Euan Stainbank

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate, and I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses and draw hon. Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At the start of the debate, my hon. Friend rightly asked about the distinction between what a bus is and what a coach is. It is one that very few people think about, and I acknowledge that I did not give that much thought before becoming a Member of Parliament. Luckily, I believe that that distinction is understood by the Minister and by No. 10, if not in Bute House or, as my hon. Friend described more alarmingly, in UK law. While many companies still call themselves coachbuilders, there is no longer any full coach manufacturing taking place exclusively in the UK. However, the latent capacity is still there at Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus of Northern Ireland, with the latter having secured a deal to build the revived line of contour coaches last year. But primary coachbuilding ended last year in the United Kingdom and that should cause us alarm. However, we are part of a wider European automotive supply chain that contains countless companies that build engines, brakes, HVAC—heating, ventilation and air conditioning—and thermal systems, wheelchair lifts, destination displays, screens and battery packs. As the industry transitions to zero emission coaches, that means that Government support such as developing electrification infrastructure, funding through programmes such as DRIVE35 and subsidies for transitioning fleets becomes more important, especially as there has been less access for decarbonisation funding for the coach sector than there has been for buses. Before the Minister, off the back of the spending review, heads off to develop such a scheme for coaches—there has been one for buses—I again make the case that when we spend taxpayers’ money to help this sector, and the broader transport sector, we must ensure that operators relying on Government intervention benefit, not bash, our domestic manufacturing industry. Too often, quick decisions and poorly designed schemes have seen money sent to Chinese manufacturers, with a subsequent loss of domestic jobs and undercutting of the UK industrial capacity that could help us to bring coachbuilding back. In the coming years, we need a sustainable pipeline to deliver a successful transition to an electrified coach and bus fleet, with a focus on incentivising our manufacturers to restart coachbuilding here in the United Kingdom. There has not been access to previous dedicated decarbonisation funding for the coach sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) pointed out, the Scottish Government spectacularly failed to do that. The primary beneficiary of their ScotZEB3 scheme was the coachbuilder Ember, who run a fantastic, comparatively affordable and fully decarbonised coach service in Scotland. However, as they have run exclusively electric buses since they started their operations in 2020, and as the largest beneficiary of that scheme as an operator, they ended up using taxpayer-funded decarbonisation schemes to scale their fleet, not to decarbonise. When the Government design any future support for the sector, rather than totally lacking a strategy like the SNP, they should found it on two principles: whether it will take more carbon out of the air than would have otherwise been there, and whether it will put more money into the pockets of British manufacturing workers or more money into the pockets of those in boardrooms in Beijing. ScotZEB3 is a cautionary tale for any future Government support. Currently, mayors are required to provide only 10% consideration of social value for new content orders when they are building up their fleets, which is simply inadequate in practice to materially change contracting authority behaviour when we are subject to the scale of Chinese dumping that we are seeing. The loss of jobs in bus manufacturing makes bringing back British-built coaches less likely. I will admit that the deal struck by the DFT last year is an improvement to the situation, but it does sit awkwardly when the Government are rightly mandating 20% social value for central major procurement decisions. I believe that the agreement the Department struck last year must be reopened in consideration of that. I also noticed that the DRIVE35 scheme sets no rules on ownership, on keeping intellectual property in the UK or on national security screening. Considering the outstanding DFT and National Cyber Security Centre investigation into Chinese buses, that is worth consideration. The only rule requires benefiting companies to be registered in the UK. If we seek to onshore jobs, bring coachbuilding back and incentivise manufacturers to grasp the opportunity, that would be worth updating. The ZEB mandate outlined—there is no separate mechanism for the coach sector—that we should be equally pragmatic with the coach and bus manufacturing sector as we consult and provide a pipeline that does not seek to undercut our manufacturing sector. Although having a clear focus on developing our own industrial supply chain with the existing funding would go a long way to supporting the UK’s industries, we could go further with measures that are coming up. As tariffs on Chinese EVs are being considered, I ask that the Minister makes representations to his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to make sure that any measures are inclusive of Chinese coaches and buses that would otherwise undercut our domestic market or the prospect of building one.