Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

That brings me to the point that I was going to make. If this is all about local democracy and democracy itself, why are the hon. Member’s Government making his MPs vote in a way that they say they do not want to vote? How can we trust them to implement some form of local democracy when MPs are getting forced to vote for the Government amendment against their will?

[Sammy Wilson]

At least the hon. Member is being honest in his speech. He has made it clear that the only reason why he is intervening on what he believes is an English issue is that this is a vote of no confidence in the Government. Surely he understands, therefore, why this ceases to be a debate about local democracy and where we get our gas from. This is all a bit of political playing by the Opposition.

[Alan Brown]

The political playing is by the Government, who have made the motion a vote of confidence in themselves, and are making their MPs vote in a way they do not want to. It is not the Opposition playing games—it is that lot over there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point very well, and it is one of which we need to take cognisance. We have to doubt the Government when they say they are committed to net zero by 2030. We have to wonder how serious they are about that. They know that 2030 is a while away—it is future Governments away—so they can do what they want now, and pretend they are still in favour of abiding by that net zero commitment.

Even if we accept some of the Government’s arguments, the exploration and appraisal phases of a fracking site last for, roughly, between two and five years, so it is not possible that fracking can produce any sort of quick-fix solution to the problems that they think they are trying to solve.

If this Tory Government are so worried about people’s energy bills, they must ask themselves why they did a screaming U-turn on the so-called energy price guarantee this week. The Prime Minister had told us previously that she would prevent household energy bills from rising to an astonishing £6,000 a year, but presumably the UK Government now believe that—unfortunately for the majority of households in the UK—bills might rise to that level at some point after April 2023, when they are scrapping the guarantee. They may not think the bills will become that high, but the energy prices paper produced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy contains an estimate of £4,400, and other papers produced this week speculate that average bills could easily hit £5,000.

Even if the Government introduce measures which they say will protect the most vulnerable, bills as high as that—allied with record inflation—will still cause misery to millions of people. These are, of course, households that have already seen mortgage rates and costs increase as a direct consequence of the Prime Minister’s ideological mini-Budget. Bad decisions made by the Government are already affecting household expenditure, and such measures are obviously not the solution. National Energy Action estimates that even under the current support scheme, with average household bills of £2,500, 6.7 million households will be in fuel poverty, and it is clear that if bills became much higher than that, millions more would be in that position. A year and a half ago, when the price cap set bills at an average of £1,100, constituents of mine were already struggling, and some were in fuel poverty. If the bills go up by much more, there will be misery for many. Fracking does nothing to help them in the here and now, and I urge the Government to start thinking about the support that they will have to provide to bring household energy bills down for people.

Other measures that should be taken include energy efficiency installation. The Government need to increase, massively, their commitment to upgrading homes to the target of EPC band C. Energy efficiency installation clearly reduces energy demand. It reduces reliance on gas, at least for energy generation, it brings down household bills, and it creates jobs.

As for energy security, it is not so long ago that the UK Government blocked the six years of onshore wind development. Given that onshore wind is the cheapest form of energy generation, they have arguably added costs to consumers’ bills. That form of electricity generation could have reduced reliance on gas, and on imports, in the UK, so why was onshore wind development banned? It is because some loud Tory Back Benchers were against wind turbines, and the Government used that—and some voices in the community—to argue that local consent for the turbines was not there. That was using a few people to destroy local democracy. In fact, it was local democracy in reverse: overturning offshore wind development across the UK was imposing the view of a few people in the shires, and elsewhere in the UK, and making energy more expensive for the rest of us.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main reason people are opposed to onshore wind is that it is extremely land-intensive? Compared with the area that 10 fracking pads would take up, 725 times more land would be required for windmills, which are of course a blot on the landscape.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for proving where he is on the whole climate change denial aspect. Studies and surveys show time and again that people are in favour of onshore wind, and we know that people are against fracking, so his argument is completely at odds with what the public think, and probably what his own constituents think.

On energy security and further reducing reliance on gas, the Government need to introduce a pricing mechanism for pumped storage hydro. Dispatchable energy is one way to hit peak demand. SSE already has all the permissions in place. The funding is there to build the Coire Glas scheme in the highlands. All that is needed is a funding mechanism. The predecessor of the Secretary of State said at an evidence session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that the Government had not agreed a pricing mechanism and were not doing anything on it because it was a predominantly Scottish technology. I urge the new Secretary of State to get over that mindset, and to realise that pumped storage hydro is for the good of the grid and the good of the UK as a whole.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Obviously everybody in the House welcomes any measures that will help people with the cost of energy crisis, but it beggars belief that this emergency legislation is being rushed through Parliament today, yet at 11 o’clock this morning the Chancellor pulled the rug from under it by saying that the support package will be not for two years, but for only six months.

