UK Bus Manufacturing
Debate between Jim Allister and Gregory Campbell(1 week, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the APPG for British buses.
As the representative for North Antrim, I have the privilege of having Wrightbus as the key manufacturing company in my constituency. It is remarkable that, having started in a domestic garage just after the second world war, Wrightbus is now one of the world leaders in technology, skills and innovation. Ballymena in my constituency will forever be grateful to Sir William Wright for his innovative foresight, which led to where we are today.
It was not always an easy road. Just a few years ago, after substantial problems, Wrightbus rose like a phoenix from the ashes under new ownership, generating 2,300 jobs and producing many, many hundreds of buses, with the ambition to produce more than 3,000. I recently visited the site again, and saw the most modern of the company’s buses, which thankfully take care of all the accessibility needs one could think of. I was encouraged by the enthusiasm of the new chief executive, who certainly has ambitious plans for the site.
It is important that we as a nation grab hold of the opportunity here. The industrial strategy talks about advanced manufacturing as a strategic growth sector. If we mean that—I certainly believe that the sector has that potential—we must twin it with the approach we take on procurement. There is no point saying that advanced manufacturing is a strategic growth sector if our procurement policy is letting it down.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given that we have a growth policy that aims to support UK bus manufacturing, does the hon. and learned Member agree that it seems totally counterproductive that we subsidise overseas bus manufacturers to bring buses into the United Kingdom? We have such magnificent manufacturing bases in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England.
Jim Allister
Indeed, and the Chancellor is on record as saying that
“where things are made, and who makes them, matters.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.]
That is correct, and the Government need to get that message embedded in their soul.
I want to speak directly to the mayor of this great city—our capital city. In recent times, 479 Chinese buses have been put on our streets, with another 160 to follow—that is China, with the kill switches. I ask the mayor and TfL: where is the national pride in our capital city if we arrive and discover that the bus we are likely to get on was made in China rather than the United Kingdom? Other mayors seem to have had the vision and the desire to promote British-made products. That desire needs to catch flame here in the capital city, and I trust that it will.
Our procurement must be assertive and bold. There are the social value tools to make our procurement effective in assisting the production of home-made buses. We should be unashamed to do as other countries do when it comes to productivity. I hope that one outcome of this debate will be that those in a position to order buses reflect on where they order them from, and that we will see an interest in and accentuation of orders from within our United Kingdom. We have the means. We have the product. Let us build on it and make it even greater.
Finally, I want to raise a particular problem with production and exports in Northern Ireland. Sadly, under the Brexit arrangement, we are still under EU state aid rules. We see that in clauses 13 to 15 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which increase the level available for enterprise management incentives, enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts in Great Britain, but hold it down for companies in Northern Ireland. Why? Because of EU state aid rules. We also see it in the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, which again caps us under the EU state aid limits. How can we have a level playing field for UK production if, quite outrageously, one part of the United Kingdom is subject to a cap under EU state aid rules, which would not be there at all, of course, if we were properly part of the United Kingdom and had properly achieved Brexit? For Wrightbus, the workers in my constituency and the commonality of this United Kingdom, we must have that level playing field. That will then unleash opportunities for this great industry. It is time for the Government to liberate the bus building industry so that it can grow, including in Northern Ireland.
Scrutiny of European Statutory Instruments
Debate between Jim Allister and Gregory Campbell(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Allister
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do not gainsay it. If that is so, it is a very poor reflection on the interest in scrutiny.
Not only do we have this lacuna in scrutiny of a year or more; we have the very unsatisfactory position of there being no transparency—there is no public list of all the imposed EU laws. It does not exist, from what I am told. How can it be right for citizens in any part of this United Kingdom to be governed by laws when there is not even a list of all those laws? I look to the Government for a commitment that there will at least be the transparency of publishing a list of all relevant regulations that are imposed—and “imposed” is the correct word—on Northern Ireland from a foreign Parliament.
Some may say, “Oh, but doesn’t the Stormont Assembly have a Democratic Scrutiny Committee?”, and, of sorts, it does, but on 2 February the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly informing him of the types of laws that will be reported to the Assembly, and it does not include all laws. We have the so-called Stormont brake, which applies only to any law amending an existing EU law. We have applicability motions, which can apply to any new law, but we do not have any right of scrutiny within the Northern Ireland Assembly of what we would call statutory instruments. There simply is no capacity to scrutinise them.
We recently had a troubling example of such a statutory instrument. Commission implementing regulation 2025/89 creates a situation where, for the first time in any part of this United Kingdom, and with no consultation with our consumers or our elected representatives, we now have an authorised EU law whereby mealworms and insects can be included in food products. That EU law has been imposed upon Northern Ireland without any scrutiny in Stormont or in this place. Would that type of EU implementing regulation be on the agenda of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, or would it just pass under the radar, as has been happening for so long?
Vast swathes of important law are not classified as devolved under the protocol arrangements, so they are never scrutinised in the Northern Ireland Assembly, nor can they ever be scrutinised. Nothing that arises under the EU’s customs code, under its VAT regime or under state aid is devolved. Those matters are reserved to this place. Regulations are made from time to time on the customs code, which is the most offensive of all the protocol arrangements, because it is the one that says, “Northern Ireland is to be treated as EU territory. GB is to be treated as a third or foreign country, and thus the goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland—coming from a third country—have to be subject to the rigours of an international customs border.” All that arises under the EU’s customs code, and none of that can be scrutinised in Northern Ireland. None of it has been scrutinised in this House, either.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the lack of scrutiny, does the hon. and learned Member agree that as time goes on and the American Administration begin to look at what they may or may not do vis-à-vis trading arrangements with the EU, it is all the more important—it was important anyway—that we have close scrutiny, because of the deals that may come about between the American Administration, the UK and possibly the EU?
Jim Allister
Yes, and there is much talk about tariffs. Think of the conundrum that would be created if President Trump imposed tariffs on the EU. Northern Ireland, treated as EU territory, would, I presume, be subject to those tariffs, yet we are told that we are part of the United Kingdom. That is all because of the application to Northern Ireland of the customs code. If there were corresponding responses from the EU in that scenario, those would, under adjustments to matters arising under its customs code, apply to Northern Ireland it seems, and all without scrutiny.
While the establishment of this Committee, belated as it is, is welcome, it is important that we are able to understand that it will seriously address the scrutiny issues, as the previous Committee under Sir Bill Cash did. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did, but there has been this great gap in the meantime with effectively no scrutiny whatever. Now that scrutiny will be done by a Committee without, as I have said, a Northern Ireland representative even on it.