Scotland: Transport Links

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I will not comment on the legality of whether Avanti has breached its contract, but I think he is making the point that there is an issue, or at least a perception, that train companies do not think that customers and passengers north of Manchester or north of Birmingham are as important as those in the south. We need to remember, however, that the communities in the northern part of the UK and in Scotland, and the passengers travelling on those services, are in many cases much more dependent on those services because there are so few alternative services and options if there is disruption on the trains, so he makes a very important point.

As I said, I will move on from the railways and talk a bit about the importance of roads to rural areas and the wider economy. More than 60% of visitors to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom arrived by car in 2023, showing how vital our roads are to tourism and the Scottish economy. Fixing the roads should be high on the agenda of both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood.

For many years, however, the SNP has failed to invest in local roads. The state of the roads in the Scottish Borders, sadly, has declined substantially on the nationalists’ watch. The dire state of our roads is putting public safety at risk and increasing the cost of driving as more cars need to be repaired after hitting potholes. Although it always tries to deflect blame, it is on the SNP to step up and give councils the cash they need to fix our roads. Councils across Scotland cannot fix their roads because the SNP Government keep cutting their funding.

Unfortunately it looks as though Labour is following a very similar approach to the SNP. Last year, we heard the devastating news that Labour has decided to scrap plans to dual the A1 in Northumberland, after many years of campaigning by me, other MPs and many local people and businesses who rely on that vital road and are desperate to see it improved. This road connects the Scottish Borders to England. It is vital for our economy, and it supports jobs and helps to promote trade. That is yet another terrible decision in Labour’s Budget that will have damaging consequences for workers, families and businesses across the Borders.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is doing a fantastic job of representing his constituents. How would he fund that project—the Labour Government have said that the money is not there just now—or the feasibility study of extending the Borders railway to Carlisle? Where will the funding come from for those projects?

[John Lamont]

The funding for the Borders railways feasibility study is part of a legally binding agreement: the Borderlands growth deal between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. That money was allocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is sitting behind me, when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. The money has been allocated within UK Government budgets for that feasibility study. The Scottish Government committed to that money on the back of the UK Government’s commitment, and similarly the UK Government committed to it on the back of the Scottish Government’s commitment. The money is undoubtedly there; it just needs to be unlocked. That is my frustration, and the frustration of my local authority, the Scottish Borders council.

In relation to the A1 dualling, there is a cross-party campaign to get that road improved. That is why, in response to the Labour Government’s decision to scrap that dualling, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), described it as deeply disappointing, I think—he shares my concern and we have the same view on this.

We need to see investment in infrastructure so that our constituents in rural areas, such as the Borders or North Northumberland, can benefit from the same type of investment in transport as the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) enjoy in Edinburgh. Labour Members have a metropolitan outlook in terms of ensuring that only cities get good transport, but they should not forget the rural communities, such as those in the Borders. I suspect, looking at the representation on the Labour Benches, that we will get a very skewed central-belt view of transport and connectivity.

I fear that the Labour Government’s previous decisions give us no hope that other essential roads will see the improvements that they need, such as the A68, which runs from Darlington up to near Edinburgh, or the A7, which stretches from Carlisle to Edinburgh. Those roads barely seem to register on either Labour’s or the SNP’s list of priorities. I will keep campaigning for better roads across the Borders, despite Labour and the SNP refusing to make the improvements that motorists need. We need to see much more ambition from the Government here at Westminster, and at Holyrood, to advance Scotland’s infrastructure.

Railways, roads and other transport routes between Scotland and England are vital, not just for people to get around, but to maintain and enhance the connections between our people; to allow families to visit each other and go on holidays across the UK; to help aspirational business owners to engage with customers and clients in other parts of the country; and to allow people to easily work and socialise wherever they live in Scotland or the rest of the UK. Beyond the direct and immediate impact on people, better transport routes will improve our economy, raise productivity, and help to contribute more to tax revenues and improve public services.

At a time when we desperately need to raise levels of economic growth, investing in infrastructure is an ideal way to do that. Better transport routes would also help to protect our environment by helping us to reach net zero faster by encouraging more people to use public transport and by reducing emissions. There are a whole host of benefits that could be achieved by improving transport links across our United Kingdom. That is what we should aspire to: a more connected country where people can travel freely between Scotland and the rest of the UK for work, to visit family, or to spend time with friends, wherever they are on these islands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing this important debate.