It was only last week that the Prime Minister’s robotic response to any question put to her was “Energy price guarantee for two years.” She stated that her measures would prevent households from paying more than £6,000 in energy costs in future. If the energy support package is to be pulled in April, what will the average future household bill look like? The Government say that they will bring in support to help the most vulnerable, but people need to know what their bills will look like. This is scaring millions of people, and the Government need to get a grip. When will we know what their support for the most vulnerable will look like? Will they give proper consideration to alternatives such as social tariffs?

The Secretary of State was very clear in spelling out that the so-called guarantee is just a price cap per unit of energy, and that £2,500 is just an estimate for an average household. It is just a pity that the Prime Minister did not understand that: when she was doing media rounds for the Tory party conference, she kept saying that households would not pay more than £2,500. Her rhetoric was dangerous and misleading. Unfortunately, some families might have the wrong impression of the household bills they will pay, because the Prime Minister did not understand her so-called flagship policy.

Even as we talk about limiting average bills to £2,500, we need to remember that just a year and a half ago the cap was set at £1,100, so energy bills for everybody are more than doubling. That is really difficult for people to deal with, and other costs are going up as well. Although the Government talk about an average bill of £2,500, it has been estimated that in Scotland the average household will pay £3,300, which is really difficult for people to manage. In Argyll and Bute, one of the most rural communities, the average dual fuel bill will be £4,400. Families are really struggling. National Energy Action estimates that 6.7 million households in Great Britain will be in fuel poverty even with the support package that the Government have announced, so we have really big concerns about what fuel poverty will look like when the package is lifted in April.

Off-grid homes in rural Scotland and in rural Great Britain will suffer even more and will have to pay much higher costs, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out in his intervention. The Secretary of State says that he will provide workings for the one-off £100 payment, but no matter what workings he provides, £100 will not be enough for people to deal with the increased cost of filling their oil or liquefied petroleum gas tanks.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not know what calculations have been done in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland the regulator has estimated that to give equivalence, there would have to be a payment of £500 per consumer. There needs to be greater transparency about that.

[Alan Brown]

I have not seen that figure, but I agree that it seems more realistic. The reality is that the minimum delivery for a fuel tank costs £500 to £600, and completely filling a fuel tank costs £1,200. The cost per litre has gone up from about 30p to more than £1. It is a crippling cost, and there is no way that £100 will do anything to help people in the circumstances.

It is fair to say that it is effectively Scotland that is paying for the support packages. First, the oil and gas windfall tax was clearly about the revenues from the North sea, and now the new measures are being charged to Scotland’s renewables sector. At the time, we challenged the Government to consider that in investment tax write-offs for the oil and gas sector, investment in renewables should be part of the deductible policy. That was ignored.

Unless the detail of the cap revenue mechanism is examined properly, there is a risk that future investment in renewables will be put in jeopardy. Bizarrely, as the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said, we will incentivise people to invest in fossil fuels rather than renewables, which is certainly not the way to bring down bills. Another disparity between the Bill and the oil and gas profits levy is the time specified in the sunset clause: for the oil and gas profits levy, it is only two years. We need to ensure that we do not disincentivise investment in renewables.

The Bill gives too much power to Ministers, with not enough parliamentary scrutiny. At one time the Secretary of State was a so-called champion of parliamentary scrutiny, but now that he is in the Cabinet he seems quite happy to take on parallel powers for himself, including the ability to spend sums of up to £100 million without any approval from the House. Even beyond £100 million, if he feels that it is too difficult to get a resolution of the House, he can still justify spending that much. That is hardly parliamentary sovereignty.

We need to know much more about how the revenue caps will be set. What assessment has the Secretary of State made in respect of hedging? He touched on the fact that a lot of energy has been sold forward. How will the Government deal with that? How will they deal with multiple ownership structures? What discussions has he had with the sector?

We welcome support for consumers, but given the Chancellor’s announcements today, there is clearly not enough. There is too much uncertainty for business. There is too much power in the Secretary of State’s hands. I would like to think that he will agree to amendments in Committee that would return a bit of power to Parliament and to this House, because we know he really believes in that. However, this shambles shows yet again that to go forward, what the people of Scotland really need is independence, proper utilisation of oil and gas revenues, and investment in a truly green future.

