Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Stewart and Alan Brown

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am aware of the EGNOS issue and discussed it with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), some time ago. I am aware that Loganair has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, pointing out additional evidence. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss that further, but I do know that my colleagues in the Department for Transport are working with the industry to deliver a good replacement.

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

We were promised a bridge to Northern Ireland, which everybody knew would not happen, but we have not seen the money for that. We were promised that High Speed 2 would run to Scotland on day one. Not only is it not running on day one, but the Government have now taken away the Golborne link. Is it not the case that this UK Government are running a scorched-earth policy on Union connectivity and the Union overall?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Stewart and Alan Brown

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

As the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for Ofgem, which is currently conducting a review into that.

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

Too often, key Scottish energy projects, such as the Acorn Project in the north-east, get overlooked by this UK Government. If we look further east, the port of Nigg will provide the UK’s only offshore wind turbine manufacturing facility. It is expanding to be a major energy hub, including green hydrogen production and floating offshore wind assembly. Will the Scottish Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy visit the port of Nigg to see the massive opportunities there?

[Iain Stewart]

We are committed to developing the renewable energy sector in a whole range of ways. For example, I recently visited the CoRE—Community Renewable Energy—project in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We are funding that directly through the city and growth deal project. I am more than happy to visit Nigg and any other centre in Scotland that is developing that technology. We are standing four-square behind it.

Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future

Debate between Iain Stewart and Alan Brown

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I shall come on to that very subject. However, I am putting into context the question of why the SNP has chosen this debate, and why it has failed the people of Scotland by not concentrating on the many, many issues that are of primary concern to people in Scotland.

SNP Members do not want to talk about the vaccination programme and covid measures because that would show the effective partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—something that undermines their perpetual grievance narrative. They could have used this debate to make their points about the security and international challenges that we all face, but that would mean conceding that together the UK is much stronger than the sum of its parts. They could have used this time to consider the economic challenges and opportunities that we all face post covid, but that would mean admitting that there is a need for all Governments in Scotland—local, Scottish and UK—to work together to face those economic challenges. That includes the work that we are doing on the city deal programme, the new trade deals that we are signing, the new export support that we are putting into Scotland, the removal of whisky tariffs that were damaging to Scottish jobs, and the connectivity review to make sure that all parts of our country are properly connected. But no, SNP Members chose to use the time to rehearse the same tired old arguments.

I am sure it will be of great comfort to people worrying about what education their child has missed during the pandemic or the security of their job that the separatists are looking for ever fresher opportunities to pit family against family and community against community in yet another divisive referendum. Glasgow will be hosting COP26 later this year, and the eyes of the world will be on us. We will be showing our global leadership on climate change. What message would it send to the world if Scotland were looking inward and debating constitutional matters that have been settled many years ago?

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

No, I have already given way once, and I want to respond to some of the points that Members have made.

SNP Members have the wrong priorities, and I can only imagine that they chose this debate today to shore up their core support and distract attention away from their domestic troubles and their failures in government.

Let me turn to some of the points that Members have made in the debate. I apologise if I am unable to get through all 30-plus contributions in the next three or four minutes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made some very telling comments in his contribution. First, he made a vain attempt to wriggle out of being called a separatist, but that is the SNP’s mission. It is to smash apart one country, our country, even though so many Members on both sides of the House today have demonstrated the importance of family, business, cultural and other societal connections. It would rip apart our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said, we are not just a family of nations; we are a nation of families. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and many others have said, it would be a disaster to rip apart one of the most successful partnerships the world has ever seen.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East also let the cat out of the bag when he said that the referendum might not be this year and that it might be very early next year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said, the challenges from the covid pandemic will not end with the flick of a light switch. The challenges that we will have to rebuild our economy, our society, our children’s education and the mental health of the nation will run on for many years. People in Scotland want their Government to focus on that, and I think they will take very badly this obsession with having a referendum within the next 12 months.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the telling point that when people cast their vote, they do not cast it on just one issue. The issues that drive people’s votes will be manifold. A poll out today, I believe, shows that only 8% of people regard the constitution as a driver of their vote, and I believe the hon. Gentleman referenced Professor John Curtice in making that point. It is therefore arrogant for SNP Members to assume that every vote cast for them is a vote for another divisive referendum. I do not think people want to see that take place.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) mentioned the importance of connectivity across the United Kingdom, and I am delighted that we are addressing that through the Union connectivity review. The SNP refuses to take part in the review, because it dares to have the word “Union” in it. That, to me, is a mark of a very childish and single issue-focused party.

