Infrastructure Procurement

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is almost like, when we look back historically, the oil and gas revenues paid for HS1 and the channel tunnel, but at the time we were assured that there would be a spur up the east coast and a spur up the west coast of high-speed rail. Now, all these decades later, we still do not have the promised spine, but as he rightly says London and Birmingham are getting better connectivity, even though there is some ambiguity about where the line will terminate in London.

We were told not to worry, and that the Birmingham upgrades would still mean much quicker journey times from Scotland to London. We were assured several times that trains will run from London to Scotland on day one of HS2 services, even though they will be going from Birmingham. Sure, trains to Edinburgh and Glasgow will run, but they are intended to run as one service stopping and decoupling at Carstairs. That is just deemed a minor inconvenience for those of us travelling to and from Scotland.

When HS2 looked at the purchase of rolling stock, the key decision was made that they had to be the quickest high-speed trains. That means that when that rolling stock accesses the existing tracks on the west coast main line, the trains will go slower than existing Avanti west coast services. Not only will we not get high-speed rail to Scotland, we will get a poorer service from the new high-speed rail once it is running on the west coast main line. How can that be a logical proposal for the most expensive infrastructure project ever undertaken by a UK Government?

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

My hon. Friend makes a point about the slow speeds. This is not news. A report that had a foreword by Philip Hammond, who was the Transport Secretary at the time—13 and a half years ago—suggested that the rolling stock could indeed decrease speeds, stating that

“journey times between North West England and Scotland could be potentially longer than at present”,

resulting in longer journey times between Scotland and London. Just a few weeks ago, we heard evidence in the Transport Committee that that is still the case, with times increasing by between five and 25 minutes. Does my hon. Friend not think that it is absolutely absurd that we have ended up with a gold-plated commuter line between Birmingham and London and slower journey times for the rest of us north of Manchester, and that that sums up Westminster’s attitude to transport infrastructure spending since time immemorial?

[Alan Brown]

I wholeheartedly agree. I go back to my opening remarks about HS2: the whole premise of it going to Scotland was to encourage people not to fly and to get the train. Now the competition is going the other way; they will be incentivised to fly because the journey times will be longer. It is absolutely crazy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) touched on the fact that the costs of HS2 spiralled to over £100 billion. What happened then? The eastern leg was removed. Next to go was the Golborne link, removing the link to the west coast main line and trains running to Scotland. Then the northern spur to Manchester was removed. HS2 does not know whether to terminate at Old Oak Common or Euston, despite upgrades already commencing at Euston Station. Clearly, there is no overall strategic thinking other than a continual form of panicked cost control.

Unfortunately, HS2 is a monument to a poorly developed concept of not knowing what the key strategic objectives would be, unrealistic budgets, politicians meddling in route alignment and increasing the amount of tunnelling, politician panic as costs increase, continual stop-start reviews all costing money, over-specification, unrealistic risk allocation, and clearly not enough up-front design and site investigation work or proper planning with regard to project delivery and discussions with contractors. But hey, as we have heard, passengers from Birmingham might now be able to get to London 20 minutes quicker than they can at present, which is not a bad outcome overall for a £66 billion project that does nothing strategically outside the midlands. That leg was originally estimated to cost £20 billion, so there has been a £46 billion project overspend.

There is another major infrastructure project that is very similar in its overspend, delays and costs spiralling out of control: Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It is a testament to political determination and aspirations over the reality of nuclear power. It was estimated to cost £18 billion, including contingency, in 2016, when the UK Government gave the go-ahead after a review. Just a couple weeks ago, however, EDF estimated that it would cost £46 billion in today’s prices. By last week, it had already increased to £48 billion. That is a mere £30 billion overspend on what was already the world’s most expensive power station. Instead of generating power in 2025, it will now be as late as 2031. As costs have continued to spiral, the Government’s attitude is, “It’s okay, the risk lies entirely with EDF,” which is completely head-in-the-sand stuff. China General Nuclear, one of the partners in the project, has already reached its cap on the amount of capital it will put into the project, so clearly EDF is having to fund a lot more borrowing. It beggars belief that the Government claim not to be speaking to EDF about this issue, especially when chief executive Luc Rémont stated last week:

“We’re confident we can find a pathway with British authorities on Hinkley Point C and Sizewell.”

In other words, there will be another taxpayer bailout.

One lesson that the UK Government appear to have learned is that a contracts for difference model is not the best way to deliver a nuclear project, but they are now diving head first into the regulated asset base model, which transfers risk from the contractor to the billpayer. That is what the Government want to do for Sizewell C, despite the evidence of failure of the RAB model for a project in South Carolina, in the United States, where ratepayers continue to pay higher rates for a nuclear power station that was actually abandoned during construction. How will the UK Government make sure that this does not happen at Sizewell?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way one last time. When it comes to transport infrastructure, he will be aware from his previous role as the SNP transport spokesperson that Scotland has an overarching transport strategy. In fact, we are on to transport strategy 2, and we have the strategic transport projects review 2, which supports the delivery of that strategy. In England, there is no such overarching transport infrastructure strategy whatsoever. We have heard evidence in the Transport Committee recently that the Government should put that in place, because that avoids all the problems we are now seeing within this procurement. It is just a complete muddle and a mess, because there is no overarching strategy at all.

[Alan Brown]

Absolutely. An overarching strategy again goes back to linking needs and outcomes, and to identifying budgets. It also sends a clear signal to investors and contractors of what is in the pipeline of work, and people can actually gear up and plan ahead accordingly. One other thing about Scotland is having, through all this work, a strategic transport development plan, and then the Tories calling for the UK Government in Westminster to bypass that for a pet project, which again completely undermines our strategic thinking.

