European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Peter Dowd

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would be the first to admit that we do not always get these things right—whoever does? What we have to do is try, try and try again, and attempt to do our best in good faith. I will come back to that in a moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member has quoted some of the comments that were made in this House, but does he accept that of the two people who negotiated the very things that he is referring to, and to whom those comments refer, one thought that he had signed up to an agreement for no paperwork? He said that if there was any paperwork, people should simply tear it up, as it does not matter. Does he accept that the other one negotiated an agreement whose EU version was totally different from the version that he gave to this House and the people of Northern Ireland? Let us not fall back too much on the comments made about either of the two agreements of the time, because many were made either with a lack of knowledge or with hope that was not fully founded.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am not going to challenge the integrity of the people who were part of that negotiation. It is not for me to challenge their integrity: they are hon. Members, and I believe that they did what they did with the best intention. During the statement on 27 February, I believe that, on the whole, most comments were supportive, but I acknowledge and accept that some were not, such as those from the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made his views known, as did others.

I acknowledge that some of the Members who spoke during that statement are in the Chamber today and express disquiet. I welcome the fact that they have taken their places on the Benches, but their disquiet and the disquiet of others must be set in the context of the following—namely, that the agreement, according to the Command Paper, which is important and which I referred to earlier,

“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland – to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations.”

In any negotiation in the circumstances, coming away with that figure is not necessarily unreasonable. Would a figure of 100% be the acid test? Maybe it would, but I do not think so, given the circumstances—in practical terms, that is unlikely. That is the nature of negotiation: otherwise, it would be called imposition. We must recognise that those on the other side, who have their views, passions and commitment to their communities as well as their histories, have also been fraught with other people.

I will finish with this. I do not accept the idea that some of our partners in the European Union—some of those eastern bloc European countries that were under the yoke of the Soviet Union as a coloniser—would take the different view that they, in turn, were part of a group or cabal trying to impose a colonialist approach to another country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

As I understand it, that issue is being negotiated. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept the point he made about subjugation. I do not think it is subjugation, and I will come to that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I respect the point he made, and I respect the views of his constituents, just as I respect the views of my constituents. But it does not alter the fact that the negotiation is taking place. As I said before—I will repeat it again—these things are never, ever symmetrical.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that the hon. Member and others on the Government Benches have tried to make light of the use of the words “subjugation”, “colonisation” and everything else, but almost every week in this place, Members complain that Ministers do not come to this House to explain and elucidate on their policies, and that they are not prepared to be questioned on those policies, and quite rightly so. If Ministers were able to do that continuously in this place, would Labour Members not be claiming that we did not have accountable Government, that we did not have a Government who respected democracy, and that they were subjugating the people who are affected by those laws? I guarantee that no Members present would accept that from Ministers in this place, but they accept it in Northern Ireland.

[Peter Dowd]

In this place, we are enabled to ask these questions in a whole variety of different ways, including oral questions, written questions and meetings with Ministers. They are still available right across the piece, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Over a number years in this place, I have sometimes felt that I have not been listened to by the Government of the day. That is what I believed. [Interruption.] I was often listened to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I completely accept that there were honourable exceptions. But at the end of the day, we live in a democracy in which we can challenge time after time, and we have to be persistent. I repeat that there are differences of opinion, but I respect them. I hope that today’s debate is being conducted in an as open and transparent way as possible.

This is not the end of the matter. Even if the Bill does not go through, the matter is not over. Nobody is going to pretend that somehow we are all going to go our separate ways and no one is ever going to ask a question or challenge a Minister in the future. This issue will come back time after time. I know emotion has its place, but so do hard facts, statistics and evidence, and they have to be balanced against one another. However, passion can sometimes lead to a febrile atmosphere that dominates, and we have to guard against that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. I reject the Bill as respectfully as I can. Countries have to operate in an international rules-based system. That is the position that this country has taken on many occasions, even when the consequences for us have been dire. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim talked about foundations. I do not want to undermine the foundation of the rules-based system, trust and good faith. That is what I do not want to breach.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Member not accept that trust in the United Kingdom is important? The Belfast agreement makes it clear that a promise was made to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no change of any sort to our constitutional position unless they expressed a wish for it. The people of Northern Ireland have continually voted to be part of the Union. I know that the hon. Member is a Unionist. The Labour party fought hard to maintain the Union when Scottish nationalists tried to break away. Does he accept that he has an equal obligation to Unionist people in Northern Ireland—an obligation to stand by the promises that were made to them in an internationally agreed settlement? [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) says from a sedentary position, the framework strengthens the Union. That is exactly the point that I would have made. I know that some people do not accept that, but I believe that it strengthens the Union. Like a curate’s egg, any treaty will have good and bad parts for both sides. We would not need treaties or agreements if we all agreed about everything. The reality is that dissonance comes with the territory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a really important and fair point. We have to be very careful in this area when we have international obligations, and we have to be even more cautious when we are dealing with the situation that we found ourselves in given the context of the Belfast agreement.

