Scotland: Transport Links

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I join hon. and right hon. colleagues in congratulating you on your appointment. I hope you have enjoyed your first foray into Scottish politics this afternoon, and I look forward to seeing you back in this Chamber on many an occasion as we continue the various debates. Indeed, this is the second time in two days I have found myself here debating issues pertaining to Scotland, although in my view that is still not enough.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate. Cross-border connectivity is an issue he has championed as an MSP, as a Back-Bench MP and indeed as a Minister in the previous Government, and he continues that laudable work now. I am pleased that so many colleagues from across Scotland and Northern Ireland have come to the Chamber this afternoon to discuss this important issue.

As I said, I and others here, including the Minister, found ourselves in this Chamber yesterday afternoon discussing the impact of the UK Government’s Budget on Scotland. To save Members from looking the debate up in Hansard or watching it on Parliament Live—I do recommend it; some stellar speeches were delivered—I will give a brief synopsis. For farmers, family firms, oil and gas workers, the Scotch whisky industry and the Scottish economy in general, the Budget was not good, but despite the best efforts of the Labour party and the SNP to undermine confidence, deter investment, stymie ambition and entrepreneurship and punish success, the fact is that across the UK and especially in Scotland, we need growth, investment and new jobs.

For all those things, good connectivity to our biggest market by far—the rest of the UK—is key. It is integral to economic growth and business, but also to leisure, education and even health. Fundamentally, good transport links unlock opportunity across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is precisely why the Conservative Government launched the Union connectivity review. Despite the lack of co-operation from the Scottish Government, we made several critical commitments, including, as some have mentioned already, to supporting enhancements to the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer to improve the main artery linking south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland, recognising the vital importance of east-west connectivity within the United Kingdom; to funding for dualling the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, a vital road route between England and Scotland; and to funding for Network Rail to look at options for boosting capacity and improving services more broadly between England and Scotland.

In other important areas, we delivered improved transport connectivity, with major projects taking big strides forward. We were delivering long-awaited upgrades to the A1 coastal route between Newcastle and Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh, reducing congestion for the communities of Ashington, Felton, Alnwick and Amble. However, as has been said time and again today, away from cross-border routes, responsibility for our roads lies with the Scottish Government. Companies and individuals seeking to export fish landed at Peterhead, for example, or on Orkney and Shetland, are reliant on increasingly dangerous roads to get it to the border and then into Europe, as a result of the SNP’s failure to deliver on its promises.

It has been almost two decades since we first heard the SNP make promises to improve some of Scotland’s most dangerous roads, yet those promises remain undelivered and, frankly, broken. The SNP promised to fully dual the A96—a road close to my heart, connecting Aberdeen and Inverness—the A90 and the A9 between the central belt and Inverness, but not one of them has been. Of course, we now know that the SNP’s promise to dual the A96 to Inverness by 2030 has been shelved completely, letting down people across the north-east of Scotland once again—and let us not even begin discussing the Laurencekirk junction in my constituency or, just further north, improvements at Toll of Birness on the road between Aberdeen, Fraserburgh and Peterhead.

While we are rightly talking today about cross-border connectivity, let us not forget those who are reliant on the SNP to ensure they can get their goods and themselves to the border. Air travel, which Members have raised this afternoon, is similarly critical for not just business but remote settlements. We protected socially and economically vital domestic routes through public service obligations, and indeed we reformed how the PSOs operated to include routes that operate to and from different regions of the UK, rather than just into London. However, one route into London we did back was from Dundee: in 2021, we provided up to £2.5 million to fund direct flights between Dundee and London for a further two years, keeping a critical route running and ensuring that people at both ends of the UK could keep connected.

We cut the reduced rate of air passenger duty for domestic flights to just £6.50 and consulted on reform to airport landing slot allocations, including proposals to ringfence some slots for domestic flights, which, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, is so important. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the Government’s position on that and whether they intend to issue a response to the consultation on ringfencing those slots for domestic flights.

When it comes to rail, we committed over £1 billion for east coast main line upgrades, including a programme to replace Victorian infrastructure with digital signalling, which provides drivers with continuous real-time information. That was designed to boost train performance and cut delays. It is hard to overstate the importance of the east coast main line. A third of the nation’s population, who together produce more than 40% of the UK’s GDP, live within 20 minutes of an east coast main line station.

The dreadful decision of this Government to hike air passenger duty will mean that people who do not live within a few hours of London on a main rail line such as the east coast main line—for example, those living and working in and around Aberdeen—will face higher fares and fewer options for travel. It punishes those who live outside the central belt and flies in the face of better connectivity around the United Kingdom, which brings us back to the woeful record of the SNP Government in Holyrood.