All these projects I have spoken about show that risk needs to be correctly allocated. The lessons learned means that sufficient up-front design work needs to be undertaken. We need early contractor involvement and a clear pipeline of projects. These are all matters that the construction industry has actually been calling for for years. We also need politicians to take responsibility, where required, and for politicians to understand that undue interference and the chopping and changing of projects mean an increase in costs and programme delays.

Somehow in today’s political world, we do need to have cross-party working as much as possible. One thing is for sure: we cannot continue to have flagship projects that are handled as badly as HS2, Hinkley and the rest. It is quite clear that some politicians down here really do need to look in before they look out when it comes to infrastructure delivery and talking about that.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I will return to that point, but it is quite clear that the Bill allows individuals to be named. If someone is deemed to be part of an awkward squad, or to be a trade unionist the company wants rid of, they can be named. If they do not break a strike, they could be sacked.

A common theme on the amendment paper is the attempt to control and limit the definition of “minimum service” and ensure that it relates to service required for genuinely critical health and safety-related matters. I support such amendments, although we know that there is existing legislation that covers life and limb protection anyway. In a similar vein, there are attempts to limit unilateral impositions by the Government. There are also several new clauses and amendments that relate to consultation, voluntary agreements, compliance with international obligations and the implementation of an arbitration process. If the Government had any intention of collegiate working, we would not have to debate the inclusion of such measures.

Another theme—I am glad that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset brought it up—is parliamentary sovereignty and the need to prevent too much control from lying with the UK Government. Those are issues that should exercise Tory Back Benchers.

I support all amendments that would eliminate the retrospective effect of the Bill and stop it applying to strikes that have already been balloted for. The Bill is bad enough, but to apply it retrospectively to attack strikes that have already been properly balloted for, under the existing rules and the existing draconian legislation, is just bizarre.

The SNP has tabled amendments that would protect devolution and require approval from devolved Governments and other bodies on devolved matters before implementation. If Scotland were indeed an equal partner, the UK Government would not have a problem with such requirements, but we know that their attitude is “Westminster knows best”, even though it is Westminster that is wrecking inter-Government relations. It is now Westminster that is looking to wreck relationships with key workers, including in the devolved nations.

Our amendment 27 is an attempt to eliminate the ridiculous proposal that secondary legislation could be used to “amend, repeal or revoke” any previous legislation already passed by Parliament or any future legislation in this Session. SNP amendment 28 further makes it clear that such Henry VIII powers should not extend to devolved legislation. It might be acceptable for most of the Tories to allow their Government unparalleled powers over past and future legislation, but it is simply not acceptable to us that Westminster could have carte blanche to rip up devolved legislation that has already been passed. I welcome the similar amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) to protect the devolved institutions; I hope that Labour Front Benchers too will see the need to stand up and protect devolution.

I also support the hon. Member’s amendments 98 and 77. They mirror our amendments 30, 36, 37 and 38, which would amend clause 4 and the schedule to ensure that the Bill will not apply to Scotland. New clause 2 spells it out: the Bill should

“not apply to disputes which take place in…Scotland or Wales”,

no matter where the workers reside. If the Tories really want this Bill, I suggest that they own it and justify it to the nurses, ambulance drivers and train workers in their constituencies—but do not think about imposing it on Scotland and Wales, whose Governments do not want it.

Our amendments are intended to prevent imposition from Westminster, but the blunt reality is that unless employment law is devolved to Scotland, the Bill—clause 3 in particular—will allow Westminster to interfere and impose as it sees fit. We are now seeing Westminster confirming autocratic powers.

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

My hon. Friend mentions the devolution of employment law. As far as I am aware, the Smith commission undertook to decide whether it should be devolved. Does my hon. Friend know which party blocked that from coming to Scotland?

[Alan Brown]

I think that was a rhetorical question. It was, unfortunately, Labour that led the charge against devolving employment law. Interestingly, the Scottish Trades Union Congress has made it clear that it supports devolving employment law to Scotland, so I urge the Labour party to reconsider its approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

8. What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on the potential impacts of (a) levels of Government spending and (b) the cost of living on the levelling-up agenda.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

24. What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on the potential impacts of (a) levels of Government spending and (b) the cost of living on the levelling-up agenda.

Britain’s Industrial Future

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

Absolutely. It is all about keeping that balance of population, growing the workforce, growing the skills base, helping our businesses grow and growing the tax base as well, which creates a fairer economy for all.

For too long in the UK, deindustrialisation was deemed acceptable as long as the financial City was booming in London, but that has been the wrong strategy for decades now. It has left coalfield areas such as my constituency struggling, not to mention the loss of industry and manufacturing in the main town of Kilmarnock and the Irvine valley. That has been replicated in industrial areas up and down the UK. The Tories have arguably now recognised this with the so-called levelling-up agenda, but that is a slogan that admits all those years of failure in terms of deindustrialisation. In reality, it was just a political strategy aimed at the red wall seats. The levelling-up agenda is so ad hoc that nobody can define what it means in terms of outputs and measures, and it opens the way for more political chicanery.

It is clear that Brexit has produced challenges for the automotive industry: additional paperwork; and rules of origin which will become more challenging for the industry as times goes on. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, despite recent increases in sales, 2022 is on course to be the weakest for car sales since 1982—a 40-year low in sales as we move into recession in the UK and have inflation at a 40-year high. On car manufacturing, while we know there have been global supply chain issues and long lead-in times for parts, the reality is that there has been a drop in output in the UK compared with the rest of Europe. Only Germany has suffered a bigger percentage decrease in manufacturing output.