I am drawing to a close, Members will be pleased to know, but it is worthwhile exploring the concept in a little more detail, because as I said, it goes to our position as a custodian. The circumstances in which we can depart from obligations are fairly clear: for instance, by mutual agreement—that is unsurprising—or implied right to withdraw. Neither of those is the case in this situation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they should be, but I do not believe that they are.

Can we say that the treaty or agreement is no longer in place due to agreed time limits or sunset clauses? The answer to that question is no. Has the other side materially breached the treaty or the agreement, which would in turn absolve us of our obligations? Well, I do not think that applies either. What about our ability to carry out the agreement because of the “disappearance or destruction” of an object crucial to the operation of the treaty? That get-out clause does not exist, either; well, not that I am aware. In fact, the Windsor framework is protected by the Vienna convention on treaties, as was brought out during the statement that I referred to.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member mentions whether the other side has ever broken the treaty. Of course it did: the EU did so in a fit of pique, rage and vengeance against the United Kingdom during the covid crisis. It caught itself quickly, because it realised exactly what it had done, but the fact of the matter is, in the mind of the EU, the treaty is not as sacrosanct as he is trying to make it out to be for the UK. He suggests that we should not even think about breaking the Windsor framework and the protocol. The EU, when it is convenient, has shown that it will.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position, but again, I disagree with his assertion.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Peter Dowd

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley on getting it to this stage. I hope the Government will support it to ensure its full passage through both the House of Commons and the upper Chamber.

I want to start by saying some things about the necessity of the Bill. First, public opinion is clearly in favour of it. Some 86% of those surveyed believe there should be an immediate import ban, and that cannot be ignored.

Secondly, in the countries where these animals are often hunted, there is now a growing consensus among politicians, the population, academic researchers and environmentalists that the trade is not good for their country and not good for the animals, especially those under threat—it does not even contribute economically in the way that many of those who support this trade and activities claim that it does.

Thirdly, it is clear from the figures that have already been quoted—I will not go through them all again—that many of the animals are being hunted close to extinction.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley on his Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley, who has been working on the issue for a long time. I completely support what the right hon. Member for East Antrim says, but on the question of potential extinction, does he agree that it would be better if organisations such as Safari Club International were honest about their position—that they just like shooting and killing things? They appear to be dressing that up as a sort of conservation effort on their part, with the killing of the animals bizarrely irrelevant to that aim.

Income tax (charge)

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

Just a moment. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The Financial Times reported:

“The German budget currently guarantees KfW”—

that is the credit institute for reconstruction—

“a financial framework of €460bn, but officials said this could now be raised by €93bn, giving the bank more than €550bn in available firepower.”

Mr Altmaier said:

“And that is just the start”.

I am glad that the Chancellor has followed the line—the model—that the Germans are taking as well.

In the meantime, notwithstanding the Government’s apparent announcement, significant parts of the economy are in freefall, as well as, more immediately, places, organisations, agencies within the hospitality sector both large and small, the travel industry and retail. So, okay, a bit late, but, nevertheless, moving in the right direction. But what this does not indicate yet, as far as we are concerned, is what support will be given to employees—the people working in those industries. The industries themselves might get support, but we have to be clear about what actually is happening. People in here will have constituents losing their jobs.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment.

It has to be said that the Government simply underestimated the challenge facing the country, but better late than never. However, many millions of people still have no financial certainty from the Government. People are worried about their livelihoods. The Government are responsible for our decaying social and physical infrastructure. They bear a huge responsibility for the parlous state of our public realm. While we will support measures to aid our economy, we will not settle for half measures, so we will look carefully at the Chancellor’s statement and at what he says later on.

The Government’s mantra of “levelling up” also completely misjudged the serious issues facing the country. The Government are not a new Government. They have been in power for 10 years. The 12 December election was not the start of year zero. They have spent 10 years systematically and consciously levelling down the country. For example, one of the Government’s fiscal rules identified 3% of GDP as an appropriate level of public sector net investment, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to look back at the last 10 years, the Government have underspent on infrastructure—far less than 3% of GDP—every single year. That was alluded to by Conservative Members.