As the SNP’s transport spokesperson in Westminster, cross-border connectivity issues are high on my agenda. A lot has been said about the strategic trunk roads—the A74(M), the A1, the various border routes, the A68, the A7 and suchlike—and about the vital investment that our road network requires. Colleagues in the Scottish Government are very much aware of the pressures on the core roads network, and of the work required to maintain and upgrade it.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk referred to the Scottish Government’s alleged failure to invest in trunk roads. It is a statement of fact that the capital provided to the Scottish Government was among the worst settlements ever made under the previous Government, which was of course a Government of his party.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with some knowledge on this subject, but he will know that the Scottish Government have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on ferries, about which there are major questions. Would he rather that money had been spent on the trunk roads he referred to?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I accept the point about ferries, and I would rather they had arrived on time and that the overspend did not exist, but we can compare that with High Speed 2, which is billions of pounds overspent, and the benefit to Scotland has diminished to near zero. There are other examples, including the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh, which was signed off by a Labour Government and was massively overspent. It was not the MSPs who supervised or had oversight of that, so there are examples from across all parties of issues with infrastructure projects. The important thing is obviously to learn from them and stop them happening again, which I fully support.

Looking to the south-west of Scotland, I stayed in Galloway for a couple of years and I know very well what the A75 is like. It is a vital link to Northern Ireland, through the port of Cairnryan, and there is ongoing work there. I welcome the cross-party work on that and hope it can continue, with design improvements to the road. I very much support that, and I know that colleagues in the Scottish Government do as well.

There has been a lot of work and discussion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on rail issues. I very much welcome the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, which we fully support. Rail was already in public ownership in Scotland but, in fairness, that legislation has enabled us to ensure that that will continue—public ownership was the operator of last resort, so there was no surety about that, but now there is. There is a lot of mutual interest in getting this right, so will the Minister give an assurance that there will be strong engagement with the Scottish Government as the legislation develops? I hope that much of that can be addressed prior to publication.

Finally, it is vital that we retain the protected slots at the key hub airports, which are critical to our onward connections to the rest of the world. Also, to pre-empt a question of mine that has been selected for tomorrow, and to use this opportunity to give a bit more context, EGNOS, the European geostationary navigation overlay system, is very technical—

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Budget: Scotland

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan]

Yes, the highest—so it is not as if there was some kind of low-taxation holiday spree and the Labour Government came in and put taxes up to compensate for it. Taxes were already the highest that anybody can remember and now they have gone up again by the highest amount in 32 years. It is absolutely eye-watering. The Chancellor’s refusal to step back from cutting the winter fuel payment from around 900,000 pensioners is absolutely—[Interruption.] They are chuntering that the winter fuel payment is devolved.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

No.

Let us get it on the record that the fuel payment did not use to be devolved and that, at the same time as it was devolved, they went and cut the budget. That is the Labour Government at a UK level for you. So yes, I know it is devolved.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

No. If the hon. Gentleman can get one of his colleagues to intervene, I will give way to them.

The Government’s decision to raise national insurance was like them showing that they do not know how the real economy works without showing that they do not know how the real economy works. It is a punitive lowering of the floor and increasing of the rate to try to wring out of employers the money required to recover the economy. It is a drag on employment, investment and wage rises. It is absolutely unforgiveable and totally counter to what the Labour party stated, ahead of the election, was its aim: to create a Budget for growth. There will be absolutely no growth as a consequence of that autumn statement. The Government think they will raise over £20 billion but, by the Treasury’s own measure, that figure is down to around £10 billion after they have made all the compensations. It is a massive swage of pain for very little gain in investment.

In moving the motion, the hon. Member for Livingston said that we in the SNP are keen to spend the extra money we will get but not to say how we would raise it. Actually, I will tell him how we would raise it, and our way would be much more cogent than what the Labour Government in Westminster have said they will do. Over and above that, in a Scotland-specific context the hike in duty on Scotch whisky was, in the words of the industry itself, “an indefensible tax grab”. Yet somehow we are expected to believe that everything will be okay because Anas Sarwar is going to speak to the Chancellor about it. The Chancellor will presumably then do what the UK Government always do when Labour in Scotland ask them to do something: absolutely nothing, if not the exact opposite.

The hon. Member for Livingston also talked about energy. He should go up to the north-east of Scotland to talk about energy: we are six months into this Government and there is no evidence whatever of GB Energy making any impact in Scotland. The last time I checked, it had one employee and was based in Manchester. The hon. Member also talked about the investment that would be realised. Somehow, the Acorn project in Scotland —the most deliverable carbon capture, usage and storage project across GB—is still not being funded by the Labour Government, despite their funding a further two CCUS projects in England, in addition to the two already there. Sadly, it is England 4, Scotland 0—it is like a football match.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on securing this debate, although I find it odd that Scottish MPs have been celebrating the Budget, as if it was the best thing ever to come to Scotland, given that it is nothing short of disastrous for so many of the key sectors that underpin Scotland’s economy, communities and livelihoods.

