Exiting the EU and Transport

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This absolutely needs to be done, and we will move ahead as quickly as we can. Following the incident on the Cowley bridge this week, flood protection works are due to start there imminently. It is a shame that the works have not quite started yet, but they will be starting very shortly, and I hope that they will deal with that issue so that such an incident cannot happen again.

Moving to the main business, the autumn statement demonstrates the Government’s commitment to modern infrastructure that can serve the public and support a dynamic economy. Our forthcoming departure from the EU represents a huge opportunity for Britain to carve out a new role in the world and to be a stronger and more ambitious country—a country that is better able to shape its own future in the world and a country that is outward-looking and open for business. That was what I campaigned for in the summer, and it is what the Government will deliver.

Business is starting to share this optimism. Since the referendum, several companies in the transport sector have announced significant investment in the UK. Nissan’s commitment of investment is fantastic news for the British economy, the north-east and the car sector, particularly as it is not just maintaining capacity at the plant, but expanding it. In August, Bombardier received an order for 665 new vehicles from Greater Anglia, which will secure jobs and skills in Derby. When I spoke to the international head of Bombardier’s rail division about a month ago, he said that such was the quality of the work in the UK, Derby was going to become a global hub for its rail business, which is another positive statement of commitment to this country.

Alstom has started work on developing a new site at Widnes, which will create 600 jobs along with, crucially, a training academy. The Spanish firm CAF has said it will now set up a train manufacturing plant in the UK, and Siemens, which manufactures rolling stock and other products in the UK, has committed itself to a continuing presence. Its chief executive said in July, “We’re here to stay.” Alongside Hitachi’s new rolling stock and manufacturing and assembly plant in Newton Aycliffe, which is creating 730 new jobs, this shows that we are becoming a centre for high-quality rolling stock manufacturing, so it is with good reason that I view the future with optimism as we approach negotiations on leaving the EU.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

While, of course, I entirely endorse the Secretary of State’s sentiment, there is an issue regarding British ports. It is a big issue, but I will not go into it now, as I am hoping to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, there are some serious questions still outstanding around qualified majority voting, as I am sure the Secretary of State knows.

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I have discussed this matter in the past. The regulation coming out of the EU on ports is tailored to the particular structure of ports on the continent, but does not fit well with a private port sector such as ours. The opportunity to ensure that we have a regulatory framework that is right for the UK is one benefit that comes from leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s expression of his regard for the workers who have come to the aid of the south-west’s rail system yet again. We have heard other hon. Members express their disappointment that we are still looking at issues of resilience in that area, and I know that they will want that matter to be resolved as quickly as possible.

The Government’s strategy for leaving the European Union—or rather, the lack of one—is causing great uncertainty throughout the transport sector. I do not know who the Secretary of State is speaking to about this, but we, and those in the aviation, rail, road and maritime sectors, are none the wiser about what the Government’s plans might be and what impact Brexit will have on the future of those sectors and all those who work in or depend on them.

[Sir William Cash]

I have already referred to the question of the ports sector. Speaking as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I can tell the House that it has been well established over a long period that the Government, the Labour Opposition, the unions and every one of the 47 port employers are against ports regulation. What are Labour Members going to say about that during this debate? Are they going to oppose it?

[Andy McDonald]

If the hon. Gentleman can wait six or seven minutes, I will come to that very point.

Today’s debate offers a welcome opportunity for the Secretary of State to provide some much-needed clarity on his plans for transport in a post-Brexit UK. He was one of the leading advocates of Britain leaving the EU, and he now has the privilege of being the Transport Secretary, so if anyone can provide us with a clear picture of what to expect in the months and years ahead, presumably he can.

One of the areas of transport most likely to be affected by the country’s decision to leave the EU is the aviation sector, which is a key pillar of our economy. Taken country by country, the UK’s aviation sector is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world. It is worth about £50 billion in terms of our GDP, it supports 1 million jobs and it secures the Treasury some £9 billion in taxation each year.

While we accept the result of the referendum and are determined to secure the best possible deal for all the UK, we must not be an inward-looking nation that is cut off from the cultural and economic benefits that come with being an interconnected country. We must be ready to do business with the rest of the world. That means retaining and building on the connectivity that the UK currently enjoys in order to allow the flow of goods and services that will be key to getting the best out of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I do not know where you get your suits, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Neither in Iceland, nor in Glasgow. It appears we should always go to Glasgow. The issue the hon. Gentleman raises is particularly pertinent given the decision we have just had on the additional south-eastern runway, so he makes the point well.