On wider industrial strategies in car manufacturing and EVs, we must address the electric vehicle charging roll-out. The Government have a target of 300,000 charge points installed by 2030. That means that, each year from next year onwards, 31,000 charge points need to be installed; that is because only 34,000 have been installed to date. When we consider that the cumulative total installed at present needs to be installed nearly every year for seven years to hit the target, we realise the Government do not have a coherent strategy to achieve that.

I welcome that the battery car sales market share has increased and plug-in vehicles now account for over 21% of new sales, but we need to make sure the lack of infrastructure does not stall sales and output of such vehicles. In small, independent Norway, last year, EVs accounted for 65% of market share.

[Gavin Newlands]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Norway and in Scotland—which has twice as many rapid chargers per head as England, including London—it was public investment by the Government that got that going, leading to a better system of chargers? Then the private sector was brought in. That is the way to go, rather than starting private, as the UK Government did.

[Alan Brown]

I absolutely agree. The Minister challenged us earlier to welcome public-private investment partnerships; I hope the Minister who winds up will welcome that investment in Scotland and that Scotland and Norway have shown how it can be done.

On the bus manufacturing sector, again, unfortunately, we have had a complete UK Government failure. Just yesterday, The Times ran a story saying that only six low-emission buses out of the 4,000 promised by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), have entered service in England. Of the promised £3 billion bus fund, 40% still remains unallocated, and only 341 orders have been placed out of the 4,000. It is therefore clear that urgent intervention is required to get manufacturing in the UK up and running. Even worse than that, the first ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional areas—contract was awarded abroad, to China. There is no scope in the current tendering process to assess added value of UK content and community benefit, which would help UK manufacturing companies. That is a complete failure by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

In contrast, the Scottish Government have led the way on this. Three hundred buses have been delivered under the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme, and almost the same number has now been delivered through the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund. However, the reality is that companies such as Alexander Dennis need to see more orders via UK Government funding. If they are talking about an industrial strategy and promoting UK manufacturing, they need to do something to get these buses made by UK-based companies.

The motion refers to net zero and creating jobs. Net zero has to be the future if we are going to save the planet. It should be part of a just transition for the oil and gas industry. With the right support for emerging technologies such as tidal stream, Scotland in particular can be a manufacturing and technology exporter. Green hydrogen needs to be supported in a much bigger way, given investments being made elsewhere in Europe.

In 2020, renewable sources provided almost 100% of the equivalent gross electricity consumption in Scotland, and that was despite the UK Government effectively pulling the plug on onshore wind for a six-year period. Scotland currently has the largest deployment of grid-generating tidal stream turbines, and there is the potential of up to 11 GW of electricity to be generated from tidal stream. Scotland is also leading the way on floating offshore wind. In terms of fixed offshore wind, ScotWind has the potential to develop more than 20 GW of offshore wind in the coming years. With the size of the wind farms being developed, there really is a chance of establishing turbine manufacturing in Scotland, so it is critical that all the permissions are put in place.

However, in Scotland we also have the paradox that Westminster holds all the levers of power in terms of main energy policy. The auction process and procurement rules all lie with Westminster. The setting of the grid charging regime and the regulator lie with Westminster. Borrowing powers to invest lie with Westminster. The ability to pull funding or prioritise projects such as carbon capture and storage lie with Westminster. That is underlined by the disgraceful fact that funding was pulled from the Peterhead CCS project and that the Acorn project is still classed as a reserve project despite having been the most advanced and rounded project overall in terms of CCS clusters.

It is Westminster who can decide on a pricing mechanism for pumped storage hydro or not and, so far, they have ignored the calls to sit down and discuss a cap and floor mechanism for electricity generated by pumped storage hydro. It is Westminster who have control of the consenting rules and processes under the Electricity Act 1989 and are prioritising another £30 billion of capital spend for Sizewell C nuclear power station. It is Westminster who squandered £380 billion of oil and gas revenues.

Despite that—bizarrely—we have Unionists right now seeming to take glee from the fact that not as many jobs may have been created by the onshore wind sector as was originally hoped. That is as much as anything down to procurement processes, which for years the SNP has called to be changed to allow for local content. Right now, we have Unionist glee as they believe that, somehow, Scotland’s renewables potential has been overblown or overhyped by politicians. I assure them that it certainly has not. A report prepared by the Landfall Strategy Group illustrates that pursuing offshore wind and tidal resource alongside a green hydrogen strategy could create up to 400,000 jobs by 2050 and £34 billion in gross value added. That is the sort of ambition required, and that seems to be deliverable only through independence and the full levers of power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

2. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of clause 15 of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill on the (a) Northern Ireland and (b) UK economy.

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

4. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of clause 15 of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill on the (a) Northern Ireland and (b) UK economy.

Aviation Sector

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I will make some progress.

We also looked at problems faced by thousands of customers in their attempts to secure refunds from airlines after cancellations caused by the pandemic. It is unacceptable that airline after airline has decided that the law does not apply to them—although given the example set this week by the Government it is perhaps unsurprising—and tried to evade their legal responsibilities by fobbing customers off with vouchers. While welcoming the recent, belated announcement extending the protections under the ATOL—air travel organisers’ licence—scheme, the reprehensible behaviour by some airlines has shown that we need to look at how the system operates and whether we should be keeping passenger fares in trust.