I have taken the long train journey from Aberdeen to London on many occasions, and the time it takes to reach Edinburgh is striking. Almost a third of the travel time to London from Aberdeen is taken up just reaching Scotland’s capital. The SNP promised yet again in 2016 £200 million to cut journey times between Aberdeen and the central belt by 2026. Almost 10 years on, not even 10% of that money has been spent. As with roads, people who rely on infrastructure for which the SNP is responsible to get to the border are failed by the Scottish Government.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman plans to mention ferries, but if not, perhaps he could.

[Andrew Bowie]

Of course, ferries are increasingly important. I did not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) by dwelling too much on ferries, because that is something on which the Scottish Government have such an embarrassing record. The ferry links between our islands and the mainland—be they the links with Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles or across to Northern Ireland—are vital to the economic success of our country, linking communities and providing essential routes for health, leisure and tourism and to export the goods that are produced in those communities.

The way that those communities, especially in the Western Isles, have been let down by SNP ineptitude to deliver new ferries on those routes has been embarrassing. The sight of windows being painted on the side of a ferry just so that it can be launched in a PR stunt by the former First Minister will go down in history as one of the most embarrassing moments for the Scottish Government in recent times. Frankly, they owe an apology to those communities who have been so let down by their failure to invest properly in the future. It is not only the Western Isles; other communities rely on ferry connectivity, and it is essential that they get the funding they deserve.

We do not only have questions to ask of the Scottish Government, whose record on transport is dismal. We also have questions for the UK Labour Government about their own record, the decisions that have been taken and their future plans.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I would be delighted to give way to my SNP friend.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I just wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman to put on the record that he was part of the Government for a significant period of the past 14 years of austerity, during which there were significant reductions in overall capital expenditure. Does he think that helped or hindered investment in strategic capital transport projects?

[Andrew Bowie]

I think what most hindered investment in strategic transport projects was the ineptitude of the Scottish Government. Colleagues and I have already gone through the SNP’s litany of broken promises to communities across Scotland, be that on the A96, the A9, the A90, the work on the A75, the new ferries to the Western Isles or the protection of air routes across Scotland. It is quite rich for a Scottish National party Member to talk about under-investment in transport when his party’s own record is so woeful in that regard; it might be one of the reasons that he and his colleagues number only nine Members of Parliament, compared with the large number that the SNP had in the previous Parliament.

Let me move on from talking about the SNP and focus on the UK Labour Government, because we also have plans for them.

[John Grady]

As my dear friends tussle, I want to make a minor point. The Conservative Government were in power for 14 years until July, and the SNP Government have been in power in Holyrood for about 18 years. It is quite remarkable for the hon. Member to criticise a Government who have been in power for just six months and have been clearing up a mess left by the Tories. Might I gently ask him to bear in mind those different periods as he proceeds?

[Andrew Bowie]

I had not got around to criticising the Labour Government—if hon. Members give me time, I will get there—but I gently point out that this concocted mess that the Labour party likes to trot out is as nothing compared with the economic situation that we had to deal with when we came into government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, in 2010, which led to so many of the tough decisions that we took between 2010 and 2015. It is as a direct result of decisions taken in the recent Budget that we have seen growth falling, confidence slipping, investment drying up and, today, gilt yields rising to their highest level in more than 20 years. That is on the Labour party’s watch and has nothing to do with the Conservatives. We left it with the highest growth in the G7, inflation down to 2% and investment at record levels. I am proud of our record in government. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to stand there at the end of his time on the governing party’s Benches and say just the same.

As I said, we have questions for the UK Labour Government. We are yet to see a convincing reason for the cancellation of the last Government’s plans to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, so will the Minister lay out the reasons? There are also questions about what rail nationalisation will mean for the upgrade projects currently under way, which would benefit Union-wide connectivity. Should we expect fare rises, like we have seen with ScotRail, for services to England after rail is nationalised by Labour? On the Borders railway, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk asked, could the Minister update us on where we are with the Tweedbank to Carlisle corridor? Why was the feasibility study abandoned? On air passenger duty, what do the Government say to those people living in Scotland, further away from the border, who rely on air links to get to cities south of the border for business and leisure?