Social Security and Pensions

Debate between Alan Brown and Sammy Wilson

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Like all hon. Members, he highlighted the fact that the Government need to do more to deal with the cost of living crisis. It was characteristically optimistic of him to look forward to the Minister’s response; I have a funny feeling that we will not get much out of the Minister in that regard.

Of the two draft orders, I will concentrate first on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order. It is relatively straightforward, on one level; it will ensure that those on contracted-out pensions get an uplift in their contributions made between 1988 and 1997. Effectively, that seems to be a formality that happens every year. The percentage increase is capped at 3%, which makes me think that we have to consider whether that 3% rate is valid now. What happens if inflation remains rampant? That needs to be considered.

In preparing for the debate, I was concerned to read that as part of the transition to the single-tier pension in 2016, the DWP estimated that 50,000 people would lose out with guaranteed minimum pensions. In 2019, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published a report stating that the DWP had not provided clear and accurate information that some pension holders could face negative long-term impacts on their pensions and their income. The Government responded in 2021 and developed a new factsheet. In developing that factsheet, how much discussion did they have with the PHSO and third-sector organisations? When will we see the review into its usage? As the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) pointed out, people are having difficulty accessing the factsheet. How many people have suffered negative consequences and what are the Government doing to assess that?

It is clear from the failings on the guaranteed minimum pension and the communications around that, the WASPI women and the botched communications with them, the pensions underpayments and the late payment of pensions once people reach state pension age that the pensions system has a long way to go before it is remotely close to being fit for purpose.

With those observations, I will turn to pensions in general, in terms of the social security uprating. I know that the Minister will probably dismiss most contributions from the Opposition, but as others have said, he would do well to listen to the excellent contributions from the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). They should be a warning to the Government that more needs to be done.

UK pensions are the least generous in north-west Europe when compared with the average wage. That was confirmed by analysis undertaken by the House of Commons Library last year. When that is the case and when we have a cost of living crisis, it defies logic that the Tories think this is the time to break the triple lock guarantee on pensions and to break it in terms of the link with earnings.

As other Members have said, the CPI figure being applied is outdated, but I suspect it was also understated, considering the work done by Jack Monroe and the fact that the Office for National Statistics is saying that it will revise how it calculates CPI and inflation with regard to food. The 3.1% was probably an understatement at the time, and it has since been superseded.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the original arguments the Government put forward for not linking pensions to the increase in wages was that wages had increased unusually because of the pandemic, when people were out of work and then went back into work. We now know that it is not just wages that have gone up; prices have gone up as well. That is having a real impact on pensioners and people on low incomes.

[Alan Brown]

Absolutely; food prices have gone up and the energy price cap is now circa £2,000. The Government are not doing enough to mitigate the effect of that price cap. The reality is that earnings are not reflecting the cost of living demands. That is the whole point of earnings increasing. It therefore makes no sense to break that link.

What we have from the Tory Government is a Budget that is based on taking money from the pockets of pensioners, and this week they have not done enough to address the energy cost crisis. They are doing very little. A £200 loan to people is insufficient. It is just another burden for bill payers to pay back. Even if people get the £150 council tax rebate on top of the £200 loan, the energy cap is going up by £700. That is a long way short of meeting people’s requirements. Even when the rebates are taken off the price cap, people will be paying a net cost of £1,600 on their energy bills. That is a 40% increase. For those who have to pay the full cap, it is a 70% increase in energy prices in the last few months.

Pensioners are already struggling to make ends meet, and now they face this further erosion of their pension, while everything else is going up. As other Members have said, inflation is at its highest rate for 30 years and could go as high as 7%. Why oh why, in that context, do the Government think it is right to break their manifesto commitment on pensions? The Pensions Minister argues that pensions are increasing compared with this year, but the Red Book for the October Budget clearly states that breaking the triple lock is costing pensioners £520 a year. The Treasury will save £5.4 billion in financial year 2022-23 and a total of more than £30 billion in this Parliament. So the Chancellor is clearly balancing the books on the backs of pensioners. The concern is: is this a precedent? If the Government do not like any part of the triple lock, will they say, “We’ll ditch that bit of the triple lock, but we’ll return to it in the future. Don’t worry—it’s just a one-off”? A precedent has been set. The reality is, the triple lock is crucial in ensuring that the state pension continues to rise to reflect the increasing cost of living. Removing it deprives pensioners of vital income to ensure dignity and fairness in retirement. Research by the House of Commons Library shows that nearly 1 million pensioners in Scotland will be directly impacted by the cut.

