UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Alan Brown

  • Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Improving Rail Services

    Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Improving Rail Services

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP spokesperson on transport, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    While the Secretary of State was finishing writing his statement before coming to the House, Avanti was doing what it does best—causing more chaos to the west coast. I was glad that I got the London North Eastern Railway down, rather than Avanti. Avanti was far and away the worst-performing company for cancellations in period 11 and the second worst in period 12, according to Office of Rail and Road tables. It was beaten in period 12 only by TransPennine Express. Coincidentally, both franchises involve FirstGroup. By contrast, ScotRail is by far the best performing major operator for cancellation percentages, and it runs eight times as many trains as Avanti.

    Since the much heralded Government intervention, ORR data for periods 8 to 11 shows that the number of trains arriving on time is lower, and hovers around 32% to 35%. The Secretary of State talks about facts, but the fact is that still only a third of trains are arriving on time. Does he really think that merits coming to the Despatch Box and bragging about a turnaround? Even on Avanti’s 15-minute threshold for arrival, performance has been consistently lower than in earlier years. In period 10, a quarter of trains arrived outside that 15-minute window. Period 11 was only marginally better. Yet again, ScotRail significantly outperforms it. LNER has had its own issues, but it still outperforms Avanti by some distance. There is no shareholder dividend system for ScotRail or LNER. Despite the Secretary of State saying that there is ideological battle on this issue, why are the Government still so opposed to nationalising rail companies and giving them public sector ownership?

    The Secretary of State mentioned discounted ticketing, yet no one north of Preston benefits from that, so passengers in Scotland are paying full whack for services that barely exist to cross-subsidise tickets for trains that stop 200 miles away. Scottish commuters have seen plans to shelve the Golborne link for HS2, with no replacement identified, and further delays to the Euston link. Even when HS2 comes into being, our trains will be slower on the west coast main line than Avanti’s are at present. Despite the rhetoric about rhetoric, is it not the case that this Government just do not care?

    Mr Harper

    Let me deal with those questions in order. First, it important to focus on the facts. To take today’s Avanti service, 95.5% of services were running within 15 minutes of their planned time. There was a service issue today, which I know at least one hon. Member was affected by. There was a Network Rail points failure between Carstairs and Carlisle, which resulted in the delay and part-cancellation of two services, including the 0939 from Lancaster, which started instead from Preston and arrived three minutes late at Euston. It is interesting that the issue was caused by the bit of the industry that is, of course, owned by the taxpayer, so that does not demonstrate the hon. Gentleman’s case for nationalisation.

    Secondly, on timekeeping, I said in my statement that Avanti’s punctuality was now within the pack of the train operating companies, but that it was at the bottom of the pack and there was more work still to do. I was very clear that Avanti has improved its performance but it is not where it needs to be, which is why I have sufficient confidence only to extend the contract until October. Both I and the Rail Minister have been clear that Avanti needs to continue to deliver improved performance.

    On LNER, on the east coast, in my view one of the reasons why good performance is delivered on that route is that there are open-access operators providing competition and choice to passengers. It is important for us to bear that in mind when we think about the future shape of the rail service.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s points about HS2, because I have to consider the interests of the taxpayer and the fact that inflation is significantly high at the moment, I had to make difficult decisions. The choice I made was to continue delivering phase 1, in order to ensure we deliver it as promised; to have a short delay to phase 2a, to continue to deliver phase 2b on track; and to look again at delivering a station at Euston, within the budget that has been set. I think those were the right decisions to deliver improved infrastructure, to benefit the country over decades to come.

  • Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on the Independent Review of Net Zero

    Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on the Independent Review of Net Zero

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the work he has done, and for securing the debate. I thank the hon. Members who have taken part. As always, I tend to disagree with the contribution from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I certainly agreed with most of the others.

    There is certainly much to like in the report, with stuff to debate and, of course, some stuff to disagree on. Given that the review was commissioned by the previous Prime Minister, after her ill-informed leadership campaign in which she pledged to remove levies from bills and alluded to net zero as a costly commitment, I welcome the fact that the report was undertaken purely independently and did not go down that rabbit hole. The key thing now is what the Government do with the recommendations, especially in the short term, given that implementation for 25 of them is recommended before 2025. That is critical because existing carbon budgets are off track. We need re-alignment if we are to hit net zero by 2050.