On transport more broadly, the Government’s record so far gives us cause for concern, and makes us sceptical that Union connectivity is a priority for Ministers or is likely to improve over this Parliament. The Prime Minister himself said that Labour-run Wales should be “a blueprint” for what a UK Labour Government could achieve. That is terrifying. We all know what that really means; we have seen the imposition of blanket 20 mph speed limits and the cancellation of major road building projects, and Labour has cast doubt on its plans to electrify the north Wales main line. So what does Labour-run Wales mean for the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I think he was reaching some kind of crescendo. He mentioned the 20 mph limits in Wales. Does he welcome the reduction in accidents that that scheme has resulted in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Of course we would welcome a reduction in accidents, but I have yet to see any evidence that that is a direct result of blanket 20 mph limits. Actually, by the way, I do not think the Labour party in Wales is still in favour of those; I believe that the new First Minister abandoned the blanket 20 mph policy. It is certainly something that would be greatly worrying were it rolled out across Scotland.

Good connectivity and good transport connections are essential. The responsibility for connecting communities and creating opportunities within Scotland lies with the SNP. Our internal market is vital to the economic success of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. Connections from Scotland to England, and indeed across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are integral to making the economic progress that we need, and that is the responsibility of the British Labour Government. Now is the time for action, not words. Scotland’s economy and communities desperately need that.

Budget: Scotland

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure, again, to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on bringing forward this debate, although, rather like the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), I was a little surprised that it was a Labour MP bringing forward a debate on the impact of the Budget on Scotland.

As much as I would like to spend my time attacking the incompetence of the Scottish Government and their record, this is a debate on the UK Budget brought forward by the UK Government, so that is what I will focus on. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Livingston has given us the opportunity to express the worry and the concern felt across Scotland as a result of the frankly disastrous Budget that the Labour party unveiled at the end of October, which has already seen business confidence plummet, inflation tick up and hard-fought-for growth stall—quite a feat.

Members do not need to take it from me, though; they can take it from Scottish business organisations. The Scottish Hospitality Group called the Budget a

“blow to businesses across the country.”

The Scotch Whisky Association called it a “hammer blow” to the industry, Offshore Energies UK called it a “difficult day” for the oil and gas sector, and the National Farmers Union of Scotland said it will cause “huge difficulties” for family farms, all while the OBR forecasts lower growth for the UK as a whole. With the biggest ever tax increases in one Budget hitting Scotland—already the highest-taxed part of the UK—even harder, Labour’s tax-raising Budget is straight out of the SNP playbook, and sadly will hammer hard-working Scots.

Let us take some of the decisions in turn. There was the decision to raise employer national insurance contributions, which, by the way, was a flagrant breach of the manifesto commitment not to do so. NICs have been raised by £25 billion, lowering the point at which contributions start. This Labour Government are hammering the worst off, those in part-time work and those starting out by hampering their ability to get or hold a job. Labour’s jobs tax will cost nearly £900 for the average Scottish job.

[Tracy Gilbert]

Does the hon. Member agree that, actually, 200,000 Scots—some of the lowest-paid, poorest families in our communities—will benefit from the new deal for working people?

[Andrew Bowie]

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

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

“a state penalty on family businesses.”

It is simply unfair.

[Dave Doogan]

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

[Andrew Bowie]

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

[Torcuil Crichton]

If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to blame the SNP Government for the economic mismanagement of Scotland, why does he provoke SNP Members with his choice of Union Jack socks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

These socks were a Christmas present from my mother; I promised her that I would wear them at work and that is what I am doing today. They are very good socks, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the Chamber’s attention to them.

As I was saying, that was Labour’s workers tax—their state penalty on family businesses—and its first attack on business. Let us turn to its second attack on successful Scottish industries, specifically the Scotch whisky industry. The week after Burns night, which is in a couple of weeks’ time, tax on spirits such as whisky will rise, and will continue to rise by a percentage higher than the consumer prices index. The industry is already suffering from a decision to raise duty by 10% last year, which some of us protested about from within Government at the time, and which led to a reduction by £300 million in revenue for Treasury. The move by Labour increases the tax discrimination on spirits and undermines any claim that this Government can make about supporting brand Scotland. If this is how the Government treat Scotland’s national export, we really have some big questions to ask.

This Labour Government are taxing entrepreneurship and penalising success. However, they are not content with hammering small businesses, our workers and our most successful food and drink export. They are also intent on destroying one of our most successful industries, one which is integral to the economic success of north-east Scotland and on which so many thousands of jobs and indeed our energy security depend—our oil and gas sector.