The Government’s own statistics on households below average income show that, under Tory rule, UK pensioner poverty has risen to a 15-year high, with 2.1 million UK pensioners now classed as living in poverty once housing costs are allowed for. That is an increase of 200,000 on 2018-19, yet today the Pensions Minister had the brass neck to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that pension poverty has gone down under their watch. It is the exact opposite. These figures are based on the here and now—before the increase in the energy price cap kicks in—so it is clear that, unfortunately, the 2.1 million figure will dramatically increase. National Energy Action estimates that the increase in the price cap to £2,000 will result in between 5.5 million and 6.5 million households across the UK being fuel-poor.

One way in which the Government can help alleviate pensioner poverty is by ensuring that those eligible for pension credit are receiving it. We know that only about six in 10 of those who are entitled to it actually claim it, so the Government save £4 billion a year in unclaimed pension credit. If we look at the savings they are making through breaking the triple lock and what they hold back in pension credit, that is £10 billion this coming financial year alone, which could easily be in pensioners’ pockets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, when pensioners have that money in their pockets, it gets recirculated in local businesses because they need to spend that money on household essentials.

Research commissioned by Independent Age estimated that full take-up of pension credit could lift 440,000 older people out of poverty. When will the Government tackle that? I am less concerned about debating the 3.1% uplift in pension credit aspect—it is more important that people who are due pension credit actually get it. The Government must do everything they can to ensure that that happens. They speak about information campaigns, but, if they are serious about increasing pension credit uptake, how much money have they set aside for campaigning, information and working with third-sector organisations to ensure that people access pension credit? How much money have the Government set aside in the Budget as regards the hoped for increase, because they will clearly need to make more money available to pay that out?

Another cohort of pensioners is living in poverty: those who live abroad and are hampered by frozen pensions overseas. Many of them are veterans. It seems absurd that, when the Tories argued for giving lifetime votes to expats living abroad, they always used the brave veteran who fought for the UK and gave service in the armed forces as an example of someone who deserves a vote for life, yet they will not reward those veterans with a pension that allows them to live in dignity.

Household Energy Bills: VAT

Debate between Alan Brown and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is incredible, given the current cost-of-living crisis, that the UK Government seem to be incapable of doing anything different. The Chief Secretary reeled off a list of measures that the Government were already taking, but there was nothing new in his speech. There was nothing about what the Government are doing to tackle the current crisis, and they need to think again.

We have already seen the broken promises about lower energy bills post Brexit. Now all the Tory Back Benchers who campaigned for lower VAT on energy bills are queuing up to back the Government not to introduce a VAT holiday, and that makes no sense either. The fact is that without Government action, a real crisis looms. It is not credible for the energy cap to rise to approximately £2,000 a year in April. National Energy Action estimates that there are already 4.5 million fuel-poor households in the UK, which is a disgrace, and if the cap rises, as is predicted, the number will rise to 6 million. The Government really need to think about that, and take action to prevent it.

It is also worth looking at how the cap operates at present. It does provide protection for the vulnerable, but not enough protection. A constituent of mine who is on the standard variable tariff is struggling to pay her bills. Because the cap is based on average energy units, she is already paying £200 more per annum than the predicted cap. I urge the Government and Ofgem to look at how the cap works in reality.

As has been said, raising the cap to the extent that the average user will pay £600 more per annum would be so damaging that it cannot happen. I therefore support the calls for Government loans to be used to help energy companies to smooth over the transitional costs over, say, 10 years. I certainly support further direct intervention to mitigate any fuel rises. On that basis, I am happy to support the VAT holiday proposed in the Labour motion, although the predicted £89 annual saving will be wiped out if the Government do not take action to mitigate the cap.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad that the hon. Member appreciates one of the benefits of Brexit, namely that we now have the option of reducing VAT—and I do not understand why the Government will not do that—but does he recognise that as a result of the flawed deal in Northern Ireland and the fact that the Northern Ireland protocol leaves Northern Ireland under the EU VAT regime, any reduction in VAT could not apply to consumers in Northern Ireland, because EU VAT rules still apply there?