    I note that the term “Scottish Government” is not used once in the main body of the report. Although I accept that there is engagement, and that some good practice from Scotland is mentioned in the report, I would have expected more references to and understanding of where the Scottish Government are taking a lead, including on the roll-out for electric vehicle chargers, interest-free loans for EVs, the embracing of onshore wind, peatland restoration, woodland planting, the just transition commission, the £500 million low-carbon fund for the north-east, energy efficiency measures and the roll-out of zero-emissions buses. There is a lot of good practice in Scotland that the rest of the UK could learn from. More consideration is required of devolved Governments’ inability to deliver because of funding constraints and, in the case of the Scottish Government, strict borrowing powers. That also needs to be debated.

    What is abundantly clear in the report is the need for stable and consistent long-term policy to be matched by funding. The Treasury cannot be a blocker. As the right hon. Member for Kingswood said, other countries are now taking the lead in investment. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States is making it a more attractive place for investment in renewables.

    The folly of previous chopping and changing, and the cutting of solar and onshore wind from the contracts for difference auctions as part of David Cameron’s “cutting the green crap” agenda, has meant eight years of investment lost overnight from one policy decision. That has stopped the deployment of the cheapest forms of renewable energy. At least I can say that I am glad that we in Scotland continue to embrace onshore wind. We have made it integral to the decarbonisation of the power sector. The fact is that Scotland generates the equivalent of 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables. That should be held up as a fantastic achievement and an example for the UK Government to follow south of the border.

    At least the deployment rate of solar is now recovering and will soon stand at 1 GW installed per year. That means that, in a period of just three years, the solar equivalent of a Hinkley Point C will come online. Solar is quicker, cheaper and can be deployed where required, providing greater grid stability. I agree with the recommendation for a plan to get a road map for 70 GW of deployment by 2035.

    I also agree with the right hon. Member for Kingswood about the need for a re-envisaged road map for carbon capture, utilisation and storage to be delivered this year. The report rightly points out that the investment landscape for CCUS and hydrogen is currently unclear, and that needs to be remedied as soon as possible.

    Additionally, the track-2 clusters need to be expedited. It is outrageous that the Scottish cluster remains a reserve when it is probably the most advanced of the CCS clusters and is likely to be delivered quickest. Acorn represents the worst example of the UK Government chopping and changing policy and withdrawing funding. The reality is that the Scottish cluster needs to commence for Scotland to meet the 2030 target of a 75% reduction in emissions.

    The new Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), obviously knows how important the Scottish cluster is as part of the just transition, and how important it is for jobs in the north- east of Scotland. I hope to hear a more positive response, rather than holding with the mantra of, “It is okay, Acorn is the reserve.” Being the reserve is not good enough, and it needs to commence sooner rather than later.

    For the record, I agree with the detail on pages 67-68 that we will still rely on North sea oil and gas as we transition towards net zero. Where I fundamentally disagree with the report is in its continued blinkered approach about new nuclear. New nuclear does not form a great deal or a big part of the report, and there is not much evidence, yet it still comes out as a key recommendation and one of the suggested 10 missions. I disagree with applying the phrase “no-regrets option” to the concept of new nuclear.

    The report rightly identifies that four of the five remaining nuclear plants will go offline in the next few years, before Hinkley Point C will come on stream. If the UK grid can cope with that scenario, fundamentally we do not need new nuclear as this mythical baseload. It proves we can cope without nuclear. Nuclear is not flexible enough and is relatively incompatible with intermittent renewables. There are still the issues and costs associated with radioactive waste. If we look at long-term performance, we see that nuclear is not necessarily there when the wind does not blow. Over a 10-year period, each nuclear reactor is shown to be offline for roughly a quarter of the year, so it cannot be depended on to be there when it is needed. The reality is that we need to invest in other technologies, particularly storage, to balance intermittent renewables.

    The reality is that the nuclear market has failed, because it is too expensive and too risky. There is not a successful operational EPR plant in the world, yet despite that and the ongoing performance issues at Hinkley Point C, the Government seem hellbent on signing up for Sizewell C and using a regulated asset base model that will transfer risk to bill payers. Some £700 million of taxpayers’ money has already been thrown at the development of Sizewell C. That money could be better spent elsewhere. Capital costs for Sizewell C will be at least £30 billion. Think what that money could do if invested in other technologies and in particular in energy efficiency. I welcome the recommendations about aggressive energy efficiency targets going forward. Not only will that make bills cheaper, but it means healthier homes, healthier lifestyles and demand reduction.

    Finally on nuclear, the report highlights elsewhere the issue of rising sea levels. It is madness to propose building a new nuclear power station in an area subject to coastal erosion and at risk of rising sea levels. Also, the report demonstrates that nuclear energy has never got cheaper cost-wise, whereas all other technologies, including battery storage and power-to-X fuels, are now cheaper than nuclear. Figures 1 and 2 from the report make the case that we do not need new nuclear and should be investing in other technologies.

    Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

    Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Conservatives embrace so wholeheartedly dirty, outdated technologies, such as nuclear energy, and refuse to fully embrace tidal energy, which has so much potential for our renewables industry, certainly in Scotland, but right across the United Kingdom?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Before you respond, Mr Brown, just remember the timings that were agreed.

    Alan Brown

    I will aim to be brief. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and I would like to see the Government set a 1 GW target for tidal stream. We need to follow through on the recommendation of the report and set a clear plan for investing long-term in CCUS, hydrogen production and pumped storage hydro, for supporting a carbon floor mechanism and for replacing the EU funding for the European Marine Energy Centre. I hope the Minister will work with us on planning consents for major infrastructure projects. Section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 is reserved to Westminster, and there is a sign-off process for Scottish Ministers. If we are going to speed up the consent process, we need to work with the UK Government to do that. Hopefully the Minister will work with us on that with the Energy Bill going forward. There is so much to welcome in the report. I wish we had more time to debate it further, but I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood on it.

  • Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Electric Vehicle Battery Production

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    I express sympathy with all those affected by the job losses, but this is an abject failure of the mythical levelling-up agenda. Unfortunately, that should not come as a surprise. It has always irritated me that the Tories claim that they are the ones to level up communities—the very communities that they devastated in the first place.

    Just over a year ago, the former, former Prime Minister was boasting about the construction of Britishvolt’s gigafactory. He said that it would create 3,000 direct jobs and 5,000 supply-chain jobs, and support the production of 300,000 batteries for car production. That meant putting our faith in a company with no pedigree, no assets except a field and no products to deliver a £4 billion factory—and that with one owner with a conviction for fraud. We know that the Government do not care about paying taxes, but that is akin to awarding a ferry contract to a company with no ferries. When did the Government do due diligence? When did they realise that there was a problem and what actions did they take? When will we see a coherent strategy for battery production, EV manufacturing, the roll-out of charging points across the UK and, importantly, hydrogen vehicle manufacturing and green hydrogen production?

    Graham Stuart

    I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the opportunities that come from net zero. That is why we are moving so hard on nuclear, which of course anybody who is not a prisoner of some ideological opposition and is genuinely committed to green energy would support. We are supporting that across the piece. I do not think that Conservative Members will take lessons on industrial intervention from Scottish nationalists after their shipbuilding enterprises in the north.

  • Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    Alan Brown – 2023 Speech on Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP Home Affairs spokesperson and the MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    This Government have already created the most restrictive and anti-trade union laws in Europe. This new right-wing culture war stinks, and they are using ambulance cover as a pretext to attack workers’ rights. It was the Tory membership that gave us a Prime Minister who tanked the economy overnight, put people’s mortgages up and gave us high inflation, yet it is the Tories who continue to demand that public sector workers take the hit to balance the books.

    Everyone can see the irony of the Tories clapping key workers and now giving them a pay cut and threatening them with the sack for future action. Does the Secretary of State really think that ordinary people support Tory plans over the nurses? Does he realise that the public can see Pat Cullen and Mick Lynch destroying their arguments and soundbites? Does he understand that train commuters, who already suffer from appalling service, will be raging when they find out how much money train companies are making from strike days, paid for by taxpayers? How much money has been paid to train companies that could have gone to workers instead?

    It has not been easy for the Scottish Government, but they have negotiated better pay settlements for Police Scotland, train crews and NHS workers. It is something that the Royal College of Nursing would be willing to discuss with the UK Government. Those actions were commended by the unions, but not even acknowledged by Labour. There are no ambulance strikes in Scotland, and that has been done within a fixed budget and negotiations with one hand tied behind our back. Now, despite working with the unions, Scotland is to have the same anti-worker or anti-union legislation imposed on it, against the wishes of the Scottish Government. It is an imposition made easier by the Labour party agreeing with the Tories that workers’ rights should remain with Westminster and not be devolved to Scotland. We do not want to be part of plans designed to sabotage workers’ rights. This situation has clearly shown once again that if Scotland is to become a fairer, more equal country that respects workers’ rights, the only way to do so is to become a normal independent country.

    Grant Shapps

    The hon. Gentleman tries to push the argument that somehow this legislation will take us out of step with other European countries, and I have already explained that it is we who are out of step with what already occurs elsewhere in Europe. If we go beyond Europe, he will be interested to hear that in Australia, Canada and many states in America, blue-light strikes, as we would call them, are banned entirely. We are taking a moderate, sensible approach. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wholeheartedly support protecting his constituents in that way. While we are taking lectures from him about how the Scottish Government handle these things, I could not help noticing that Scottish primary school teachers are on strike and secondary teachers go on strike in Scotland on Wednesday.