The Chancellor spoke, and still does, about protecting working people—and, indeed, about growing the economy in order to help working people—yet her decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions does exactly the opposite. This £25 billion tax grab from businesses impacts on their resilience, growth, investments, hiring decisions and longevity. The scale of this tax rise and the betrayal by Labour, who promised not to raise taxes on working people, including national insurance, is completely unprecedented.

For the avoidance of any doubt, and because I know that Labour seems to struggle with this, business owners are working people, and they employ working people—they are working people who contract working people and supply working people, who then can work elsewhere. This NICs rise is a tax on working people across Scotland and the UK, and there is no credible way that that can be denied. It is also an up-front tax and a tax for having employees. Businesses pay it just for having employees on the books, before they even open their doors. Take weeks like this in Scotland, including in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, where many businesses have not opened because of snow and ice; the bill for this tax is still racking up, despite them not being able to trade.

Of course, the effects of NICs are felt more widely, not just by businesses. Charities, GPs, pharmacies and local authorities are all also impacted. I have met with my local medical practice in Inverurie, and its NICs bill is going up by £75,000. It cannot pass on that cost, and if it reduced services, its funding would be reduced. What do the Labour MPs who are celebrating the Budget suggest that that practice should do? As I have mentioned, Aberdeenshire council now needs to find £13 million to cover the NICs rises, and that is on top of the £40 million black hole it already faced due to north-east councils being so poorly funded by the Scottish Government.

Moving on to other matters, the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief are cynical, cruel, misguided and absolutely damaging to the key sectors of our economy. Family businesses up and down the country, including in Scotland, are the backbone of our economy. These changes will decimate family businesses, who have been nurturing for generations, who are the centre of their communities and who employ over 14 million people nationwide. The changes to APR, which I have spoken about a lot, demonstrate the Government’s complete disconnect from rural farming and ways of life. We know that the Treasury figures are incomplete. They do not consider farms where only BPR had been claimed. Labour seems to think that all farmers are married, that both spouses will be able to pass on the farm at the same time and that, effectively, it is okay to force farmers into early retirement—for them to have to leave their family home or pay full market rent to stay at the property where they have lived their entire lives.

The Treasury is hiding behind the claim that only 2,000 estates will be affected, but the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union of Scotland say that the number of farms affected will be more like 70,000. These figures need to be considered. The Chancellor, as we know, is literally making farmers decide between selling their farm, their land, their buildings or their machinery to raise the funds. This will leave farms commercially unavailable or severely damaged, and we are talking about farms in our constituencies across Scotland, including many of those of the Labour Members here.

We have heard others talking about whisky, so I will touch on that just briefly. The Prime Minister stood in a whisky distillery in Scotland and promised to back the Scotch whisky industry to the hilt, but he failed to mention that he was going to increase tax by 3.6%, bringing the tax on a bottle of whisky to over £12 for the first time.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Lady is making heartfelt points, but we are yet again hearing a long list of our money-raising initiatives that the Conservatives opposed while being cheered on by their SNP colleagues. I would be interested to know how the Conservatives would have raised the money needed to get public services in Scotland back on track. An extra £5 billion is going to the Scottish Government to fund services such as the NHS in my constituency and in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Where would her party have found that money?

[Harriet Cross]

As I said, the Government can give with one hand and take with the other, which is what is happening with NICs; they are taking that money out of councils, so the increase is completely irrelevant. The removal of the ringfence from some budgets has meant that there has been no real-terms increase in the rural affairs budget in Scotland, and that has impacted our farmers—it goes round in circles.

On oil and gas, the changes to the energy profits levy and the removal of the investment allowances in the Budget had an instant impact. Apache announced very soon afterwards that it would pull out of the North sea, citing the onerous impact of the EPL. The Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce warned that 100,000 jobs are at risk, and Offshore Energies UK said that 35,000 jobs tied to specific projects are at risk. Those changes in the Budget have real-life consequences across Scotland, but particularly in Gordon and Buchan, Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.

The Budget shows the Labour Government’s fundamental misunderstanding and undermining of Scotland’s economy and communities. From family farms and businesses to distilleries, our energy sector and the high street, the Government have chosen to burden, rather than support, businesses across Scotland.