Numerous rail projects in the UK receive support via loans or direct funding as a consequence of our membership of the EU, and now is not the time for the Department to row back on investments in our railways, as we have seen happen repeatedly in respect of electrification works, which hon. Members have spoken about so eloquently this afternoon. I invite the Secretary of State to reassure the House that any funding shortfalls will be made up by the Government and that investment in rail will not suffer as a consequence of Brexit.

The Secretary of State said during the EU referendum that he wanted to take back control. Labour Members very much wish to take back control of our railways from private and foreign state-owned companies, which currently profit from the system at the expense of passengers and taxpayers. Ours is a policy supported by two thirds of the public, but, as the Secretary of State is aware, although running services in the public sector is currently entirely consistent with EU legislation, the fourth railway package may restrict the different models of public ownership that might be available. Does he agree—I believe he said so earlier—that it should be for UK voters to decide how best to order our railways? If so, will he confirm that his Government will not attempt to retain any European requirements in domestic law that would frustrate any future attempts to bring railways back into public ownership? I was delighted to hear what he had to say about HS2, and I suppose that if there is going to be a silver lining from leaving the EU, it will be that we will not be able to blame “them” any longer for any problems we have with disabled people getting access to our railway system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has not had an answer to his question, because he made it abundantly clear that he was talking about the infrastructure. The Secretary of State suggested he should be satisfied with improved services, but those will come only with improvements in the infrastructure.

The skills footprint, to which the Secretary of State referred with great regularity—of course we share some of his concerns—should be delivered whether or not we are in the European Union. That is not a consequence of any move. It should be an absolute prerequisite that is woven into everything we do.

Although we have decided as a nation to leave the European Union, co-operating with, and retaining our connectivity to, the EU is vital. We would greatly appreciate it if the Secretary of State enlightened us on what progress is being made to ensure that hauliers from the UK can carry goods between other member states and on whether it is his intention to secure an agreement for British driving licences to continue to be exchangeable with those of EU member states after Brexit.

Finally, let me mention UK ports, which directly employ more than 25,000 people, many of whom voted to leave because of anxiety surrounding EU ports services regulation. Many leave campaigners argued that leaving the EU would ensure full exemption from those regulations. However, the former shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), was reported as saying that the ports services regulation would still apply under an arrangement that granted the UK access to the European economic area. Can the Secretary of State clarify the Government’s intentions on any withdrawal from ports regulations and guarantee that any exemptions do not inadvertently undermine strong industrial relations and the welfare standards of dock and port workers?

[Sir William Cash]

Whatever the hon. Gentleman may try to infer with regard to the European economic area, it is completely beside the point. The fact is that there is a regulation and, as he knows, it is on the brink of being brought in—I believe it is by the end of this month. All that talk that he has just given us has nothing to do with the issue. The real question is whether the Labour party is going to oppose it. Will it say that it condemns it, because that is what the unions, the Government and, as I understood it, the Labour party wanted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My main concern in relation to this debate is with regard to ports services regulation. It is a perfect example of where the European Union has gone completely wrong, and of why, in this particular sector, it is vital that we leave the European Union. I will give a number of reasons for that, which are drawn from those who have the most knowledge of these matters, including those who are referenced in the latest Library briefing.

As has been said by the Major Ports Group, many of the issues that confront UK ports are affected by policy and legislation from the European Commission and the European Parliament. The European Parliament is about to hold a plenary session and, for present purposes, it is assumed that the regulation will go through. It will then go to the Council of Ministers, which is governed by qualified majority voting.

The European Scrutiny Committee and I have been following this for several years, and I will come on to the timetable and my concerns about the failure to have a proper debate on the Floor of the House on this issue exclusively. The port employers say:

“While UK ports receive virtually no financial assistance from the public purse, the situation is very different in most continental ports.”

That is hugely important. We are an island. We have 47 ports. They are incredibly important, and I accept, of course, that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), has made clear his concern, but it does not alter the basic point: we cannot resolve the question of the port services regulation because of the qualified majority voting system. Even if we vote against it, we cannot stop it. That is the problem, and it is why I had to ask the hon. Gentleman twice about this. I will give a description in a few moments. I understand that that the Opposition have accepted the outcome of the referendum.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Not all of us.

[Sir William Cash]

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the Opposition in Scotland do not accept it, but there are reports in Scotland that many people there will be affected by the outcome of the regulation, so I shall continue. We are an island nation, but this is not just romantic blurb about this sceptred isle and the fact that we are surrounded by a silver sea; this is about whether we in this country can have an efficient port sector. As we are an island, we are heavily dependent on the ports as goods go in and out of them.

[Robert Flello]

For the benefit of the wider House, may I say that over 90% of our trade goes through our ports?