[Alan Brown]

I was not aware of that, but it appears from recent figures relating to the impact of Brexit that the protocol is protecting Northern Ireland, and it is not taking the same hit to its economy as the likes of Scotland. It is swings and roundabouts. The Northern Ireland economy is doing much better than it would have as part of Brexit Britain.

I have said that I certainly support the VAT holiday, but I am not sure that some of the rest of Labour’s £6.6 billion package and rhetoric has been completely thought through. The real windfall tax should be levied on the Treasury. As our energy bills have increased, so have VAT returns to the Treasury; as fuel prices have increased, the Treasury has raked in more money in fuel duty and VAT; and as for the North sea, it was confirmed in the Red Book for the November Budget that this financial year the Treasury will receive an extra £1.1 billion in oil and gas revenues compared with the March 2021 prediction, and the Treasury will receive an extra £2 billion from oil and gas revenues in this coming year and £6 billion in total over the Parliament. The Treasury should release the additional windfall revenue it has received.

Although to impose a windfall tax directly on oil and gas companies is an easy political soundbite, it has potential implications, so what discussions has Labour had with the industry? What assessment has Labour made of the levels of investment—which could be part of the decarbonisation agenda—that might be clawed back because of such a tax? The harsh reality is that every previous windfall tax on the oil and gas industry has led to a drop in capital investment.

In our transition to net zero, we do need to get off our dependence on oil and gas, but the reality is that carbon capture and storage is part of the pathway to net zero. What assessment has Labour made of the potential impact on such projects, and particularly on the Scottish carbon capture cluster, which has already been sacrificed to reserve status by the Tory Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I am not responsible for the administration of the £500 million fund, but the hon. Gentleman should just be grateful that it is there. It is for a 10-year investment period, so clearly it is for long-term planning.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am confused about where the hon. Member stands on energy policy for Scotland now. He wants to have an independent country that is a member of the EU and subject to EU VAT rules, which unfortunately will still apply in Northern Ireland. I also understand that the Scottish National party does not actually want to exploit the oil and gas that lie around our shores, so how does it hope to reduce the cost of energy for consumers in Scotland and ensure the supply to them?

[Alan Brown]

The right hon. Gentleman seems easily confused, but of course he is a climate change sceptic. If Scotland was in charge of its own energy policy, there would be more investment in renewables and greater hydrogen development, and we would not be paying for nuclear power. I have already said that the nuclear power stations will put up to £63 billion on to our bills; that is the estimate. We would have a much better energy policy that we could implement as an independent country and we would not have the highest grid charges in the whole of Europe.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Brown and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

That is a valid point. There have been mixed messages from the UK Government. The Trade Secretary says he will get a free trade deal with the United States. The Environment Secretary says we will get a deal but he assures us that there will be no chlorinated chicken or hormone beef. If we trade under World Trade Organisation rules, we cannot impose those welfare standards.

[Sammy Wilson]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to find a negative in every argument. He talks about the importance of food imports for the United Kingdom. Does he accept that those food imports come from farmers in Spain, Ireland, France and Italy? Does he think that they want transport to be disrupted to the point where their goods sit and rot in lorries? Is that not an incentive for their Governments to do the kind of deal that the Secretary of State is talking about?

[Alan Brown]

First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying I can find a negative in any argument? I can assure him that I have a wife who agrees wholeheartedly with that sentiment. He makes my point for me. There will be a whole raft of countries coming together, so the potential hit on them is much less than the potential hit on the UK. It is easier for them to play hardball. Government Members say that they will not play hardball, but why would they not? The UK is trying to play hardball with the EU, so it is quite clear that the EU is going to have to play hardball back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) on his positive speech. I hope that mine will be equally as positive, because almost every time anything about Brexit or leaving the EU is mentioned in this House the naysayers and those who wish to overturn the referendum result will find any excuse to look for faults in what is being presented.

I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing forward this legislation, because it will provide a contingency if there is no deal. Despite what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said about this legislation hardly having Mr Barnier quaking in his boots, an important message is sent out every time that the Government—whether in this Bill or in conversations, interviews or statements—indicate to those negotiating our exit from the EU that we have the option of walking away if they are not prepared to play ball. Regardless of how small this particular warning may be, it is nevertheless part of a picture that we need to present.

Having said that, I share Ministers’ optimism and the optimism of many other Members who have already spoken. There is every reason why the current arrangements —the Community licence and the standard international operator’s licence—should be made available as a result of the Brexit negotiations. As we have already seen, road transport is vital not just for this country, but for every country with which we trade in the EU.

