and longer. What are the Government doing to mitigate the damage they have inflicted with Brexit on the UK’s economy?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I know that the hon. Gentleman likes to blame Brexit for everything, but of course there are HGV driver shortages around the globe. On freight coming in and out of the UK, we are seeing similar numbers at the moment as we would normally. The checks that are due at the ports are on track in England. Of course, in Scotland, they are a matter for the devolved Administration. We are aware of some risks there, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments are working closely with the Scottish Government to find a resolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is two years since the Prime Minister pledged 4,000 zero-emission buses, but that pledge is in tatters. Not a single bus has been ordered through the fast-track zero-emission bus regional areas scheme. In contrast, the Scottish Government have already produced the equivalent of 2,700 bus orders. No one in the industry—not a single person—thinks that the Prime Minister’s pledge will be met, and let us remember that 4,000 is only one tenth of the English bus fleet, while Scotland decarbonises half of its bus fleet. When are the UK Government going to get real on this?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

The Government remain absolutely committed to supporting the introduction of 4,000 zero-emission buses and achieving a zero-emission bus fleet. I had the joy of visiting a place in Glasgow, when I was there for COP26, that is rolling out those buses, and this will support our climate ambitions, improve local transport for communities and support high-quality green jobs. Overall, we are providing £525 million of funding for ZEBs this Parliament, and the Government have provided funding for 900 zero-emission buses through existing funding schemes.