Unfortunately, time prevents me from referring to all the points I would like to refer to in this debate. I will conclude with this: Scotland voted decisively in 2014 to stay part of the UK and we are respecting that democratic decision. Now is the time to be focusing on getting livelihoods and the economy back after the covid pandemic.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Debate between Iain Stewart and Alan Brown

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When the publication is made available tomorrow, and this House has its proper opportunity to scrutinise it, Members will see that these proposals are all about helping businesses across the United Kingdom. An internal market is not a novel concept. Any country that has a powerful system of federal arrangements or devolution has an internal market structure. These proposals are about making sure that Scottish businesses can continue to trade throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, unfettered, without additional restrictions, barriers or costs, and that they can sell their goods or acquire their supply chain products. That is what this is about. We will see that these are just tired old claims of a power grab. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, the truth is that many more powers will be coming not just to the Scottish Parliament, but to all the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the leader of Plaid Cymru, said in her contribution that there should be more devolution. I am happy to say that Brexit means that there will be more devolution. Let me give some of the policy areas where that will happen: agriculture, fisheries, chemical regulation, food safety, procurement, waste management, carbon capture, aviation—I could go on and on. There is a long list of powers currently residing with unelected bureaucrats in Brussels that will go down either to this House or, more importantly, to the devolved Administrations, where they will be subject to democratic decision making.

Of course, these will complement the strong existing powers that Holyrood and the other devolved Parliaments have. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), among others, moaned that the Scottish Parliament did not get any more powers after the 2014 referendum. Did he not see the Scotland Act 2016, which devolves significantly more taxation and welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament? That is the reality, and all we get from the SNP is manufactured grievances that are straight out of the separatist playbook.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Iain Stewart]

No, we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman over the course of the afternoon. I am going to reply to some of the points that have been made in the debate.

We have heard the great passion about both referendums in 2014 and 2016. Brexit and Scottish separation aroused great passions, but we have to respect the results of both referendums, and it is deeply patronising to say that people did not know what they were voting for in either case. The SNP says that the people of Scotland did not know about Brexit. I invite it to look at page 217 of its prospectus for independence, where the prospect of Brexit was raised. Is the SNP saying that the Scottish people were too stupid to read it and understand it? We should respect the result of the 2014 referendum, and we should respect the result of the 2016 referendum.

Many of my hon. Friends made this point, but I particularly highlight the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who are absolutely right that they are now representing what their constituents voted for, unlike their predecessors. It is disappointing that there are so few Members from the official Opposition here. What is their Brexit policy now? Are they going to respect the result? Are they going to join us in the Lobby to make sure that we do not extend the transition period at the end of tonight, or is their absence today indicative of the fact that they still secretly want to stop Brexit, but dare not admit it?

Let me turn to the issue of extending the transition. As many hon. Members have said—especially the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—the Brexit debate is over. If the SNP truly believed that, we would not be having this debate today. We do not need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) said, a “neverendum”. Business does not need the psychodrama of the last couple of years to endure. Those who say that we will not get a trade deal with the EU are probably the very same people who said that we would not get a Brexit deal concluded at all. We did, and we will.

Let us imagine if this motion today achieved its aims. What would be the consequences? Cost—what would we have to pay to the EU to support its covid recovery programmes as well as all its other expenditure, and as well as our own? Has the SNP quantified that, and if not, what financial support for business and public services would it be willing to see forgone in order that that bill would be footed? What new laws and regulations over which neither this House nor Holyrood had any say would businesses and organisations have to abide by? What would be the cost for the fishing communities of Scotland of being forced to remain part of the wasteful and disastrous common fisheries policy? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) rightly said, the European Union will not be thinking of the United Kingdom’s interests when shaping its future policies.

Would extending the deadline make it any more likely that we will reach a conclusion of these matters? I very much doubt it. Having a deadline concentrates minds. If we extend the transition period by a year, I would put serious money on our being back in this Chamber for another debate about extending it for another period. Negotiations are ongoing with renewed vigour, and I do not agree with the prophets of doom who say that we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion. After all, we are not asking for something new. There is already a trade agreement between the EU and Canada, which we simply want to replicate.

I reject the characterisation of the UK outside the EU as some insular, narrow-minded, protectionist little island—far from it. We want to be an open, welcoming, tolerant, ambitious and free-trading country with global horizons. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) was on the money when she referred to our generous offer to the people of Hong Kong to find a home here in the face of Chinese oppression. That is what this country is about.

There will be huge trading opportunities for businesses in Scotland and across the UK as a result of the trade deals we strike. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who characterised me as “cannon fodder”, mentioned the wine trade in her constituency. I used to live in her constituency, and I was very pleased that the headquarters of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society was based there—it was my local. I want to see Scotch whisky exports go much further than they currently are, and the trade deals that we strike will enable that. That is the sort of ambition we should have.

While there are huge opportunities, threats remain. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spent much of his speech detailing what he saw as the potential disruptions to trade between Scotland and the EU, but what about the disruptions to trade between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if he and his colleagues had their way? They have set their face against the internal market proposals without even seeing them. They walked away from the engagement discussions that this Government were having with the Scottish Government. As I have said, these proposals will guarantee the rights of Scottish firms to trade and source their products across the UK. The last thing Scottish business needs as we rebuild post covid are the barriers, costs, division and confusion that another independence referendum and separation would entail.