[Alan Brown]

The Democratic Unionist party obviously has first-hand experience of how good the UK Government are at negotiating. Given the concessions the right hon. Gentleman’s party extracted from the Government, the whole EU saw how the DUP had the Tories dancing on the head of a pin. Does he really trust that lot to negotiate a good deal from the EU?

[Sammy Wilson]

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. When the Government stuck their heels in with the EU in December 2017, the agreement was changed and the protocols were not insisted on in March 2018. The Prime Minister stuck her heels in when the Irish Government said June was a deadline. The UK Government made it clear that it might not be done by June, and we have now moved to October 2018. When the Government make it clear that they intend to be in the driving seat on these negotiations, I have every confidence that we can get a good outcome for the United Kingdom.

Of course, there is every reason for us to be confident. Road transport is important to every European nation that trades with us, and it is particularly important to Northern Ireland—over 90% of our trade is via road transport. Road transport is not only important to us. If we look at who actually transports the goods we export to other parts of the EU, we see that 85% of the goods that go from the UK to other EU countries are carried in vehicles owned by EU-based companies. That being the case, there is every incentive for nations with lorries, lorry drivers and transport companies to come to an arrangement with our Government to ensure that free movement can happen. Equally, many of those goods are perishable, and it is therefore important that there is as little disruption to road transport as possible, hence why I believe it will be possible to get the kind of deal the Government seek. Nevertheless, it is important that we have this fall-back position.

The second issue is Northern Ireland. Although I heard the Minister’s explanation, I am still not clear on why we need a separate provision in the Bill for agreements on transporting goods to, and on lorries driving through, the Irish Republic and why the international agreements referred to in clause 1 are not sufficient to cover the Irish Republic. I do not share the optimism of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) that the Irish Government are willing, because of our long-standing arrangements on transport issues, to ensure that a bilateral arrangement can be put in place.

The Irish Government have almost cut off their nose to spite their face on the issue of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. They know their own head of Revenue Commissioners has made it clear that there are technological solutions that could ensure there is no hard border so that trade flows easily across the border. The previous Administration in Ireland even started down the route of considering the kind of technology that could be used but, since coming in, the current Irish Government have cut off all the negotiations on those solutions. Only this weekend, they insisted that they will have no cameras, drones or any kind of technology that could make the border a soft border when we leave.

[Sammy Wilson]

It seems that the current Irish Government do not understand. Six times more of their trade is with Great Britain than with Northern Ireland, and more of their trade is with Great Britain than with the whole of the rest of the EU, yet they seem to be willing to pursue a solution that will mean a border and barriers between the Irish Republic and its main market in order to have an open border with Northern Ireland. When it is suggested to the Irish Government that they can have both an open border with Northern Ireland and access to the GB market, they simply put their hands over their ears and say, “We don’t want to hear. Nah, nah, nah, nah.”

I am not as convinced as the right hon. Member for Clwyd West that it will be easy to get a transport arrangement with the Government of the Irish Republic, and I would appreciate further explanation from the Minister as to why the international arrangements covering other EU countries cannot simply apply to the Irish Republic. If lorries from Northern Ireland go through the Irish Republic, they are going through another country, so why would the international arrangements and agreements not apply? Why do we need a specific bilateral arrangement with the Irish Government who, unfortunately, at present seem to be in a temper tantrum and are not willing to listen to too much logic, even if not doing so damages their own economy?

[Alan Brown]

While the right hon. Gentleman is castigating the Irish Government—he says they have said there will be no cameras and no technology—will he explain what technology he proposes? The UK Government have said that there will be no infrastructure and no cameras, or anything like that, at the border, so what is this magic technology that will rely on no infrastructure whatsoever?

[Sammy Wilson]

When people talk about infrastructure, they think of red and white posts on the roads across the border. The one thing we know—I do not want to digress too much—is that during the troubles 50,000 troops could not seal the Irish border. If we think we will seal the Irish border to trade with a couple of barber’s poles across a road, we are barking up the wrong tree. That shows a total misunderstanding.

The infrastructure that would be involved is used elsewhere and has been proven, whether it is GPS, telephones, early notification or electronic notification that trade is moving. There are a whole range of things that do not require a physical presence on the border, and that technology could also be used at Dover to avoid the kinds of problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). It is not just a solution for the island of Ireland but a solution between the United Kingdom and the EU when we leave.