[Sir William Cash]

Indeed, and I know where the hon. Gentleman—my next-door neighbour—has got that figure from. It is from paragraph 6.2 of the Library note, which I can see he has been reading. I am glad that he has been so assiduous. The principle is that, despite the fact that we are an island, we compete with continental ports for certain types of traffic. Those in the ports industry are therefore concerned by a lack of a level playing field between the UK and continental ports.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will have probably seen the report published on the front page of the Financial Times perhaps four, five or six weeks ago that the UK might have some difficulty carrying out customs checks at ports and other such points. At the moment, we carry out 35 million checks a year. We as the UK would need to carry out up to 240 million checks a year, but the new system has the capacity to handle about 100 million checks. If this situation emerges, it will cause a huge difficulty post-Brexit and inevitably damage trade, because the infrastructure is not there to do customs checks at ports.

[Sir William Cash]

My response is quite simple: if we do not continue to have an efficient ports system because of the effect of the port services regulation, nothing that the hon. Gentleman says will make any difference to the fact that our ports will be put not only at a severe disadvantage, but in a dangerous situation vis-à-vis the other continental ports. However, despite the fact that there was an attempt to get state aid rules imported into the regulation, the ports employers believe that

“it is essential that legislation aimed at regulating less commercial ports on the continent does not cause unintended damage to the UK’s thriving commercial sector.”

On that basis, there is a matter of principle that affects our whole import and export business that goes through the ports.

The effect that the proposal will have is so obvious that I need not even attempt to explain it. It aims to regulate market access to port services, port charges and financial transparency. The ports employers say:

“The text as a whole”

—this is some time ago, but I will catch up in a moment with what they have said most recently—

“even if heavily amended, cannot deliver on its states aims. Instead, it will create severe legal uncertainty, reduce investment and will ultimately be detrimental to the safety standards and working conditions which currently exist in EU ports. EU ports may have different ownership structures, but all require a high level of confidence in a stable legal and policy framework in the long term if they are to operate safely”,

which is for the benefit of the workers,

“and contribute to the EU agenda for jobs and growth”,

which is vital to everyone, whether they are employers or workers in the ports.

The UKMPG goes on to say:

“The Port Services Regulation proposal does not provide such confidence and risks leaving a legacy of legal and practical difficulties across the EU.”

The UKMPG

“supports a return to the previous EU ports policy approach based round application of the general provisions of the Treaty reinforced, where appropriate, by guidelines on state aids.”

We now have Brexit so, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested in relation to the great repeal Bill, are we going to reach a point, as I think we must, where we transpose the legislation into UK law but then, through statutory instruments and our own decision within the framework of this Westminster jurisdiction, as a result of the decisions taken by the people of this country, including Government Members and Opposition Members—with the exception, I suspect, of SNP Members, but they will pay a price for this in their ports areas—[Interruption.] They may find this amusing, but there are people in the ports of Scotland who do not like the proposal and will resist it if they can. They will not be allowed to do so if the SNP can get away with it.

The bottom line is that this is an issue of great national interest. The European Scrutiny Committee has been following the matter for several years. We first recommended it for debate on the Floor of the House in July 2014—over two years ago. On 19 October, I wrote to the Minister:

“We understand that it is intended that the European Parliament will adopt this text for a First Reading Agreement at its 12-15 December plenary and we presume that this will be followed shortly by Council agreement.

You will understand, therefore, that the Committee expects that the Government will finally, after a disgracefully long delay”—

which I underlined several times—

“schedule the floor debate on the proposal which it and its predecessor have recommended.”

In fact, there have been two debates, which have been aborted. One of them, I can assure the House, was so shambolic that the Chairman of the Committee had to suspend the sitting. I will not go into the details of that—they are all on the record.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I have been involved in the European Scrutiny Committee for several years. I did not intend to intervene, but I am concerned about this issue. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we will take into British law what now exists as EU law, but we will selectively disapply parts of the EU legislation that do not suit Britain, and this might be one of those.

[Sir William Cash]

That is absolutely right. It is essential that we disapply this, for that reason. The mechanics of it will be left to statutory instruments, but we must reassert our jurisdiction over our ports.

As recently as 17 November, I wrote again to the Minister, saying:

“The Committee has asked me to emphasise to you and the Leader of the House that this debate should take place before the European Parliament adopts the text for a First Reading Agreement and the Council’s subsequent endorsement of this text.

Failure to meet this timetable would suggest contempt for the House and its legitimate scrutiny requirements.”

Although the issue has been going on since July 2014, we still have not had that debate. There is just time for us to have such a debate. Although this is a general debate about exiting the EU, a specific debate is not only recommended but, in effect, demanded by the European Scrutiny Committee, backed by the sort of language that I have had to use, demonstrating the importance of the issue and the need to get on with it. The other point that I must make is this: I have had no reply to those letters. At its meeting today, I am afraid that the European Scrutiny Committee registered its deep concern about the situation.