  • Alan Brown – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Energy Costs for the Struther Farmhouse Tea Room

    Alan Brown – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Energy Costs for the Struther Farmhouse Tea Room

    The parliamentary question asked by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

    The energy profits levy measures are predicted to bring in £56 billion and most of that money is coming from Scotland, yet businesses across Scotland are left struggling, particularly in the hospitality trade. The Struther Farmhouse Tea Room in my constituency is facing a 500% increase in its gas bill, with its gas and electricity up by £25,000 in a year. Despite what the Minister says, these businesses are now reaching a cliff edge because Government support is estimated to be a maximum of £2,000 against these increases. How many small businesses and jobs does he think will be lost under the guise of Government fiscal prudence?

    James Cartlidge

    I know that the Scottish National party struggles to understand the basic concept of fiscal prudence, but let me just explain this to the hon. Gentleman. When he talks about the £56 billion, it is not just for the energy profits levy; it also includes the energy generator levy, and we see that money as coming into the UK Treasury from across the UK to support the United Kingdom. It will support businesses in Northern Ireland, as we said earlier, as well as businesses in England, Scotland and Wales. Scotland has benefited from huge support, not just in the pandemic but through the increase in energy costs that has been seen across the United Kingdom. It has benefited from the fact that we are stronger together as a Union supporting every part of our Union.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what estimate her Department has made of the likely effect on household electricity bills of the agreement of a £92.50 MWh rate for the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Under the CfD consumers will not pay anything for electricity until the plant is powering their homes and businesses. Payments under the CfD are expected to make up around £10 (real 2012 prices) of the average household energy bill in 2030. This should be seen in the context of Hinkley Point C meeting 7% of the UK’s energy needs, and set against our estimate that a new nuclear programme could reduce average household bills by up to around £30 in 2030. This is calculated by comparing the costs for consumers in a modelled scenario for the future electricity mix with Hinkley Point C and a further role out of the new nuclear programme with the cost for consumers in a scenario where there are no new nuclear power stations by 2030. Savings could be higher or lower depending on changes in the cost of alternative generation technologies and what mix of technologies would ultimately be used.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-12-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for what reasons the exemption for light goods vehicles from tachograph and EC driver rule requirements has not been extended to passenger carrying vehicles (PCVs); and if he will take steps to extend the exemption to PCVs.

    Andrew Jones

    Small passenger carrying vehicles, with 8 or less passenger seats (like light goods vehicles, weighing less than 3.5 tonnes), are also exempt from the EU drivers’ hours rules and the need to use a tachograph. In addition, vehicles with between 10 and 17 seats used exclusively for the non-commercial carriage of passengers are also exempt from the EU rules, along with vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular routes, where the route covered does not exceed 50km (local bus services).

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-03-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what further consultation he plans to hold before a final decision is made on possible resettlement of the Chagos Islanders; whom that consultation will involve; and who will make that final decision.

    James Duddridge

    The public consultation on a potential resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory concluded on 27 October 2015, and the summary of its responses was published by the Government on 21 January 2016. The Government is now considering all the relevant material, including these responses, and the recent independent feasibility study published in February 2015. The consultation is now closed and it is for the government to now make a decision.

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-04-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will review the language and terminology used in written communications to people attending personal independence payment or work capability assessments to ensure that those communications are readily understood by recipients.

    Justin Tomlinson

    We are undertaking a full review of PIP and ESA communication products and messages. This work includes customer testing to ensure that the language and terminology used is clearly understood by recipients.

    As part of our work to review claimant communications we are working with our Health Assessment Providers for PIP and ESA, to align the notifications sent to claimants invited to attend a face-to-face consultation with content produced by the Department.

  • Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alan Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2016-06-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the implications to her policies of the findings of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief’s report entitled, Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds, published in June 2016; and what plans she has to implement the recommendations of that report.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office carefully considers all asylum claims on their individual merits, including claims based on religious persecution. We grant protection to those who genuinely need it in accordance with our international obligations under the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

    Published guidance on the interviewing and consideration of asylum claims is regularly reviewed and takes into consideration the views of stakeholders, including religious groups. The current training and support available for asylum caseworkers includes a UNHCR endorsed Foundation Training Programme. This, and follow-on courses, covers all aspects of the asylum interview and decision making process, including the assessment of credibility and country information in religious based claims. Real-life case studies and role-play are used throughout the training programme to reinforce knowledge and understanding of the issues.

    We are currently carefully considering the APPG report and it’s recommendations and will provide a response in due course.