This PR disaster has been confounded by the actions of airlines such as British Airways/IAG. While making full use of Government finance, BA/IAG and its hatchet man-in-chief, Willie Walsh, who has just skipped off into the sunset with an £800,000 bonus pay-off, have sacked 12,000 staff and fired and rehired 30,000 more, with staff forced to take wage cuts of up to 60% and drastically reduced conditions, under threat of being thrown on the dole in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the war.

We have also seen ground handler Menzies Aviation follow a similar path—this despite, during a phone call with me, assuring me that it absolutely would not be taking this kind of approach: an approach that we said would swiftly be followed by others if the Government refused to act. So it has proven, with blue chip company Centrica/British Gas making the same threats, along with many other companies across the UK. This sort of disreputable and despicable management tactic should be against the law, but is not. I again repeat my call for the Government to get behind my Bill or introduce their own measure to make these bully-boy tactics illegal. But despite the difficulties they cause for advocates like me, an industry should not and cannot be judged on the behaviour of its worst members.

At the start of this period, aviation supported nearly 1 million direct and indirect jobs. For those of us who represent airport constituencies, there is real danger that the flood of redundancies becomes a tsunami, with a catastrophic impact on our local and regional economies. The effects on the supply chain are even more devastating when it comes to aerospace companies such as Rolls-Royce. At Inchinnan in my constituency, 700 jobs—over 50% of the workforce—are gone. These were high-skilled, high-value jobs, now lost from our economy, perhaps never to return. I fear for the long-term future of high-level manufacturing like Rolls-Royce if the Government continue to lift not a finger to save jobs and save local communities.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

At the Prestwich aerospace cluster there are 4,000 jobs, and over 10% have already gone. Aviation is a worldwide industry. How the aviation sector in the UK is going to come out of this depends on support from the Government. Other Governments are extending their furlough schemes. Is it not the case that this UK Government need to extend the furlough scheme and invest in sustainable technologies? We need to provide further innovations so that the UK leads the world—leads other countries—and comes out stronger and better.

[Gavin Newlands]

rose—

Rolls-Royce (Redundancies)

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

Yes, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I will touch on NMIS later in my speech, so I do not want to give too much away now.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Obviously, we must focus on the long term, but there is an immediate and short-term issue. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that some companies seem to have rushed to make decisions on closures when the furlough scheme has been on the go and available for a while now? I have a company in Kilmarnock, Wabtec, which has announced it is closing its plant, ending railway works at the site after more than 100 years. It refuses to consider the furlough scheme, and I do not understand why. It seems to me that Rolls-Royce might be having the same knee-jerk reaction. It could utilise short-term support, then look at the long-term future and see whether it could get long-term Government support.

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I would have preferred it if the Government had not signalled their intention to end the furlough scheme in October, because for many businesses, it will just push redundancies from earlier in the year to later. Perhaps the Government should look at extending it and phasing it out a bit more gradually than they have said. However, the scheme exists and is here until October, and too many businesses are not utilising the scheme to the maximum.

Transport

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I certainly agree that the money that has been promised thus far is insignificant in reality. I think Transport for the North put it best when it said that around £70 billion is required just to increase connectivity to the requisite level in the north of England, let alone the rest of the country. The best I can say is that £500 million is a good start.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

I will give way briefly, but I am conscious of Madam Deputy Speaker’s urgings about time.

[Alan Brown]

I have just received a response to a written question about that £500 million, but the Government have confirmed that it is not new money in the Department’s spending. It is actually money that has clearly come from somewhere else. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is another Tory con trick, and that the investment coming forward should actually be new?

[Gavin Newlands]

I absolutely agree, but I am hardly surprised by the response to my hon. Friend’s written question. It is not unusual for this Government to double- count money and re-announce the same figures.

I do welcome the new openings, if they occur. My concern is that they simply do not go far enough in creating an integrated network of the type that Beeching was happy to destroy. In 20 years of devolution, successive Scottish Governments—both SNP and Labour-led, to be fair—have understood the importance of bold action to reverse the cuts made in a previous era. Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall, the Borders railway, Stirling to Alloa and the extension of the Maryhill line are all reinstatements of Beeching closures. We have the biggest programme of electrification and decarbonisation of the rail network in 40 years, with all services between our two biggest cities running under the wires, as well as Stirling, Alloa, Falkirk, Paisley Canal and Whifflet, with much more in the pipeline as part of the rolling programme of electrification. The result of all this—and much more—will be a carbon-free rail system that helps Scotland to achieve net zero. I hope that the UK Transport Secretary will visit the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in Edinburgh during his tenure to hear how it is done, and see the real investment going into Scotland’s railways day in, day out. These are not magic fixes or changes beyond our economic capacity. They are realistic, achievable solutions to the challenges that we all face.

Many of our roads are at—or, in some cases, over—capacity, which brings increased congestion and the resultant increased emissions. There are those who say we should stop building roads altogether. I say, tell that to the residents of Aberdeenshire, who have seen their travel transformed by the western peripheral route, or those crossing the Forth on the replacement crossing, which has seen not one day of closure due to high winds—a bridge built in the face of opposition from many who are now curiously quiet about their lack of support. Tell it to the residents of Dalry, who, thanks to the newly opened bypass, which was completed seven months ahead of schedule, have seen traffic and pollution in their town plummet.