I received my latest statement from the ports industry this afternoon. I want to read it out, because it is important that the House knows the latest position:

“One further point…is that the UK Government has insisted on pursuing the inclusion in the PSR of a ‘Competitive Market exemption’ rather than the option of having an exemption for the privately financed ports on the face of the Regulation itself”,

which is what the industry has been seeking.

“It is this Competitive Market Exemption provision that was finally agreed in the informal trilogue discussions between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission earlier this year and which is now in the final draft version of the PSR due to come before the European Parliament in December. However, this ‘Competitive Market Exemption’ is not an exemption—it is a process by which Member States may apply to the European Commission for an exemption”,

as if they could expect to get it.

“Any application would be determined solely by the European Commission, may be limited in scope or time, and would relate only to certain Articles of the Regulation. In short, it offers no guarantees that the PSR would not be fully binding on UK ports.”

Mr Cooper, the spokesman at last week’s annual parliamentary reception of the United Kingdom Major Ports Group, who is also CEO of one of the largest port companies, also had this to say:

“I will not rehearse the arguments against this wretched piece of wholly unnecessary legislation, but, as the endgame approaches, it remains a totemic example of a Regulation imposed by Brussels which is a one-size-fits-all straitjacket that runs entirely counter to our national interest. In its present form the Regulation is significantly less damaging than it might have been—and, alongside the DfT, the port industry can claim considerable credit for that—but it is not a success that can be guaranteed over the long term. Many of the changes to reduce the scope and impact of the Regulation have been a function of short-term political expediency.”

The problem is this. It is inherent in the procedures of the European Union—in the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Commission—that we are in this situation. We cannot stop it without leaving the European Union. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South says, the timetable in relation to the great repeal Bill is significant. However, this is a very good example. What is for sure is that if we repeal the legislation and follow Brexit to its logical conclusion—this applies to many other areas as well—the United Kingdom will be enabled to regain control: in this case, over its island ports and the business that goes in and out of them. It will do that under the Westminster jurisdiction, on the basis of a new ports Bill, after Brexit and after the great repeal Bill has gone through, for the benefit of people who work in the ports in an executive capacity as well as those working in the docks themselves—the workers, who deserve to be given a fair deal. The Government and the Opposition, recognising this, must appreciate that we need a proper debate about the issue. It is so important that we get this right for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

That is the kind of thing that somebody might want to put on the side of a bus. It has been a trait of previous UK Governments to take forever to make key transport decisions, but UK regional airports, including those in Scotland, do not have the luxury of waiting. For the sake of those airports, our businesses and our commuters, the UK Government need to provide a clear and unequivocal guarantee that any post-Brexit aviation agreement will not lead to a loss of investment and connectivity in Scotland if we end up outside the open skies agreement.

The current aviation policy framework sets out that airports cannot apply for a public service obligation or the connectivity fund because of the 60-minute rule, which means that a number of regional airports lose out. The Government’s EU gamble is putting potential investment in Scotland’s regional airports at risk. They need to think again and, in doing so, give regional airports a fighting economic chance.

The problems are not confined to aviation. Our maritime sector faces similar concerns. We have heard a fair bit about ports, but the maritime sector is worth €12 billion annually to the UK economy, and some 240,000 people are employed in the sector in the UK. Fifty-three per cent. of the UK’s imports and 45% of its exports are from the rest of the EU. It is estimated that approximately 3 million jobs in the UK are linked to trade with the rest of the EU. Currently, there is the freedom to trade. OECD rules could preclude any change, in so far as we are talking about the ability of a ship to call at an EU or UK port and to load and unload cargo and passengers, regardless of its flag and regardless of the nationality of its owner. UK-flagged ships could, however, lose their right to operate in the domestic trades of EU member states that maintain flag-based cabotage restrictions.

The British International Freight Association has said that its main concern is potentially losing the benefits of free trade and customs harmonisation with the EU single market:

“A return to tariffs for UK merchandise exports and imports, if this is the outcome...will be detrimental to UK trade with the EU, and may result in a…reduction in UK-EU maritime volume.”

As we have heard, the UK’s port sector is largely privately owned and run in a competitive environment, and is thus very different from those of many other EU member states. Oxera has also said that changes to the costs of trade with the EU are

“likely to affect the volumes and patterns of freight activity at ports, while the need for new customs checks on imports and exports is likely to cause considerable congestion at UK and mainland European ports.”

It suggests that any negative impact could be mitigated through EEA membership or free trade agreements, although delays in negotiations could mean a significant period trading under World Trade Organisation arrangements. Uncertainty will impact the industry and the people it employs, and drive up the price of goods, so what access arrangements will be in place?