The decision to extend and increase the energy profits levy, to remove most of the investment allowances and to ban all further exploration is driving away investment and leaving us far more reliant on foreign imports. The evidence is there. Apache has already said that it is pulling out of the North sea and there were others to follow. Labour’s changes to the windfall tax will cost up to 35,000 jobs and £13 billion in economic value, and all so that it could splurge on eye-watering public sector pay rises to buy off its union paymasters, who supported Labour into Government. But I have not finished yet.

[Johanna Baxter]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not buying off union paymasters but delivering a pay rise for hard-working Scots?

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Lady should tell that to the hard-working Scots who are being laid off in Aberdeen in north-east Scotland as a direct result of the decisions of this Labour Government, including their decision to extend the energy profits levy, ban new investment in the North sea and preclude new exploration. She should tell that to those hard-working Scots who are worried about what the decisions by this Government will mean for them and their families, and whether they will have a job in Aberdeen in north-east Scotland in the next few years. Those hard-working Scots look with terror at what this Government are bringing down the line.

I have not even turned to farming yet. I am incredibly proud to represent some of the best farms producing the best berries, beef, lamb and crops in Scotland. The vast majority of those farms are family-owned, but due to the changes in the agriculture and business property reliefs that I outlined when I described the situation facing family businesses, their future is incredibly uncertain. Many farmers have already come into my office and claimed that it is now simply too expensive and too difficult to countenance passing their farm on to the next generation. This Labour Government are overseeing the destruction of our family farms. Even worse than that, however, is that their naivety or their incompetence, or possibly a terrifying combination of both, has seen the Labour Government announce that the agricultural funding to Scotland will no longer be ringfenced, despite the specific and pointed ask of the NFUS during the election and in the run-up to the Budget.

The impact of Budget 2024 on Scotland is, in one word, disastrous. Our small and medium-sized businesses have been hammered by additional taxes; our family firms and family farms fear for their future; our whisky industry is punished yet again for its success; our oil and gas industry, and its workers, have been sacrificed on the altar of the eco-mania, or possibly the egomania, of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; our agricultural sector has been ignored; and our Union, frankly, has been undermined.

Growth is falling, confidence is collapsing, uncertainty is rising and people in business are worse off. That is the impact of Budget 2024 in Scotland. I wish my friends in the Labour party well in trying to sell this Budget to the people of Scotland, who seem mightily unimpressed with the Government’s performance thus far.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has said before and he has said again today that one of his top priorities for the Scotland Office is growth. To grow, the Government need confidence from business. Let us see how that is going: the verdict from Scottish business to his Government’s Budget is in. Offshore Energies UK said that

“this is a difficult day for the sector.”

The Scottish Hospitality Group has said:

“Today’s announcements are a blow to businesses across the country”.

The Scotch Whisky Association said that the increase in spirits duty is a “hammer blow”. The National Farmers Union Scotland has said that the decisions will cause “huge difficulties” and act as a barrier to those wanting to get into farming.

Given those responses, if not from retail, oil and gas, hospitality, food and drink or financial services, from which sector does he think this mythical growth will come?

[Ian Murray]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place as the new shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and as a shadow Energy Minister—he has something in common with the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the leader of the SNP in this House, who also aspires to have two jobs. Unlike the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), I have actually run my own business, so I know that running a business needs stability, credibility and confidence. The previous Government crashed the economy, leaving it in tatters, and left business confidence at a record low. We are investing for the future, and businesses back that.

[Andrew Bowie]

I would take the right hon. Gentleman’s responses more seriously if we did not all see, and indeed have just heard, how damaging his Government’s actions are for the Scottish economy—national insurance increases and punitive tax rises on our most successful industries, putting at risk the future of family farms and the rural economy. As Secretary of State, he would rather make performative gestures such as refusing to cross a picket line outside his Department than meet Scotland’s business leaders. As people, local authorities and businesses await the Scottish Government’s budget later today, does he agree that when it comes to economic incompetence, Scotland really does have, in his Government and in the proven ineptitude of the SNP, the very worst of all worlds?

[Ian Murray]

I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think the hon. Gentleman backed former Prime Minister Liz Truss, who, when she was Prime Minister, crashed the economy and left a £22 billion black hole—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says that he did not, but he walked through the Lobby with her when she did those things in her Budget. He did back former Prime Minister Liz Truss. We will take no lectures from the Opposition on how to run the economy or back business. Of course, his party left the highest tax burden on working people in 70 years—another inheritance that this Government will have to try to resolve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

May I echo the Minister’s words about her predecessor—and indeed my own predecessor as shadow Secretary of State—and the work that he has done?