Targeted investments in our road network, combined with the massive expansion in electric charge points and projects such as the electric highway along the A9 are all part of the mix in reducing emissions. Private transport must be available to as wide a cohort of society as possible. That is why Scottish households can now access grant funding that will, on average, pay for 80% of the cost of installing a home charge point—30% more than the rest of the UK. There are more public charging points per head in Scotland than anywhere else outside London. We are rolling out support for e-bikes, social landlords who want to develop zero-emissions infrastructure and car clubs. The low carbon transport loan means that more households than ever are in a position to make the switch now, rather than later. With used electric cars now becoming eligible, the choice available is getting wider all the time.

Scotland is doing well, but Norway is soaring ahead in electric car deployment. By the end of 2020, half of all new cars sold there will be electric—the result of bold policies and a determination by Government to tackle a societal and environmental challenge. Those bold policies are only possible because Norway has the resources and the power of an independent state to make those changes. If the UK does not want to use the powers it has to make those changes, it should ensure that Scotland does.

Scotland has shown global leadership by being the first country to include international aviation and shipping emissions in its statutory climate targets. Aviation is undoubtedly the most difficult sector to decarbonise, although I welcome the industry’s recently announced commitment to do so by 2050. The SNP has already committed to decarbonise flights within Scotland by 2040 and aims to have the world’s first zero-emission aviation region, in partnership with Highlands and Islands Airports.

Too often, transport policy appears to be a contradiction in terms. In the short time since taking up my position as the SNP’s transport spokesperson, I have been genuinely surprised at the lack of joined-up thinking that pervades so much of what is sketched out for the future. Putting the zero-emission society at the heart of transport planning and wider Government policy means joining up some of that thinking towards a common goal and a common strategy. That is exactly what the Scottish Government have been doing and continue to do, and it is what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance will be doing tomorrow when he unveils the Scottish budget. It is what the Cabinet Secretary for Transport did earlier this afternoon at Holyrood, and I hope it is what the UK Transport Secretary will begin to do as he reflects on this debate in the weeks and months ahead.

Community and Sub-Post Offices

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

It is as if my hon. Friend, who is sitting next to me, had read my speech, because I am about to come to that.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

There is a fantastic post office in the village of Dunlop in my constituency where people do great work. It has a fine range of whiskies and beers, by the way, so it is well worth a visit. They have the same issue. The sub-postmaster has worked out that on the hours he does, he gets paid less than the minimum wage, yet he hires staff and correctly pays them the money they are due. Is this not an injustice?

[Gavin Newlands]

It absolutely is. That sub-postmaster will have even less money once he has paid the commission to my hon. Friend for the advert he has just given.

At this point, it is worth giving some background and context regarding sub-postmasters’ remuneration. Previously, all post offices received a fixed element of pay—a core payment—that also allowed for six weeks’ annual leave. Now, only a small number of offices—about 400—that did not go through the network transformation, plus offices designated as community offices, continue to receive a fixed element of pay. Overall, the total amount paid to sub-postmasters has dropped as a result of the removal of this fixed element of pay from the majority of offices. The total amount paid by Post Office Ltd across the whole network in 2017-18 was 17% lower than in 2013-14, and that is before adjusting for inflation. As a result of the transformation programme, new post office models—main, local, and local-plus offices—are paid on commission only for the transactions they carry out. Main-model offices receive commission rates that are roughly one third higher than local-model offices.

It is with this backdrop that the Post Office is currently engaged in renegotiating the deeply unfair banking contracts with UK Finance, the body that represents the banks. Given that the Government have hidden behind the post office network countless times at the Dispatch Box while defending bank branch closures since 2015, and that, on behalf of the public, they own the Post Office, I hope that they will act as the proper stewards of the Post Office they should be and ensure that the deal ends up being a fair and sustainable one.

EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for gamely trying to defend the Government position. Fair play to him; he is the only one willing to do that. I would like to see him argue to all the members of the Public Accounts Committee that that NAO report was reassuring and that the evidence it took was reassuring, because that is not what I have heard from PAC members. So again I disagree.

If this were a real and robust process, the Government would have defended themselves to the hilt in court. They would not have caved in and done an out-of-court settlement. Again, that is indicative of where the Government are and the lack of confidence they had once they were eight-balled by Eurotunnel.

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

I also read the NAO report said that warnings were ignored in the “rushed…ineffective” and “inappropriate” privatisation, creating “significant risks”, that it wasted £500 million and that the number of recalled prisoners skyrocketed. But that was about the Secretary of State’s careless probation service legacy. So he clearly has a track record. As a master of understatement, he said that those reforms had not worked as well as he had hoped.

[Alan Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I spoke earlier about the systemic procurement failures in the Department for Transport. It is clear there is a common thread between the systemic failure in the privatisation and procurement of probation services and the man who is now in charge at the Department for Transport, who is sitting here lackadaisically thinking everything is okay in the world and he is doing a fine job. I am sorry but that is not the case and that is not how it is seen in the wider country.

I will now return to some questions raised in the Chamber that have still not had satisfactory answers. The permanent secretary at the Department for Transport told the PAC that the Department had awarded Seaborne the contract before Arklow confirmed its backing. So the Transport Secretary needs to be able to provide further clarity on that. We return to the question: where were the written guarantees that he was supposedly assured about from Arklow before it walked away? It is shameful that it turns out that as far as we know no written guarantees were given by Arklow, yet when it walked away some of the most hard Brexiteers, the right-wing Brexiteers, said it was an Irish conspiracy because Arklow is an Irish company. That is shameful. It was the Department for Transport not doing its due diligence

Additionally, the director general at the Department for Transport said that it was no longer possible to complete procurement and operation for any large amount of further capacity across the channel before the end of March by either sea or rail. Can the Secretary of State explain that? Can he explain how the sudden £33 million settlement with Eurotunnel, if it is going to provide all these vital services at the end of March, stacks up against the fact that the previous argument was that the Department no longer had time to be able to source those additional services?