[Sir William Cash]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he will have heard what I said earlier. What is his answer to that with respect to the question he has raised about Scotland? Are Scotland’s ports not equally affected?

[Drew Hendry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; I think we are making a very similar point from very different perspectives. There needs to be a plan for how ports are handled, going forward. The difference in the regulation and operation of UK ports as compared with EU ports provides a significant obstacle. The UK Government have to give us an answer on what they are going to do and how they are going to take forward a plan on that basis.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

No, I will make some progress.

What access arrangements will be in place? What is the plan for the millions of people connected with this industry? Will UK companies have access to a single European market, with no taxes or duties payable on goods?

There are a lot of potential uncertainties for UK road haulage companies as a result of Brexit, particularly in terms of employment, drivers’ hours rules, access to markets and border controls. Transporting a lorry load of goods from London to Milan in 1988 required 88 separate documents; the internal market replaced them all with a single piece of paper. In response to the balance of competences review, the Freight Transport Association said that the EU had created

“a market that logistics has served for nearly half a century”,

benefiting British businesses; the Road Haulage Association, similarly, felt that for its sector the overall judgment was a fine one. It said that

“‘competences in UK road transport are finely balanced in our sector. Although we have not got a 100% solution in terms of market access we have got the most of what we think the industry would want”.

That is largely a reference to cabotage, the practice whereby a haulier from the UK can carry goods between two other member states—for example, Spain and France. So, what is the plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

One hopes that it will be this Christmas, I say to my colleague on the Transport Committee.

I wish to focus my remarks on emissions and the vehicle industry. Although there are challenges, there are indeed opportunities in this field, and I do not necessarily mean just in terms of trade, but in terms of the governance of the industry. For too long—I say this as someone who passionately voted to remain in the EU—the industry has been operating in an almost wild west-like culture, where money talks; and it talks quite a lot, particularly for German car manufacturers. For all that we are proud of the British car industry—of course we are—the German car industry has something that we will never have, or the French or Japanese car industry will never have: the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. If we look through the lobbying register, we see that the big German manufacturers spend more on lobbying in Brussels than all the other manufacturers put together—and, my goodness, they get what they are after.

[Sir William Cash]

Is there not a really serious problem with the manner in which the Volkswagen emissions disaster was handled? This is about not just efficiency but manipulation.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and that is what I am coming to. The Government now have the opportunity to get a new regime on emissions and safety standards that does not allow the kind of manipulation that he mentions to take place. We can have a situation where car manufacturers do not manipulate test vehicles—for example, by taping up air conditioning units, by changing the wheels and by using all sorts of creative means—so that they get around emissions standards. If they can do that in one EU country, they get away with it in all EU countries. Even though we in the United Kingdom have now chosen to leave the EU, the EU must get a grip on that. So here is the opportunity: the Minister and the Department for Transport can now set up a regime that the EU can aspire to. But for over a year now, the Department’s response to this issue does not exactly fill me with confidence. They could do the same with a new safety standards regime. They could create a new gold standard that even countries such as the United States could aspire to. I guess that the proof of the pudding will ultimately be in the eating.

Members will be familiar with the Vauxhall car fire scandal, with more than 300 Vauxhall Zafira cars catching fire here in the UK. Many of them have done so within about 30 seconds of their engines failing. Let us think about that model of car. The Zafira is a family car. It tends to be used by parents on the school run, during the summer holidays and so on. The people affected tend to have children, and many of them have been in touch with me and other members of the Transport Committee, which has discussed the issue. The Government’s response, in public at least, has almost been to wash their hands of it. I am amazed that the Government are not required to take the issue more seriously. Perhaps we could have new consumer protections relating to vehicle standards, and better compensation standards for consumers. Perhaps we could aspire to standards that even the European Union could aspire to one day.

We do not want to continue with the same system—perhaps EU regulation-lite—whereby we become just another island that is manipulated by an industry in which money talks far too often, and public health interests and consumer interests take a back seat. In addition to all the challenges that the Government face in maritime, freight and air policy, this is one area where the British public are fed up with big business riding roughshod over consumer interests. They will judge the Government on how they respond to the opportunity that Brexit has delivered to put consumers first, rather than to those big vehicle manufacturers.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My constituency voted overwhelmingly—62.2%—to leave the EU, despite the fact that with its large agricultural hinterland it receives huge European farm subsidies, and with its manufacturing base it benefits from the opportunity to manufacture and export to the EU. It also has a huge travel base. It is a tourism mecca, and tourists need travel infrastructure. So it is engaged in manufacturing, travel, tourism and transport goods, but despite all that, it voted to leave the EU, and we must ask ourselves why.