One of the last Government’s decisions of which I am most proud was the halving of air passenger duty, which led to cheaper flights and increased routes across the UK. However, with airlines already cutting back on routes as a result of this Government’s decision to hike APD, people who do not live within a few hours of London on the train, such as those in Aberdeen, face higher fares and fewer options for travel. How can the Government credibly claim to support better transport connectivity across the United Kingdom when those living outside the central belt—I know that Labour Members need to be reminded that it exists—are being punished?

[Kirsty McNeill]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we face a climate emergency and, indeed, an economic emergency of his Government’s own making. We were faced in our first few months in government with a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. We have taken tough choices to try to deal with the economic inheritance that we received.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

The hon. Gentleman mentions SMEs. The bulk of the spending—literally billions of pounds, worth thousands of jobs—is with British Aerospace and Babcock.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the awarding of the contract to Rosyth dockyard, securing 300 jobs in Rosyth, and the frigates and destroyers being built on the Clyde. Does he not agree with me that it is good that at least one of Scotland’s Governments can actually build ships that float?

[Mr Jack]

I think my hon. Friend refers to ferries, and he is absolutely right. I think the ferries float. They just cannot seem to finish them or make them work, or find anything that gets close to resembling a ferry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

Quite simply, we are not going to take any lessons on defending devolution from a party that wants to destroy it.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

This morning, as ever, we have heard a lot from the SNP about respecting the Scottish Parliament and ignoring the Scottish Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of disrespect for the permanent secretary of the Scottish Government, who remains accountable to the UK Cabinet Secretary and draws a six-figure salary, to refuse to appear in front of a Committee of the Scottish Parliament without giving a reasonable excuse as to why?

[Mr Jack]

I agree with my hon. Friend that reciprocal respect absolutely underpins the devolution settlement. As to the permanent secretary’s decision not to appear in front of the Committee, that is entirely a matter for her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Duguid]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is pertinent not just for golf tourism but for whisky tourism and tourism in general across Scotland. The UK Government are committed to full alignment with the devolved Administrations, because we recognise the importance of such alignment for public compliance, as well as for business confidence and for tourism. We share the data, and we have created the structures to make that happen. However, we also respect the right of the devolved Administrations to make their own decisions on devolved matters. Thankfully, the differences in the exemptions, particularly for international travel, are not currently that material and can be justified as legitimate differences, but I do take on board the comments she made about golf tourism specifically.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

This morning we heard that as a direct result of the baffling and inconsistent travel ban placed on Scots going to Greater Manchester, easyJet has cancelled its newly announced route from Aberdeen to Manchester, putting at risk many jobs in north-east Scotland. What work is being done, and may I beg the Minister and the Scotland Office to ensure that in the reopening of international travel, the same rules and regulations will apply around the entirety of the UK, instead of leaving the Scottish aviation sector and the thousands of people it employs at the mercy of a Scottish Government who have completely abandoned them?

[David Duguid]

My hon. Friend and I share a lot in common, not least the regular use of Aberdeen airport, to which he refers, and the fact that we both have wives who were not born in this country and unfortunately have not been able to visit their families for the last year and a half. That aside, on the specific issue about easyJet and the flight to Manchester, it has made a commercial decision, announced today, in response to the Scottish Government’s decision to regulate to prohibit travel to Manchester. The Scottish Government decision has been widely criticised as disproportionate; clearly Scottish Government Ministers will be keeping travel regulations under constant review, and there are calls for this regulation in particular to be reviewed in closer consultation with all interested parties. The Scotland Office would be happy to facilitate that, if helpful.

Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. I for one do not think the SNP gets enough Opposition day debates. I think a party of its size in this place deserves more than three in the course of one parliamentary Session. However, it is surprising, given everything that this country, Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world is facing right now, that it has chosen to use one of its three days—only three days—to debate this issue above all others, banging on about another independence referendum. It is very much like groundhog day in the House of Commons.

The SNP has chosen to debate not education, not the recovery, not economic growth, not jobs, not health, not drug deaths, not infrastructure, not broadband, not local government funding, and not the serious issues surrounding civil service impartiality and the separation of powers within the Scottish Government. No, the Scottish National party—in which I have many friends, but which I regard as a single-issue, mass membership pressure group, masquerading as a serious party of government—wants to talk about its sole obsession: ripping apart our United Kingdom.