Of course, covid has posed huge challenges for us all. I just find it astonishing that some Opposition Members seek to trivialise and moan about the support that the United Kingdom Government have given. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said that Scotland got less than 1% of the package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week. Did she not see that Scottish businesses and people will benefit from the job retention bonus, the kick-start programme and many other schemes? Did she not factor that in? I am afraid that I do not accept this whining, moaning trivialisation of the support that this United Kingdom gives. If ever we needed an example to show that this United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, this response to covid proves it. Of course there are challenges, to all parts of the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) told me some concerning things about the impact on Scottish tourism as a result of the measures and announcements of the Scottish First Minister.If we ever needed an example to show that this United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, this response to covid proves it. Of course there are challenges, to all parts of the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) told me some concerning things about the impact on Scottish tourism as a result of the measures and announcements of the Scottish First Minister.

Confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport

Debate between Iain Stewart and Alan Brown

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Obviously, I echo the sentiments expressed by the two Front-Bench spokespersons about the accident yesterday and the workers who helped to keep people safe.

Another week, and here we are having another transport debate or statement. I am a little unsure of the Labour party’s tactics in trying to shift the Transport Secretary from his position, because it seems to me that the longer he stays in post, the more incompetent he shows the UK Government to be—and they, unlike the franchises, have real competition. He finished by saying there was a lot of political point scoring and that we should all work together, but it would be best if he took on board some of the criticisms. Any criticisms made—or even valid observations—are dismissed out of hand as political point scoring, when they are not, especially given that the franchise system is on its knees.

We have seen time and again that the Secretary of State is blinkered and ideological. He is a hardcore Brexiteer with the mantra, “Everything will be just fine. We just need to get on with it”, as illustrated by his proclamation that there will be no border checks post-Brexit and that lorries, just like on the US-Canada border, will not need to be stopped and checked. I have pointed out several times that that is wrong, but I have never had an admission of wrongdoing from the Secretary of State, and that is part of the problem.

The Secretary of State’s ideological zeal is at its most visible when it comes to the railways—private sector equals good, nationalisation or public ownership equals bad and inefficient—yet, under the current set-up, state-owned railway companies from all over the world run franchises in the UK. The UK franchise system, based on the premise that public ownership is bad, is subsidising railways across the world. Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, Northern, and Wales and Borders are run by Arriva, which is owned by Deutsche Bahn. Essex Thameside is run by Trenitalia UK, which is owned by the Italian state railway. Greater Anglia and ScotRail are run by Abellio, which is owned by NedRailways, and Abellio is also involved with the West Midlands franchise, along with the East Japan Railway Company. Southeastern, Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern are run by Govia, which includes Keolis, which is owned by the French state rail operator, SNCF. Keolis is also involved in TransPennine Express and will be part of the re-let Welsh franchise later this year.

Italian, French, German, Dutch, Hong Kong and Japanese state rail companies are running franchises in the UK. When I weigh this up, I start to wonder whether the UK franchising system should be classed as foreign aid—because that is what it seems like. Money is flowing out of the UK to these other countries. It illustrates perfectly the pig-headed attitude of the Secretary of State and Tory Back Benchers.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many British firms operate railways in other countries? For example, National Express has just won a contract to run some railways in Germany.

[Alan Brown]

That misses the point. The German state railway company can bid for its own work in Germany. The whole point is that the UK Government refuse point blank to allow UK companies to bid for the franchises.

As I have said time and again, when it comes to the merits of privatisation and franchising, the Transport Secretary wrongly connects cause and effect. He has always played up the increase in investment in the railways since privatisation, along with the subsequent increase in passenger numbers, as if all that had happened magically just because of the sell-off and break-up of British Rail.

We know that British Rail had been struggling and had poor rolling stock, and that much of it was outdated, but that was because of the constraints imposed on British Rail by the UK Government, who did not allow any borrowing or investment. Once the Major Government had sold it off, the franchising allowed private borrowing to be levered in—borrowing that could be recovered only through fares or a Government subsidy. The fact that the current Secretary still does not acknowledge that shows a lack of understanding or an ideological blind spot. The fact is that the original sell-off was the private finance initiative on tracks, and that remains the case to this day.

Another myth, which we have already heard today, is that somehow the taxpayer pays no money to the franchises. According to the recent library briefing on rail franchises, all but two received Government subsidies in 2016-17, amounting to £2,330 million in that year alone.

A further indication of the failure of the franchise system to which the Secretary of State still adheres is the fact that by 2020, 12 of 16 franchise allocations will be direct awards. Where are the innovation and competition when three quarters of the franchises are direct awards to the companies themselves?

The Secretary of State’s blinkered attitude also permeates the failed East Coast franchise. He more or less shrugs his shoulders and says “Stuff happens: some franchises fail.” The reality is that private investors and companies either make money or they walk away. It has been argued there has not been a £2 billion bail-out of Virgin Trains East Coast, but the fact is that VTEC has walked away with a £2 billion IOU to the Government in its back pocket. It has not had to pay the money back, so if the Government do not want to call that a bail-out, it must be called a write-off. The Government have not tried to chase up the money, and it has not reached the stage of being a bad debt. The Government have simply let VTEC off straight away. I only wish that the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would do the same when things go wrong for my constituents. Those bodies are relentless, so why should VTEC walk away owing £2 billion?