Why would so many people in that set of circumstances vote to leave? It is because the EU is seen to be failing them. When we look specifically at transport issues, we can see why. Before we even discuss the EU, there are many things that we could do domestically to assist companies in the transport sector in our country. For example, in my constituency we manufacture buses. The Wrights Group manufactures a considerable number of the buses for this great city and for Scotland—indeed, it recently enjoyed a very beneficial order from Scotland, for which we say thank you to our Scottish cousins. It also manufactures for Singapore and a number of other Asian countries, and employs hundreds of people in Singapore in the assembly of those buses and, importantly, in the maintenance of those buses. It is a significant local employer and a world employer.

The company can benefit more from domestic decisions taken here than it can from EU decisions taken in Brussels. For example, the Government’s Bus Services Bill currently going through Parliament will have a dramatic impact on transport orders for my constituency if it goes the right way. We also have—I say this very gently to those on the Labour Front Bench—a new Mayor of London. I appeal to him through his Front Bench colleagues to come to Northern Ireland as soon as possible to visit that bus company, which transports his citizens around his city, and see the great work that it could do to expand the bus offer in London. I understand that between now and 2021 London will require another 1,000 buses. I hope that that transport infrastructure will benefit from buses manufactured in my constituency. I wanted to put that on the record before I turn to the substance of the debate.

When the Secretary of State opened the debate, he was full of confidence and optimism. I share that optimism. We should approach the issue of transport and Brexit with some optimism because there are opportunities that can be beneficial to us.

There is one issue that could have been addressed in the Chancellor’s statement today. I hope that the Transport Secretary will continue to whisper “airport passenger duty” in his ear between now and the Budget in April. I hope he will keep pushing that little issue. We should not be paying a pernicious, dirty little tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to transport ourselves from one part of the UK to another. It is wrong. It is not the sort of tax that our Government should be levying, and it should be removed soon. I hope that the Chancellor will hear that not just from me but from the Transport Secretary between now and the Budget.

Many people, including our neighbours in the EU, complain about Brexit. We hear it every day and read about it in the newspapers, but those of us who voted to leave the EU did so with a good intention—to bring about good for our country, not bad. I have noticed that those on the remain campaign and those opposed to the action that the United Kingdom is about to take are talking up crisis after crisis—whether a transport crisis or a crisis to do with transport problems with our border in Northern Ireland.

I commend the singular actions of the Secretary of State over the recess. When a crisis emerged in Northern Ireland relating to our one transatlantic fleet operator, United Airlines, it was largely because the Secretary of State got on the telephone to the United States and spoke to the head of the airline and others, pressing them to keep the flights operating in Northern Ireland, that the service was saved.

As a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s conversation with United Airlines and an emergency aid package put in place by the Northern Ireland Executive, involving multiples of millions of pounds, the service was indeed saved—until two weeks ago. Someone in the EU then complained that the actions of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive amounted to state aid and were therefore wrong. They objected so much that Europe has now told United that it must reject the multi-million pound aid package. As a result, the airline is now closing its service; the last flights from Belfast to Newark in the United States of America will take place in January next year. That shameful action needs to go on the record.

[Sir William Cash]

In the ports sector, as in many others, there are hidden subsidies. Ports over the whole of Europe are publicly owned. Given the money pumped into them, they also represent the lack of a level playing field. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said and what the Secretary of State tried to achieve.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree; the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the issue extends not only to airports but to seaports as well.

Last week in the House, I pressed the Secretary of State about the United Airlines issue. He kindly said that the decision was “deeply unwelcome” and that a fair amount of effort had been done by his Department, working alongside the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Executive, in trying to make sure that this air route was sustained. He went on to say:

“The loss of the route because of EU action is deeply unwelcome and precisely the kind of unnecessary decision from Brussels that led this country to vote to leave the European Union.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 377.]

I say a hearty “Hear, hear” to those words. That action was pernicious and should not have taken place. The company should have been allowed to continue to operate in Northern Ireland. Many people in County Antrim who have seen the benefits of Europe have turned against it because of such decisions. I am glad that we as a nation have woken up to that.

We have also had the allegation that the Irish Republic—our well-known neighbour—wants to be supportive of Northern Ireland as it leaves the EU. Indeed, it has written to many of the hauliers in Northern Ireland to invite them to a tea party hosted by the Taoiseach in Dublin. He has called it the all-island civic dialogue, and he wishes to have a conversation about the implications of Brexit for the Republic of Ireland. Now, I am quite happy for the Taoiseach to do that, and for him to understand the conversation that is going on, but if he targets businesses in Northern Ireland with a view to getting them to go to the south of Ireland and to crank up opposition to the UK’s decision, that is where I draw the line. I therefore commend the words of our First Minister in Northern Ireland, who said that the Dublin Government are poaching some of our businesses, and that includes our haulage businesses. It is right that this House understands that, while we welcome the opportunity to work with our southern neighbours, we can also see when someone speaks out of both sides of their mouth—on the one hand saying they are concerned about our relationship, but on the other hand doing everything they can to undermine that relationship and poach businesses from us. I think we should put that on the record.