In relation to Seaborne Freight, the Secretary of State said that

“we have spent no money on this contract.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 619.]

I ask him once again if he could please spell out the real financial implications of that award to Seaborne Freight and the handling of the direct negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I cannot confirm that. The right hon. Gentleman is quite comfortable with his legacy there, so I will leave that to him; what he said is on the record. No one else seems to appreciate his legacy, including the current Justice Minister, who is trying to deal with the mess.

[Gavin Newlands]

I cannot believe that the Transport Secretary stood up and defended his probation service reforms. I serve on the Select Committee on Justice, and the Ministers who replaced him and his team at the Ministry of Justice have said time and again that the service is a shambles. I am absolutely amazed that he stood up to defend it. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly. To be fair to the current Transport Secretary, he allowed VTEC, the Virgin-Stagecoach consortium, to walk away owing the taxpayer £2 billion and said that that was not a bail-out. If I let somebody off from owing me £2 billion, it would seem that I had bailed them out. As I touched on earlier, he also has a lot of culpability in the Southern rail franchise and in how the model was set up, and he has been unwilling to get involved in industrial disputes. In fact, in a way he wanted the disputes to continue because of his views on the unions. We had the Northern rail timetable fiasco, where the Government again tried to argue that the taxpayer was not liable, but when Network Rail pays compensation to a franchise holder, that money comes from the taxpayer. All that is in addition to the £800,000 on due diligence and the out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel. It has been a farce from start to end, but the Transport Secretary is not willing to accept accountability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers.

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

5. What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)]

The Electoral Commission has ongoing dialogue with the Minister for the Constitution, and it has raised the need for a significant increase to its current maximum fine of £20,000. That will ensure that sanctions are proportionate and provide a genuine deterrent.

Leaving the EU: Aviation Sector

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I want, like other hon. Members, to congratulate the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on bringing forward the debate. The opportunity is timely, given the ticking of the clock towards Brexit day. The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the aviation industry’s skills and its scale—the fact that it supports thousands of jobs, as well as exports, imports, businesses across the entire UK, and of course inward and outward tourism. He went on to highlight the risks and opportunities, and I found some parts of what he said easier to agree with than others.

Unfortunately I agreed with the negative points, rather than the positive ones. As to risks, the hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the risk to connectivity. There is clearly such a risk, and the UK Government are now beginning to acknowledge that. He highlighted how critical the EU is for Manchester airport’s connectivity, citing the figure of 74% of its flights. With respect to connectivity risks and day-to-day operations, he mentioned evidence to the Public Accounts Committee that air and rail services between Britain and the EU are an “area of growing concern.” That point was recently echoed by Michael O’Leary of Ryanair, who last month stated industry concerns about the implications of no deal, and the lack of preparation for that. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the hon. Gentleman was correct that the WTO is not an option; that is not an alternative that is compliant with the aviation sector. The UK Government need to get their act together.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department for Transport has been telling the aviation industry since the Brexit vote that it will be all right on the night? I warned the Airport Operators Association and others that, while that might be the case, there was no justification for that confidence. Does my hon. Friend agree with the EASA and Civil Aviation Authority employees I spoke to a few months ago, who think that there is a huge risk that the UK Government are sleepwalking into an aviation crisis, and that it is time we in this place, and the industry, made a lot more noise about it?

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree. The UK Government’s attitude is completely blasé and lackadaisical.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, in discussing opportunities, spoke about future markets, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, who intervened on him to say we do not need Brexit for those opportunities. The whole growth of the airline industry is the result of our membership of the EU, so it is hard to see what opportunities there are. The hon. Gentleman spoke of aviation as an essential component of an outward-looking Britain, but unfortunately that is not the message that people from outwith the UK get at the moment. Britain is becoming too inward-looking, rather than being outward-looking. However, I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman’s “how” questions to the Minister, and I should like to hear the response.

Clearly, no Westminster Hall debate would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He certainly knows how to maximise the lack of a time limit; he used all his experience there. It was good to hear him talk about the importance of Bombardier to his constituency, but it reminded me of the games that can be played in trade negotiations, and protectionism such as the recent carry-on in the US. I am glad that that has been resolved, and it was good to hear about the new order for 60 planes to go to Latvia. I wish them well with the opportunities and jobs that it will bring.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about bringing positivity, but then even he had to admit that Brexit is not a quick and easy process, so I find it hard to believe in the opportunities that will suddenly arise the day after Brexit. I agree with him about the opportunities that the third runway at Heathrow would bring, but I hope he shares my concern at the fact that the UK Government have not confirmed how they will provide protection to domestic slots that are supposed to open with the expansion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire confirmed that the single aviation market is what has transformed travel in the UK and within the EU, with the connectivity and opportunities it has brought. However, Brexit now brings risks to companies such as Ryanair, which is so important to her local airport, Prestwick. She highlighted the fact that those companies operate using the freedoms of the European common aviation area, and the registration issues that will arise post-Brexit.

Finally, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) correctly highlighted issues to do with EASA—that it is not just a matter of safety. He pointed out the standards that it imposes for pilot registration, and consequent issues relating to conversion to the CAA and a bilateral agreement. We need to know the Government’s plans as to membership of EASA.

It is clear that from the perspective of Tory Back-Bench Members the future of the aviation seems not to be of much concern. It is surprising that those Benches are empty.