The gap between what the Government spent and the 3% level over 10 years in office is £192 billion. That is the size of the hole the Government have spent 10 years digging, and if you were to sift through the hype, Madam Deputy Speaker, and note the fact that the Government’s headline figures on infrastructure double-count existing spending—one estimate has put the Government’s new capital spending at £143 billion, excluding depreciation—you would see that what the Government announced last week would not even fill the big hole they dug in the first place. Now, they appear to want to be congratulated on a pathetic attempt to rebuild what they spent 10 years destroying and dismantling.

The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the UK has a very low level of Government capital stock at about 46% of GDP. That is three quarters of the advanced economy average of 63%, so the Government are levelling up from a very low base—a low base of their own creation.

Another problem with the Government’s levelling up agenda is that there is a series of one-off announcements without any coherent plan. For a start, the Government postponed their national infrastructure strategy. Again, they have cut skills funding in recent years. By the end of the last decade, spending on apprenticeships and work-based learning had fallen by a quarter since 2009-10 in real terms. That is according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The Budget was disappointing in relation to climate action. The environmental justice commission set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research said that £33 billion of green investment was needed a year to get to the Government’s weak target of net zero emissions by 2050. But there is £27 billion for road building, although nothing for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. We have heard excuses over the years that they inherited a poor economy, but they have been in power for 10 years and the responsibility for the poor performance of our economy in the past 10 years lies squarely at the Government’s door. They did not believe that public investment could boost the economy. In a speech in 2009, George Osborne said that

“fiscal policy is more or less powerless to affect output”.

He was wrong about that. Let us consider the statement that a

“large planned increase in public investment should boost potential output”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 282.]

Who said those words? It was the Chancellor, when citing the Office for Budget Responsibility. Other countries took a different approach from us and did invest, and they have recovered more quickly. We have had the slowest recovery for a century in this country, and we have had the Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane describing a pay “disaster”.

On that point, let me deal with the issue of the so-called “jobs miracle”, so beloved of Conservative Members. What they fail to mention is that low pay, zero-hours contracts and insecure working conditions bankroll that act of God, meaning that 8 million people in working households are living in poverty. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s annual poverty report, seven in 10 children in poverty are now in a working family. I am not sure that God would like his name associated with that outcome.

The Office for National Statistics is reporting falling manufacturing output and zero growth in the three months to January because of “widespread weakness”—and that was before the outbreak of the coronavirus. The Government could have started in the Budget to invest in our public services, as well as our infrastructure, but they chose not to do so. As the IFS said last week, after this Budget spending on day-to-day services will still be well below what it was in 2010-11 per head—so much for levelling up. What we have is the Government putting off tackling areas in our economy where bold decisions are needed. The economic crisis facing the country as a result of the coronavirus simply proves their lack of foresight and planning. They have left our public services so depleted of capacity that many fear they will struggle to cope.

We have before us the so-called “Get it done” Chancellor, but he is more like the put-it-off Chancellor. He even put off his announcement today. What about social care—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He has put it off. What about the Green Book—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He is putting that off. What about the fiscal rules framework—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. What about the national investment plan—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. He cannot even decide when he is going to have a comprehensive spending review. In a footnote on page 30 of the Red Book, which I know all Conservative Members will have assiduously read, he says that he will

“keep the timing of the CSR under review”.

I hope you will bear with me here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In other words, he is even putting off the timing of the review of the review of the comprehensive review. So much for getting things done.

There is a great deal of not getting things done going on in No. 10 at the moment, contrary to the belief of the backslappers opposite. The word “review” is mentioned no fewer than 117 times in the Red Book, which has only 120 pages in it, including the blank ones. The Chancellor reminds me of the character in one of the less well-known Monty Python sketches: the self-satisfied president of the royal society for putting things on top of other things; we have a meaningless body of men gathered together for no good reason—that is the Cabinet. No wonder we have the lowest productivity levels of our G7 partners, and this is getting worse because the man in charge of getting things done is far too busy putting things off.

Let me give the Chancellor a word of advice. [Interruption.]

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Peter Dowd

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

This Government have guaranteed absolutely nothing whatsoever. Time after time, they hide behind the veil of negotiation.

Before addressing the Bill’s specific failures in meeting the Government’s objectives, I will raise the issue of the powers created by this Bill that enable Ministers to do whatever they want. The leave campaign’s central message, the one repeated time and again and printed across its campaign literature, was that leaving the European Union would allow the Parliaments and Assemblies of the UK to “take back control” of our law making. And yet again, every piece of legislation published by the Government relating to our exit creates more powers for Ministers, while ignoring Parliament completely. Parliament is in a persistent state of having its head patted—that is as much as Parliament is getting at the moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

Given where we are in the negotiations, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a Bill that allows either for no deal or for complete mirroring of the current arrangements and all possibilities in between is the best Bill we could possibly have?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Peter Dowd

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is completely right about that. If Conservative Members want to send me their manifestos on the NHS, I will be happy to look them through. As a matter fact, I might get even more votes if I put those manifestos through the doors in my constituency.