It is also important that we identify those EU transport regulations that hurt British businesses. In an intervention on the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I mentioned the package travel directive. Expedia is an American company that employs over 2,000 people in call centres and outreach centres in the United Kingdom. It is based in England and Scotland, and it will hopefully soon be based in Northern Ireland. That company employs thousands of people, but it is now faced with the package travel directive. Ordinary business and tourism travellers who use sites such as Expedia or trivago as a one-stop shop for their airline ticket, their hotel, their car rental, the shows they wish to attend or other things they wish to book, such as restaurants, will find that this package travel directive, which comes from the EU to protect huge monopolies, will try to pass on a major charge to the companies—Expedia, trivago or others—or, more than likely, to the customer, because they are using a one-stop shop, when they should apparently be encouraged to use several different operators to place their orders. That package travel directive is wrong, and it should be opposed. That is another reason why many people in the United Kingdom see that, in terms of travel arrangements, we would be better off out of the EU.

[Ian Paisley]

I do not know whether that is the case, so I cannot say whether it would or not. I would certainly be happy to look at that, but we need to encourage our own insurance industry—perhaps we will have a debate about the insurance industry and Brexit—to pick up those issues to determine whether there is a way in which we can address them.

Companies such as Expedia are faced with this package travel directive. We need to be alive to the fact that Europe is not a great benefactor of the travel sector and that it is actually doing an awful lot to hinder it.

[Sir William Cash]

On the general principle that the hon. Gentleman is addressing—the extent to which directives have an adverse effect on certain industries and the national interests of particular countries—is he conscious, as I certainly am, of what is called regulatory collusion? This has been written about by Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim University, who makes it clear that a system is employed in the Council of Ministers and through COREPER whereby decisions are made that benefit certain congregations of countries in a way that is detrimental to others, and that this is not a benign system, but actually the pursuit of national interests in another name.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for making that point. This is about not only helping congregations of countries, but assisting cabals within certain sectors of the industry. For example, the package travel directive helps people who do not use computers to buy their tickets and encourages people to use only shops. I have nothing against travel shops, but they should not be assisted over the heads of people who wish to use the internet to make their bookings. There is a very deliberate attempt to try to destroy that business on the internet.

On road haulage, the Government need to address exporter freight charges. Many of our competitors outside the EU, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and countries in Asia, including India, have opportunities to assist the trade in their manufactured goods by reducing the cost of exporting them around the world. In essence, this is about freight charges, not just internally within their own countries, but externally. Our Government need to decide what assistance that system gives and how, when we eventually leave the EU, our companies can have a similar type of assistance or, more importantly, can be encouraged to get round the advantage that those other countries are given.

Let me give the House a few examples. In Australia, the freight equalisation scheme allows for goods shipped around the world to be subsidised when going to their final destinations. That means that a similar good manufactured in New Zealand, for example, suddenly becomes more expensive because its freight charges are included in its shipping, whereas the Australian good has its freight charge subsidised or, in many instances, wiped out. New Zealand opposed Australia when it introduced that scheme, but it is still in place. India has a freight assistance scheme, as well as an enterprise promotion policy, which is about assisting with freight charges.

If these issues of transport costs are not addressed, when we finally leave the EU and have wider export opportunities, we will find that if we try to get our goods—manufactured goods, foods or drinks—to certain markets, they will be disadvantaged because we do not give them a freight subsidy. I know that the Government do not like the word “subsidy” and that they will have to look at this further, but something should be done to assist with those transport costs. It is important that the Government have that in their mind.

I welcome the debate and the comments by the Secretary of State. It is useful that we continue to prod and examine these issues.

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

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I am feeling a wee bit dizzy because I am not usually so high up the speakers’ list. It is also confusing that there is no limit on our speaking time. Clearly one of the reasons why I have been called so early is the real lack of Back Benchers in the Chamber. Given how many people have told us how bad Europe is and about all the wonderful opportunities that there will be following Brexit, I should have thought that Members would be queuing up to tell us about those opportunities.