We know why. Why would the Scottish National party not want us looking at all the issues I have listed? Because on every single one it is failing Scotland. It is failing Scotland on education, with the attainment gap wider than it was when it got into power. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to get to university in Scotland than they are in England. It is failing Scotland on jobs and the economy, with growth of only 1.8% expected in Scotland in 2022, compared with a prediction of 5% for the rest of the UK, and with jobs growth at a rate less than that of the UK prior to the coronavirus pandemic.

The SNP is failing Scotland on health. The 12-week treatment time guarantee, which was unveiled with great fanfare by the now First Minister Nicola Sturgeon when she was Health Secretary in 2011, has never once been met. The Royal College of General Practitioners expects a shortfall of 856 doctors in Scotland by 2021. It is failing Scotland on drugs deaths, with the highest drug deaths rate in Europe. That shameful statistic has occurred on the SNP’s watch.

The SNP is failing Scotland on infrastructure and failing Scotland on the roll-out of broadband. In 2018, Fergus Ewing, the Rural Economy Secretary in the Scottish Government, threatened to resign if he failed to deliver on its flagship R100 project, which aspired to make superfast broadband available to every single premises in Scotland by the end of 2021. The latest projections tell us that it is more likely to be 2026. Resignation incoming? I think not.

There are those in the SNP who will say—I can hear the keyboards clattering now, and I can almost hear the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) saying—that I am talking Scotland down. I am not. Let me be clear: I have simply outlined the record of a failing, arrogant, tired Government who have dragged Scotland down, down, down.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions talking down Scotland. Does he agree that he is one of the most vocal voices in this Parliament for the people of Scotland and their wants and needs?

[Andrew Bowie]

That is very kind of my hon. Friend. I couldn’t possibly comment; that is for other people to judge.

The SNP has dragged Scotland down, down, down. In fact, the only things to go up in Scotland recently have been the taxes. That is the record of the Scottish National party. It is not a surprise that we are now on to the fourth poll in a row showing support for the Union increasing and support for separation going down. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said a few weeks ago, “Cheerio, cheerio, tick-tock.”

Let us leave this divisive and disruptive debate behind us. Let us move on and tackle the issues that really matter to Scots—rebuilding, growing, creating jobs and making our schools, once again, the best in the world—comfortable in ourselves, happy as a strong, devolved nation within a great and enduring family of nations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Gavin Newlands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend expand on the success and the effectiveness of the Joint Biosecurity Centre in informing decision makers around the UK on our best way to combat coronavirus?

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend highlights just another example of where working together strengthens our response. I am delighted that legislation has been passed enabling the Scottish Government and the UK Government to allow the JBC to provide services to Ministers and officials in both Administrations.

Migration and Scotland

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

We have a problem in Scotland, as I think everyone has recognised. [Interruption.] We have many problems in Scotland, most of them emanating from Holyrood, but that is for another day.

As a country, we are simply not attracting enough people to Scotland to live, work or invest. According to the Office for National Statistics, between 2016 and 2018 Scotland attracted, on average, only 8% of immigrants to the UK, fewer than the north-west of England, Yorkshire and the Humber, the west midlands, the east of England, the south-east, London and the south-west.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Would the hon. Gentleman concede that one of the problems is that when migrant workers are attracted to come to live in our communities, there are pen pushers at the Home Office who prevent them from coming? I am thinking particularly of the fishing communities on the west coast that are looking for non-European economic area labour. Year upon year, one person in Westminster says no even though the communities say yes.

[Andrew Bowie]

It might surprise the House to hear that I agree with the hon. Member, although not to the extent of describing some of the hard-working civil servants in the Home Office as pen pushers. They are doing a valuable job, but I think we have to look more imaginatively at how we attract labour to the sectors that are crying out for them, and particularly to the fisheries on the west coast of Scotland, which he ably represents in this House.

Compared with what we were previously, we are now a country of in-migration. We have a growing population in Scotland, but if Scotland’s economy is to continue to grow, there is a concern that, even with freedom of movement, we are not attracting enough people to make up for what will soon become a declining population through a simple lack of natural growth, with deaths already outnumbering births. Last year, there were already 7,000 more deaths than births in Scotland, and the problem is even more stark in rural communities.

There is not a country in the world where the Scots have not left their mark. By virtue of our being part of a larger United Kingdom, the door was open to Scots to travel the world and to build, engineer and prosper in every corner of the globe. That is a fact that, as Scots, we are incredibly proud of.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Would the hon. Member at least accept that there has been a constant drain on Scottish talent over the last 50-odd years, through people moving from Scotland to London? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out earlier, talent must move to London because that is where all the opportunity lies, because of the policies of this place.

