Alexander Dennis job losses in Scotland 'not a done deal' as firm urges increase in orders
The bus firm said orders for up to 100 buses and changes to regulation are needed before the end of the year.
Bosses at the Alexander Dennis bus firm have said the closure of sites at Scotland is 'not a done deal'.
But the company told MSPs that orders for up to 100 buses and changes to regulation are needed before the end of the year.
Plans under consultation by the bus firm would close their Falkirk plant and cease production at the nearby Larbert factory, with 400 jobs at risk.
The jobs would instead be consolidated at a single site in Scarborough.
In evidence to a Holyrood committee, the firm 's boss said of the job loss plan north of the border.
'It's absolutely not a done deal, it is a consultation process,' said president and managing director Paul Davies.
'We're very grateful for the active engagement we've had from both governments, from other political parties and stakeholders – we're absolutely committed to keeping those conversations going, along with this committee too.
'But there are, for us, other implications around the long-term, the runway, is the market dynamic going to change?
'Our assumptions are, if they don't change, we have to take action to look after the company.'
But Davies told the committee the firm would need to see consistent orders to help stabilise the future of the business in Scotland.
He said this would be around 70 to 100 buses by the end of the year and 300 to 400 for next year.
Calls have been made for a furlough scheme to be put in place, with the Government being urged to step in and pay workers until building can begin.
At a meeting of the committee this week, trade union bosses estimated such a scheme would cost between £4 million and £5 million.
Davies stressed that for the move to be avoided altogether, there would have to be a shift in the UK market on bus manufacturing to ensure the company could stay in the Forth Valley.
'It's a broader conversation, rather than just saying that an order will stop the consultation process,' he said.
Davies added: 'From our perspective, there's wider issues. Obviously there's conversation around a potential furlough scheme, but that for us is really part of a wider issue around ongoing demand and the issue of reform and the Subsidy Control Act conversations that have been around for some time.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour to force restaurants to reveal what diners eat
Restaurants will be forced to tell the Government what their customers eat under 'nanny state' plans drawn up by Labour to tackle obesity. Ministers are preparing to compel large restaurant chains and fast food giants to cut diners' calories in an efforts to help improve the nation's health. As part of the plans, businesses are expected to have to report how many calories customers consume on average. The proposals have angered restaurant bosses, who claim they have not been consulted on the measures. Kate Nicholls, chief executive of hospitality group UKHospitality, said the industry had been 'totally blindsided' by the plans. Ms Nicholls added that the proposals would lead to higher prices in restaurant chains, given the 'significant volumes of bureaucracy' involved. The plans are being looked at as part of a broader obesity strategy launched by the Government over the weekend. Under the proposals, supermarkets will be made to curtail sales of sugary and salty snacks in favour of more fruit and vegetables. It said food retailers risked fines if they did not hit targets. Regulations on restaurants have yet to be decided. However, they are expected to mirror rules for supermarkets, which will have to cut 100 calories from the average shopping basket. Restaurant chiefs said they expected to have to disclose how much fatty, salty or sugary food they were selling. They are braced for government-mandated targets around reducing calories, fat, salt or sugar, or some combination of all four. The supermarket proposals have already been branded 'nanny state' measures by senior retail figures and Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary. Ms Nicholls urged ministers engage with hospitality bosses, saying: 'This is really wide-ranging in scope. We really need the Government to start talking to the hospitality sector, not excluding it from these discussions, to make sure that we get the details right. We've yet to understand how mandatory reporting and targets would change the obesity situation in the UK.' The prospect of a further clampdown on pubs and restaurants comes after a torrid couple of years for hospitality businesses, which have had to grapple with soaring costs for fuel and ingredients, as well as higher taxes levied on them in the Government's Budget last October. UKHospitality has estimated that the Budget, which hit employers with higher National Insurance (NI) payments and lowered the threshold at which they are paid, has cost the industry as much as £3.4bn extra each year. Many pub and restaurant companies have already paused investments and hiring in the wake of the Budget changes, which came into effect in April, while others have slashed jobs to save money. It is understood that restaurants will only be required to report on calories and meet targets if they are deemed to be of sufficient size. Ministers have not yet decided how large a restaurant or chain will have to be to fall under the new rules. Under legislation brought in by former prime minister Boris Johnson, restaurant and pub groups that employ more than 250 people have to display the amount of calories in their dishes on menus. The policy was opposed by many in the hospitality industry, who argued it would heap costs on businesses, with estimates suggesting it had cost companies an average of £20,000 to implement in the first year of it being in force. Calculating the amount of calories in restaurant dishes can be difficult and costly, particularly for smaller groups or more high- end restaurants where menus change more frequently. Campaign groups have also raised concerns about the impact of widespread calorie labelling on people living with eating disorders.