As the clock ticks towards Brexit, the UK Government’s handling of the aviation sector sums up their shambolic approach, including the attitude of the Secretary of State for Transport, who is an arch-Brexiteer and has the blasé attitude that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, “It will be all right on the night; everything will be okay.” I am speaking of a Secretary of State who does not know how the US-Canada border works for lorry crossings, and who seems still not to accept Brexit’s implications for the Ireland-Northern Ireland border. He is someone who goes along with the mantra “They need us more than we need them,” and the assertion “You know what—Spain needs flights, and the tourists who come from the UK, or their economy will crash.” That level of arrogance is not enough to get over the finishing line, which will need hard thinking, hard negotiations and a willingness to compromise.

Let us consider the promises on an aviation deal, to date. In November 2016, in a debate on Brexit, the Transport Secretary said he was

“in absolutely no doubt that we will secure in good time and effectively the agreements that our aviation sector needs to continue to fly around the world”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 953.]

In October 2017 he told the Transport Committee:

“I am absolutely certain that over the coming months we will have mutual sensible arrangements put in place”.

On the open skies agreement with the US, another EU benefit, he said in October 2016 that his

“expectation and my intention would be that we retain the open skies arrangement for the United States.”

In March 2018, after media reports that the US would offer only its standard bilateral agreement, those claims were rebutted. We heard from Nick Calio, the chief executive of Airlines for America, who said:

“In terms of the timetable, we hope something will be in place as early as the end of the month or the beginning of April.”

There we are. Two years on from initial claims of how easily and imminently those definite agreements would be reached, I ask the Minister where they are. Yesterday in an article in The Guardian we learned that with five months to go the Secretary of State for Transport admits that negotiations on an aviation agreement have not even started. What does the Minister say about that? It is truly shameful, if it is true.

It is now five months to Brexit day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire said, airlines are now selling seats with disclaimers for post-Brexit issues. Clearly, people are being put off from making bookings beyond Brexit. It is a fact that lack of certainty is curbing airline expansion and the opening of new routes in the EU, with respect to the UK. If an EU airline has a choice of a new destination, it will clearly choose the internal EU market over the UK. That will be a simple business decision to make.

The UK Government have clearly been operating on the premise that there is no way the EU will allow flights to be grounded, because of the inconvenience that that would cause EU citizens and airlines. I agree that it seems inconceivable; but it also now seems to be a real possibility, and our only method of overcoming it seems to be to kick it into the long grass of a transition period. It is clear that the proper preparations for no deal are not in place. There will be some sort of fudge. It will be kicked down the road and not be dealt with properly. Why do not the UK Government look at staying in a customs union, the single market and the single aviation market? It just makes sense.

We have heard that the UK Government have been making contingency plans for no deal. They, too, have warned about the risk of planes being grounded. However, the advice about the no-deal technical notice for aviation seems to be that each airline is to negotiate directly with the relevant authority in each country that it wants to fly to, and must get approval from EASA, with the slight caveat added that at present there is no process enabling individual airlines to do that. What kind of no deal preparations are those? It is saying to the airlines, “It is over to you lot, because we don’t know what to do.”

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

For a start, the UK Government have delayed the agriculture Bill. The SNP wants control of immigration to support the farming industry. There are big concerns about agriculture, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. There are concerns about the power grab and the attempt to override devolved policy matters. We heard at the weekend about the much promised review into common agricultural policy funding. The UK Government kept money that was due to Scottish farmers. They held on to it and we heard at the weekend that the review has been delayed again. I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman on agricultural policy.

For the benefit of the House, I will try to return to the Bill. Part 1 covers the haulage permit system, as stated earlier. This is just an enabling Bill, so the real proof of the pudding will come from a combination of Government negotiations and the secondary legislation that is required as part of the Bill. At the moment, we really do not know what we are getting from the Bill.

The Government have stated that they intend to consult on fees later this year when the negotiations are much clearer, but that does not give me much confidence either. The reality is that we should be there or thereabouts with the negotiations already if we are going to get systems in place and advise hauliers and the Freight Transport Association what the future looks like for them, and what they need to do to comply. Clause 2 also introduces further uncertainty by referring to possible random selection or selection on a first come, first served basis, if permits are limited. If that is the outcome, it will cause further uncertainty for businesses.

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

My constituency is home to W.H. Malcolm Ltd, one of Scotland’s largest hauliers. When I met its staff, they said that the industry has gone through a tough time for a variety of reasons over the last few years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s gung-ho, “It’ll be all right on the night” approach gives little comfort to hauliers such as W.H. Malcolm and to exporters across the UK?

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree. I am sure that the haulage company that my hon. Friend referred to—it is clearly a massive haulage company—will have concerns about how the licence will come about, how vacancies will be filled in future and, as we heard earlier, the rising age profile of drivers. Something else that the UK Government have refused to do is help to pay for drivers to be trained so that they can get into the industry. Individuals cannot afford the £3,000 that it costs to train for an HGV licence.

Just to surprise the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), on a slightly positive note, I welcome the fact that clause 9 comes from the Government accepting a Lords amendment about future reporting on the impact on the UK haulage industry of the restrictions that apply to a permit scheme. What I find curious about that is that when I try to get amendments through in Committee that require the Government to report on future implementation, they always vote them down, so I hope that this will be a precedent for other future legislation. I welcome these provisions on future reporting.