[Andrew Bowie]

Yet again, I do not disagree with the hon. Member. It is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to make the economy grow in Scotland, so we can keep talent north of the border and grow the economies in Aberdeenshire, which I represent, and in Edinburgh and Glasgow, near to her constituency. It is for all of us to do that, so that people do not feel the need to move out of Scotland to find success.

[Neil Gray]

Does the hon. Member therefore regret the fact that it took just 20 minutes for the Government to turn down the Scottish Government’s proposal, which was supported by so many stakeholders and people in civic society across Scotland?

[Andrew Bowie]

If the hon. Member will have patience, I will come to that later in my speech.

I return to the subject of Scotland building the world, which was fantastic, but of course it came at a price. Historically, Scotland was a country of out-migration and population decline, and while recent immigration has reversed that trend, although by no means enough, the legacy in some communities, particularly rural communities, remains. Rural communities lost not only those who left initially but the generations who would have come after them. I represent a rural constituency in the north-east of Scotland, a part of the world dominated by the energy sector. Thankfully, this means that we have little problem with unemployment, but it brings its own problems, especially for rural industries. I am acutely aware of those issues. That is why it is now more important than ever, as we complete the process of transitioning out of the EU, that we should have a measured and reasonable debate about the future of our immigration system, and particularly how it relates to Scottish agriculture. Put simply, Scottish agriculture needs and relies on seasonal labour. If we are to have this sensible and reasonable debate—as we are doing here in the Chamber today—about immigration post Brexit in Scotland, it is vital to recognise that the issues surrounding seasonal labour are not caused solely by Brexit.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is bringing up the issues that we have in agriculture not just in Scotland but around the UK in places such as Lincolnshire and East Anglia. The issue that I know well, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), is also shared by the fishing communities of Northern Ireland. So is there any reason why a UK immigration policy cannot address all these issues, particularly with 59 representatives of Scottish seats in this place who all have a voice to help to achieve that?

[Andrew Bowie]

No, I do not think there is any reason why a UK-wide system could not address those issues. In fact, on the very issue of attracting talent to the fisheries sector, I have written to the Home Secretary to ask if we could develop similar processes to the one we have for seasonal agricultural labour for those who want to engage in the fisheries sector. There is absolutely no reason why we could not find a solution within the wider UK framework.

Just as Scotland has been failing to attract many immigrants to settle in Scotland while we were a member of the EU, so the number of seasonal workers willing to travel to Scotland to perform seasonal labour has been in decline for some years. Castleton Farm, for example, in my constituency—best jam, bar none, you will ever taste—saw a 15% shortage of seasonal labour last summer, leading to an estimated loss of over 100 tonnes of produce. And that was while we remained in the EU. In the same way as we must look at why Scotland is not attracting enough immigrants to stay in Scotland, we must also ask why Scottish farming is not attracting enough labour.

Part of the reason, of course, is that there is a labour shortage across Europe. Belgian, German and Irish farmers are increasingly sourcing their seasonal labour from outside the EU, chiefly from countries such as Ukraine. Non-EU seasonal labour is evidently part of the solution in Scotland, just as it is in agriculture in the remaining 27 states. Much of the decline in available European labour is down to the rapid and, of course, welcome progress that many eastern European countries have made in developing their own domestic economies.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earlier kind words, but can I put the political point to him that Ireland can look further and act on its wishes because it has the independence to do so? Unfortunately, Scotland does not have the independence to make the decisions that Ireland can make to get labour from Ukraine when it needs it.

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Gentleman obviously makes a very good point. However, as I said in answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), there is no reason why we cannot address those issues as part of a wider UK immigration system.

Those who want to travel to work in agriculture have other options apart from Scotland, and Scottish farmers have been in direct competition for available labour with French and German farmers for some time, as well as with farmers from across the rest of the UK. I was pleased to see that the Government have pledged to extend the pilot of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to 10,000 workers a year, up from the current limit of 2,500—thanks to the lobbying and hard work of Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, I might say. That is a step in the right direction, but I hope it is a signal of intent and the beginning of a direction of travel. I also hope it will be delivered in a timely fashion. It is critical that farmers have time to plan for next summer.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I am very concerned that my constituency neighbour is talking about the opportunity for farmers to prepare for next year. It is this year that farmers are trying to prepare for. He should also sound a note of caution when he celebrates the increase to 10,000, because that figure is still patently insufficient—that is what the industry is telling us. Why are the Government not listening? An independent Scotland would listen.