The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
There is an alternative to massive defence spending
The SDR implies that bolstering the UK's nuclear capabilities will bring job growth and prosperity to Scotland, including through investment at Faslane. Yet history tells us otherwise. Defence jobs are precarious, vulnerable to political shifts and budgetary overruns. The delayed Astute-class submarine fleet is a case in point: its costs rose from £4.3bn to over £11bn. Analysis for the Scottish Government showed military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of any public investment. For every pound spent, sectors like care, education and renewable energy produce far more and better-quality employment. At the same time, excess government defence spending comes at the cost of other these other socially necessary jobs. There are also ongoing safety issues and radioactive air emissions at Coulport, located 8 miles from Faslane, continue to rise. But this militarised approach has even wider environmental impacts. The climate, pollution, resource and biodiversity impacts of defence production and military activity is ignored in the SDR and NATO approaches. A 2020 report by Scientists for Global Responsibility and Declassified UK found that the UK military-industrial sector emits more carbon than 60 entire countries. The Ministry of Defence has acknowledged its carbon footprint but proposed solutions – such as biofuels or nuclear – offer limited gains and potentially new environmental harms. While the world grapples with rising temperatures, investing billions into weapons systems that drive emissions is not only short-sighted – it is dangerous. There is no evidence that increasing military spending reduces the likelihood of conflict. In fact, a review on this question indicates that greater defence spending tends to increase the likelihood of conflict. The authors conclude, where tensions already exist, 'arms are not an effective deterrent but rather spark conflict escalation'. The UK already spends more on defence than almost every other country in the world. Just the US and four other countries exceed our amount of spending. More defence spending will not make us any more secure and will, likely, increase our vulnerability to attack. Read more The Alternative Defence Review argues for a fundamentally different approach, based on two key principles: human security and common security. Human security means protecting people from poverty, illness, climate disasters, and systemic inequality and ensuring decent housing, education and infrastructure. Clean air, good jobs, reliable transport, and mental health services are all foundational to a safe society. Common security, meanwhile, recognises that no nation can truly be safe while others suffer. Security cannot come at someone else's expense. Cutting the aid budget, disability benefits and publics services in order to increase defence spending will bring about misery, deaths and social instability. We are repeating the same mistakes that brought us to the current crisis – with climate breakdown, the cost of living, and public service collapse threatening the fabric of society. Students at the University of Glasgow have called for divestment from arms-linked investments and continue to campaign for ethical funding in higher education. Their efforts reflect growing public concern that Scottish public funds are quietly underwriting militarism. Amnesty International recently accused the Scottish Government of 'turning a blind eye' to the role of state support in enabling arms manufacturers to export to Israel – despite calls for an arms embargo amid the Gaza conflict. Freedom of Information requests revealed that Scottish Enterprise had provided hundreds of thousands of pounds to defence firms with known export licences to Israel, including Leonardo, BAE Systems and Raytheon. Though the Government insists this support is for training or innovation – not weapons manufacturing – critics point out that it remains part of the same supply chain. Students, Amnesty and peace campaigners are demanding consistency between Scotland's values and where its money flows. The overseas aid budget was cut to help finance increased defence spending (Image: PA) The ADR envisions a Just Transition for defence workers and communities who currently depend on defence contracts. By shifting investment into housing retrofits, green innovation, renewable energy, care services, infrastructure and climate resilience, we can build real security – social, economic and environmental – while creating more jobs than defence ever could. Scotland has the resources, skills and research capacity to lead on this. But it must choose to do so, rather than continuing to echo outdated UK defence strategies. The Strategic Defence Review expects Scotland to fall in line with a broken model – spiralling procurement costs, misaligned values, and a reliance on militarised spending as a tool of economic policy. In contrast, the Alternative Defence Review charts a different course: one rooted in peace, sustainability, and the real needs of communities. As we face the converging crises of climate breakdown, deepening inequality, and global insecurity, our responses must reflect the scale and nature of these threats. By reading, debating, and implementing the ADR, Scotland has the opportunity to lead the UK in building a new kind of security – one that truly serves its people. Karen Bell is Professor of Social and Environmental Justice, University of Glasgow
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers tighten steel safeguards to ward off cheap foreign imports
Ministers have tightened a steel safeguards regime in order to fend off cheap imports. The Department for Business and Trade rejected a trade watchdog's recommended path for restricting the flow of cheap steel from abroad, opting for stronger restraints. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the Government was 'unapologetic in our support for the UK steel sector – it underpins Britain's industrial strength, our national security, and our status as a global power'. Under the new regime, imports of certain categories of steel – including sheet metal and steel bars – will not be allowed to grow beyond 'traditional' trade flows. Steel products imported from Vietnam, South Korea and Algeria will be among those affected by the change, which is aimed at protecting UK steel from unsustainably cheap import prices. Mr Reynolds added: 'These measures back our producers and the thousands of families and communities who rely on steel production in the UK. 'We've taken decisive action to protect the UK market and level the playing field, and we'll go further with our new steel strategy to build a stronger, more competitive future for British steel making central to our plan for change.' Mr Reynolds did however agree with calls from the Trade Remedies Authority to limit countries from carrying over quarterly trade quotas, which would allow them to import more steel in the future after a shortfall. The Business Secretary's moves to protect British steel comes at a fraught time for the domestic industry. The Government has effectively taken over the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe from its Chinese owner Jingye, and has secured a supply of raw materials to maintain production for the foreseeable future. However, the threat of a rise in US tariffs on steel products is looming. US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer agreed in the UK-US trade deal that steel would be one of the areas protected from American tariffs. No deal has yet been finalised to bring down the current 25% tariff on UK steel products to 0%, and if one is not agreed by July 9, British steel could face a 50% levy from the US. Speaking to the PA news agency, Mr Reynolds suggested the negotiations were now being held alongside efforts to prevent the UK from being hit by the US president's so-called reciprocal tariffs. The Business Secretary said: 'I can assure you we're doing everything we can to get a deal as part of the sectoral tariffs. 'It relates to the conversations we are having about the reciprocal tariffs, the 10%. 'It's all part of one negotiation with the US.' The negotiations are 'complex', Mr Reynolds said, adding that sticking points were around the rules of origin, as some steel products are brought into the UK from other countries to be finished.