[Sir William Cash]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is about to become a member of my European Scrutiny Committee, so I simply say that I entirely endorse what he has said. Furthermore, many of the remoaners, and the doomsters and gloomsters, are not here defending the positions that they were taking before—I am not just referring to SNP Members. That is where a lot of the problems lie.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Clearly we are part of the remainers, and we represent our constituents. The majority of our constituents across Scotland voted to remain, so we must represent them.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made a bit of a play of highlighting opportunities, but really he highlighted some of the problems with the European Union rather than proper opportunities. He seemed to put a lot of faith in the myth that the Government will invest the money that will not be going to Europe. He trusts the Conservative Government to invest that money. He used the word “subsidy”, although he knows full well that no Tory Government ever volunteer to pay money for subsidies.

This has been a wide-ranging debate. I will focus on road transport, but just before I do, I want to go back to the open skies debate. Prestwick airport, which is in one of my neighbouring constituencies, is a big employer for my area as well as for the constituency it is based in. It would be good if the Minister confirmed that Brexit will not affect Ryanair’s flights from Prestwick and tell us what the Government will do to mitigate any effects. I will throw out one opportunity for Prestwick—to be fair, this is not to do with the European Union—which is its potential as a spaceport. It is high time the Government made a decision about that.

As I said, I will focus on road transport. The Secretary of State said quite correctly in his opening speech that road transport affects us all. Given the proportion of goods that are transported by road to shops, road transport is fundamental to the price of goods. According to Government figures, almost three times as many goods are moved by road as are moved by rail and water combined, which shows us that road is the transport king.

That brings us to the question: what has the EU done for road transport? Apart from the harmonisation of licensing, the harmonisation of vehicle design, European Union-wide regulations for the transport of goods, workers’ rights legislation such as the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005, the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, and funding for road schemes in Scotland, the EU has not done much to help road transport.

What else has the EU given us? Apparently, as the guys who are not here continually tell us, the EU has given us endless red tape and regulation. Let us look at how the EU has actually meddled in the pan-European transport of goods by road—this point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). In 1998, a lorry travelling from Milan to London required 88 separate documents. The EU got involved, and after much wrangling, the number of documents now required is one. The number has gone from 88 down to one—that is the red tape that the EU has created for the transport of goods across Europe. In the 1980s, there were 100,000 sets of technical regulations across the member states. Thanks to the EU, they have been consolidated, and there is now one set of EU-level regulations.

We heard about ports earlier. Ports are integral to the import and export of goods for road haulage. As we have heard, ports handle 90% of the UK’s trade. Leaving the EU means that there is a risk that instead of a seamless journey on and off a ferry, there could be extended customs checks, which will slow progress. As we have heard, the infrastructure is not geared up for that, which could mean that ports will require additional parking. Some of the checks need to be repeated for each country that a lorry traverses. Given that the World Bank estimates that the customs clearance process for a single freight container adds around a day to the import process, it is clear that we could face a massive cost and logistics nightmare. Will the Minister therefore confirm that he is fighting for access to the single market and the customs union?

According to the Treasury’s figures, EU membership is estimated to increase trade with EU members by between 68% and 85%. I know that there has been a whole debate about how inflated the figures might or might not be, but even if they are inflated, they still show that there is huge benefit from our membership of the single market.

Has the Secretary of State and/or the Minister discussed the customs union with the automotive industry? At the moment, car components criss-cross the continent before returning for use in final assembly at car plants, so the customs union is a major positive for the automotive industry. The industry is completely appalled by the lackadaisical argument that simply claims that no tariffs will be applied because of the importance of the UK market. It has confirmed that tariffs are its No. 1 concern, so will the Minister touch on that when he sums up?

Nearly 300,000 HGV drivers were employed in the road haulage industry last year. In April 2015, only 1,165 jobseekers recorded their standard occupation as HGV driver, so it is clear that a HGV driver qualification is a pathway to full employment. Even so—we touched on this earlier—the road haulage industry is having to take advantage of EU nationals, using licence harmonisation, to plug the skills gap. There is a predicted shortage of 40,000 HGV drivers by 2020 and the Government do not challenge that figure. That situation will only get worse unless there is a post-Brexit reciprocal licensing arrangement.

I have repeatedly called for the Government to implement a grant scheme to allow small haulage companies to train new HGV drivers. Such a scheme would pay for itself from welfare savings. To date, I have heard nothing from the Government. The Secretary of State said that the idea was with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is responsible for skills in the Department for Transport, but it is time we started hearing some concrete plans.

The last key topic I will touch on is road funding, which is particularly relevant to Scotland. Another dividend of the UK Union that we suffered from in Scotland for many years was a lack of investment in our road systems. It has taken an SNP Government coming to power to really push that agenda, in particular with the new M74 and M80 motorways, and the ongoing £500 million M8, M74 and M73 upgrades. It is ridiculous to think that there has never been a continuous motorway connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow; the SNP Government are having to rectify that.