[Andrew Bowie]

Although I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s point on an independent Scotland, I completely agree with his other point, and that is why I have called for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to be increased. Somewhere in the realm of 70,000 would be a reasonable number, and that is something else that I have asked the Home Secretary to comment on. That is why I said I hoped the increase from 2,500 to 10,000 was a signal of intent, and a direction of travel. I hope the number will grow further over the next few years.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about preparing for this year, I would remind him that we still remain, and we still have freedom of movement. It is for next year, when we will be outside the EU and not have free movement, that farmers will need to have certainty.

[Carol Monaghan]

Believe it or not, I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he must appreciate that some of the issues that he raises will mean labour shortages this year. They are issues because of Brexit and because people currently living in Europe do not feel welcome, or do not know whether they will be able to come here. That message is not getting out to those who would still be able to come here this summer.

[Andrew Bowie]

If people do not feel welcome here, or if they feel they will not have certainty when they come here, it is a gross misrepresentation of the position of this Government and of the situation in this country. Everybody in this Chamber and across the country needs to show that our doors are open to anybody who wants to come here to contribute, work hard and play by the rules. That has been the position of this Government and the Conservative party for many years, and it will continue to be so.

There are wider issues in attracting people to work and invest in Scotland. I do not think anyone on either side of the House has all the answers. This Government are committed to introducing a points-based system that will attract the people we need to these shores, while maintaining our commitment always to be the open and welcoming place this country has always been. That is the right thing to do. It is what we promised in our manifesto and, of course, we must deliver it.

We must think imaginatively about how we address the specific issues in Scotland, and we must do so in a non-partisan and constructive fashion. That is why I read the Scottish Government’s paper, “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper”, from cover to cover, and I found very little with which I can disagree. It is a useful contribution to the wider debate about how we deal with immigration in this country.

This is an important debate, and it is one we must get right. However, I do not think a separate Scottish visa is the right way to go, because of all the complexities and challenges it would bring. I urge everyone in both of Scotland’s Governments to think imaginatively and to work together, as we should on quite a few issues, so that we can find a solution and prosper together, as the United Kingdom.

Scotch whisky: US tariffs

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate. It is timely not only because of the importance of the issue, but because it is Burns season. I am sure that everybody present is doing their part to support Scotland’s biggest export, and that they have been doing so over the past few weeks.

The contribution that the whisky industry makes to Scotland’s economy is huge, and exports are a crucial part. The industry exports the equivalent of 41 bottles of Scotch whisky every second, and it was worth £4.7 billion in 2018 alone. The contribution to our national productivity runs at £210,000 gross value added per employee, and the industry supports more than 42,000 jobs across the UK—these are figures we have already heard. The industry directly employs 10,500 people in Scotland, 7,000 of whom are in rural constituencies such as my own in west Aberdeenshire, where we have the well-known and loved brands Royal Lochnagar and Fettercairn. It is important not to forget that the tariffs also adversely affect small or micro-distilleries, such as Lost Loch or Deeside Distillery in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.

There is strong support for the whisky industry from every party represented in the Chamber. We all want an end to the unfair tariff regime imposed by the United States. I want the interests of Scotland’s whisky industry to be central to future trade negotiations with the United States, and I have faith that the UK Government will champion the industry in those talks. However, we can unilaterally take immediate action, both domestically and internationally, to help the industry through this difficult time. The response needs to come from both the UK and Scottish Governments, because it is not a party political issue. Targeted funding is needed to help the industry weather the tariffs, perhaps by investing in Scotch whisky tourism. We could do something similar to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, which provides the US whiskey industry with funding of over $1 million to promote American whiskies in Europe; we could respond to that in kind with our own ring-fenced fund, which could be a cross-government initiative. The UK Government in Westminster have a significant role to play, especially with the Budget coming up.

The industry has welcomed the freeze on duty in every Budget since 2017, and we need that to continue in the next one. When the freeze was introduced, the Treasury forecast that the revenue would increase by 3% in 2018-19. It did not: it increased by more than 10%. We have the fourth-highest spirits duty rate in the European Union, with only Sweden, Finland and Ireland having higher rates. Our producers are competing in suboptimal conditions, which, sadly, look likely to worsen before they improve. I want the Government to engage in radical thinking and to give serious consideration to cutting the duty, perhaps on a trial basis to see how the revenues respond. Ministers might be pleasantly surprised by the results.

As I said, all right hon. and hon. Members here today are champions of Scotland’s largest and most successful export. It is time that the parties worked together party to resolve the problems and to make the case for Scotch whisky, wherever we are.