The Finance Bill does nothing to help to fund the NHS. It is as simple as that. By underfunding and overstretching the NHS, the Tories have pushed health services to the brink. The number of NHS beds has been cut by 10% since the Tories came into government; that issue has been raised. GP recruitment is at an all-time low, and more GPs are moving out of practice. Community pharmacy funding has been savagely cut back, in some instances by as much as 20%. As a result, as many as 3,000 pharmacies, in rural and urban communities alike, face closure. That is not the best record on the NHS; it is as simple as that.

[Sammy Wilson]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the difficulties that the NHS is facing. However, earlier in his speech he described borrowing as eye-wateringly high, so how does he propose to fill the gap in funding to increase standards in the NHS?

[Peter Dowd]

I referred earlier to the money—£70 billion, I believe—that the Government have given away to corporations. That would be a start, and I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for my proposal in the next Parliament.

We have seen £4.6 billion cut from the budget for social care, which is linked to, and on a continuum with, the NHS. The Chancellor has pledged to return only £2 billion over the next three years—£1 billion for the year 2017-18 and £500 million a year for the two following years—which is half what the King’s Fund has estimated that the social care sector needs not for next year, but today. That is another Conservative broken promise. Missed targets are pushing the NHS and social care into further crisis. The Government are behaving like an ostrich in that regard, and the situation is coming back to bite them.

I turn to small and medium-sized businesses, which contribute more to the British economy than they have ever done. SMEs are forecast to contribute £217 billion to the UK economy by 2020, but the Finance Bill does little to address the concerns of many business owners. The business rate system continues to be rigged in favour of giveaways for big corporations at the expense of SMEs. How can it be right for the business rates bills of a leading supermarket’s biggest stores to fall by £105 million, while independent shopkeepers struggle with a cliff-edge hike in their rates? That is a fact today. The system needs to be fairer and weighted more in favour of SMEs, which is why a Labour Government would bring in a package of reforms to ease the burden of business rates. Rising business rates and rising inflation are creating a perfect storm for SMEs. Small business inflation has risen to its highest point in eight years, with basic costs soaring by 3.2% last year. SMEs’ costs are predicted to go up by £6.8 billion by the end of this year. All that is happening while the Conservatives continue to look the other way in complete denial.

[Peter Dowd]

Of course I welcome that figure, but the hon. Lady has to ask herself whether businesses should have been put in that position in the first place. That is the fact of the matter. It is too little, too late. I accept the £20 million figure, which is fine. Small businesses need all the support that they can get, because we are talking about people’s jobs and about businesses that people have worked hard to grow and nurture, and there is a danger that they will go out of business as a result of Government policies.

[Sammy Wilson]

Given that larger stores weathered the recession much better than many small businesses, would the hon. Gentleman consider the policy that has been introduced in Northern Ireland whereby larger stores pay a 15% premium on their rates to finance some relief for smaller businesses in town centres?

[Peter Dowd]

If that suggestion came from the Government side, I would say that I would listen to the representations, and we would listen to any representations, so to speak, that would help small businesses.

Moving on to alcohol duty, the Finance Bill will only further undermine our local pubs, which are already under threat, with 29 pubs closing every week. While we welcome plans to make tax digital, the Government’s plan will shift huge administrative burdens on to small businesses and the self-employed, who are just trying to pay the taxes they owe—so much for the Conservatives being the party of small business. There is no reason businesses should have to submit quarterly digital tax returns, particularly when they lack the time, resources and capacity to convert records into digital standards on a frequent basis. All that comes when they are under stress from business rates. That is why we support the view of the Treasury Committee and of small business owners and the self-employed that it is better to exempt the smallest taxpayers from quarterly reporting and to phase in making tax digital to ensure that implementation is right for all, rather than the Conservative party wasting taxpayers’ money and time by correcting mistakes further down the line.

Making tax digital will also place new burdens on HMRC, which is already teetering on the edge after the constant slashing of its resources over the past few years. Thousands of hard-working staff have already been dismissed, and taxpayers are waiting on the phone for hours, which costs far more than the cuts have saved. The closure of dozens of tax offices across the country is still to come, putting thousands of jobs at risk in my constituency alone. How will HMRC cope with the ever-increasing complexity of its responsibilities with just a skeleton staff? How will any of the “reduction in errors” expected from making tax digital actually come about? How will we ever close the tax gap when there are no tax inspectors left to help taxpayers get their returns right and when HMRC has been filched of the resources it needs to run a service? It is a total false economy.