Clause 12 covers Northern Ireland. Despite assurances from the Minister in the Lords that this legislation will not result in a hard border in Ireland—we have heard that from the Secretary of State—we need to know how the powers will be enforced and how it will not lead to a hardening of the border. I notice that the Secretary of State could not state clearly how the Irish Government see this operating. The Bill also specifically requires the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which, as I am sure he is aware, has not been operating for 16 months, so will the Minister or the Secretary of State explain how consent will be sought in the absence of a devolved Government?

Overall, the Government may continue to assert that there will be no hard border, but they need to answer difficult questions about the broader picture regarding not only the Bill, but the customs arrangements and how they will do checks with this mythical “no infrastructure.” The Secretary of State talks time and again about how there are no checks on the US-Canada border, but I remind him that there are. Lorries have to stop there, so that model cannot be followed or else it will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland.

Part 2 of the Bill covers trailer registration as a consequence of ratifying the 1968 Vienna convention. Again, this is a series of enabling clauses with the detail to follow, so we do not know how this will be implemented or what the costs will be. The UK Government have stated again that private-use trailers such as caravans and horse trailers will not fall within the scope, yet those exclusions have not been put in the Bill, so how can we guarantee that that is the case? The Secretary of State might be aware that the National Caravan Council has raised concerns about the lack of clarity on exemptions for non-commercial trailers. It currently operates its own voluntary registration scheme, which is cost-effective and very successful, so any new scheme should not duplicate what it is doing. If needs be, a new scheme should build on what it is doing. We have also heard that this is only a registration scheme, yet clause 14(4) suggests that the regulations may make

“provision for a periodic mandatory safety standards testing scheme”.

What are the Government’s intentions regarding road safety measures for trailers? Is there a planned timescale for implementing them?

In conclusion—everybody will be pleased to know that I have come to the conclusion—we do not know if part 1 of the Bill is required, and if it is, we do not know what the secondary legislation will look like. We do not know what the fees will be. We do not know what the application process will be. We do not know whether there will be limits on the number of permits available. We do not know what additional checks will be required and how the situation will be managed regarding the Irish border. To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, it seems to me that there are still a lot of known unknowns as regards the Bill. I also suspect that there are further unknown unknowns to follow. Having said that, the Government must be delighted with the progress they have made on taking back control, so I absolutely welcome the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential effect on disability rights of the UK exiting the EU.

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

14. What assessment she has made of the potential effect on disability rights of the UK exiting the EU.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Gavin Newlands

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to speak against what, in my book, is one of the more heinous Bills introduced by this Tory Government, or for that matter by any other Government.

I am proud to make the case for immigration and to remind our international community that they are valued and that we appreciate their contribution to our communities. I know that Conservative Members like to consider issues purely on economic terms, and I could talk at length about the positive economic impact that immigration has on the UK economy. However, the biggest impact that our international community has on the UK cannot be measured purely in terms of economic growth or statistics; the most important impact made by our foreign-born friends can be witnessed in our communities each and every day.

During my research into the impact of the Bill, I met members of the Renfrewshire Effort to Empower Minorities, or REEM. It is a fantastic example of a group of people who are rooted in our community, who serve their members by helping to provide advice and training, and who organise a number of events throughout the year to help to integrate their members with the local population. Such groups internationalise our towns and cities. They help to achieve social cohesion, and they diversify our villages, towns and cities. That is why it depresses me to hear so many Tory MPs lining up to spout rhetoric about the allegedly devastating impact that immigration has on our country.

The problem for the UK Government is that, instead of developing evidence-based policy, they are attempting to create policy that panders to UKIP sympathisers in their own party. The Bill sends a message that the UK finds it an inconvenience that anyone would want to come and work here, and that the British Government want to drive a wedge between Britain and the rest of the world. Those are not my words but those of one of my constituents who is fed up with the deeply damaging and divisive Tory rhetoric, and who has decided to move away from the UK as he knows when he is not wanted.

Let me briefly touch on a number of aspects of the Bill and explain how they will have a significant impact on foreign residents, regardless of whether they are living here illegally or not. The Immigration Minister states that illegal immigration denies work to UK citizens, but one consequence of this Bill—it may be an unintended consequence—is that it will become harder for all foreign-born residents to get a job.

The Bill is targeting small businesses by shamefully using racial profiling and focusing on takeaways and off-licences. Employers will now face criminal prosecution and a five-year prison sentence if they are found to be employing someone whose right to remain has expired. Trying to ascertain someone’s immigration status can be a confusing process, and many small businesses do not have the administrative budgets to be confident enough to check the status of their foreign-born employees. It is not difficult to see that many small business owners will not risk employing someone who is foreign. That is bad for business as they will lose out on recruiting a skilled worker, and it will also be a significant barrier for foreign-born workers who will find it more difficult to get a job.

Not only will members of our international community find it difficult to get a job, but the Bill will also make it harder for them to have a roof over their head. The right to rent provision will encourage discrimination, promote the worst possible practice in housing management and make it harder for members of our international community to find a home.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill could cause discrimination. We have already heard that landlords will be less likely to rent houses to citizens without a British passport. Does he agree that that will cause further pressure on the housing sector? Combine that with the right to buy and the force to sell legislation, and the Government’s rush to legislate in a scattergun approach will cause further problems for housing, as well as immigration.

[Gavin Newlands]

I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill will create a situation whereby landlords will have to be 100% sure that no illegal migrants are living in their property. Failure to abide by this could result in the landlord facing a fine of £3,000 and a jail sentence of five years. The vast majority of our landlords will not be qualified, or have the time, to distinguish between a legal and an illegal migrant.