United Kingdom Internal Market

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will. I cannot say that I am astonished; this is the important moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that all the statistics show that it is not true that 20% of the trade that goes through Northern Ireland goes to the Irish Republic? In fact, it is about 0.1% to 0.4%. Much of that trade, which will go through the red lane, consists of goods going into Northern Ireland, either to warehouses or to manufacturers in Northern Ireland. They might never go near the Irish Republic. They might stay in Northern Ireland, go back to GB, or go to the rest of the world, yet such products will still be subject to checks going into Northern Ireland.

[Mr Baker]

I would not accept that. I am not in a position to set out the statistics, and I do not doubt that the statistics need some work applied to them. It pains me to say this, as I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a great friend—he and I have walked a long way together on this and I have always regarded him as an ideological bedfellow, both on the Union and on Brexit—but as his group leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), said earlier, we voted for, and fervently supported, the protocol Bill. We said that we were willing to have a red lane in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of our friends and partners—and family members, as the Irish ambassador Martin Fraser said. This was always a family dispute, and we were always going to get through it.

Our friends in Ireland, and indeed in the EU, have legitimate interests, which we should have the humility to respect. Even if we had acted unilaterally as a single united Parliament, ridden roughshod over any international negotiation and just done what suited ourselves with the protocol Bill, we would have implemented the red lane. I am afraid that I will part company now with anyone who says otherwise. We would rightly have implemented the red lane, even acting unilaterally, out of respect for the legitimate interests of our friends and trading partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I am extremely short of time but, out of respect, I will give way.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister admit to the bottom line, as contained in proposed new section 13C(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, set out in the draft Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, which requires

“a statement to the effect that the Minister is unable to make such a statement”—

that is, that the Bill in question will not affect trade between Northern Ireland and GB—

“but His Majesty’s Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”?

The bottom line is: yes, divergence can happen and trade can be disrupted.

[Mr Baker]

I readily concede that there can be changes to retained EU law and that divergence can happen, but we have set out the safeguards at some length. I also encourage the right hon. Gentleman—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who made an excellent speech, said, and as indeed the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said—to look at the section of the Command Paper in relation to the Acts of Union. I myself learned a great deal about it.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

Committee of the whole House
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hour is late, so I will make just a couple of points about the budget. The first is that, of course, political parties in Northern Ireland have elected representatives. We have our own priorities. We have things that we want to see done, and things that we believe should not have money spent on them. Of course we would love to be in a situation where we had a restored Assembly, but I think that the new shadow Secretary of State—whom I congratulate on his appointment—hit the nail on the head when he said that Government had a responsibility to regain the trust of the parties of Northern Ireland, and this Government have singularly failed to do so. One only has to look at the way in which they have handled affairs since the Windsor framework was introduced. They took Members off Committees because they suddenly realised that the arguments being put forward for legislation were not even going to wear in their own party, so at the last minute we had half the Committee replaced. Over the summer period we have had regulations introduced without any chance of public scrutiny. That enabling legislation will have an impact on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Now we are heading towards the autumn, when the border operating model will see checks on goods coming from GB into Northern Ireland, as well as Northern Ireland manufacturers and producers finding themselves subject to checks when they try to sell into the GB market. The Government say that they want to restore trust and give us an assurance that we are part of the United Kingdom and a fully integral part of the United Kingdom market, but there is no evidence of that.

Quite honestly, no Government can expect Unionist representatives who have fought to maintain the Union to go back into Stormont to implement policies that will drive a further wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and where they will be obliged to accept EU legislation, which even the Windsor framework indicated would be the cause of divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

If the Government really want politicians in Northern Ireland to play a role in deciding budgets and how they are spent, they first of all have to accept that Unionists cannot and should not be expected to participate in the demise of the Union by having to sit in an Assembly that would be forced to implement the very policies that they believe are detrimental to the Union. It would be hypocritical for DUP Ministers and Unionist Ministers to sit in the Assembly and by law—because the courts have ruled on it—have to implement something that their colleagues could be standing here in this place condemning and saying was detrimental to the Union. There is an onus on the Government to recognise that the Windsor framework has not sorted out the issues and that it has made them worse. I think that October will show that it has made them worse, and if we want devolution restored, it has to be on the basis of—

[Mr Baker]

I am listening carefully, and I appreciate the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman is delivering his remarks, but I have stood here at least twice and said that we recognise that this is a hard compromise for Unionists and Eurosceptics. I think it has to be said that the European Union has its own stakeholders. Personally, I was among those who said for a long time that we could have administrative and technical solutions to deal with the issues of Northern Ireland. I worked on that before the referendum and subsequently I saw to it that papers were produced after I resigned from the Government in 2018.

This is a subject extremely close to my heart, but since the right hon. Gentleman raises it again, I would say to him and to all Unionists, of whatever strength of opinion, that one has to choose from the available futures. He knows that; he is a more experienced politician than me. One has to choose from the available futures. The EU has its own stakeholders. We have managed to reset the relationship with Ireland and with the European Union, and that offers the hope of a better future for all of us in western Europe.

On the budget, the surest way to harm the Union now is to allow Northern Ireland to fail, because people vote for change when the world is not working for them. When I look at the available futures for Northern Ireland, I see that the one that is going to work best and best preserve the Union is to get on and get Northern Ireland working. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is frustrated. I am frustrated, too, and I would like to have done better on the Windsor framework, but now we have to choose from the best of the available futures.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the kind of answer that worries me as a Unionist, and it should worry many people in the Minister’s party if they listen carefully.

The Minister seems to be taking the view that, because stakeholders in the European Union demand certain things, the Government should respond. This Government have an obligation, first of all, to the country they govern, and that obligation is to make sure the country is not broken up. That should be the main consideration, not what stakeholders in Europe think and not re-establishing relations with the European Union and the Government in Ireland, if that means breaking off and destroying relations with the people of part of the country to which we belong. If that is the approach, I do not think we will get very far. This surrender approach is not a compromise that Unionists can accept. The Minister may find it acceptable, but we do not find it acceptable.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I know this is a debate on the budget, so I will try to be very brief. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not need me to give him a lecture on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but Northern Ireland has had particular problems and a particular status that do not exist in my constituency or anywhere else in Great Britain. We have to face up to the reality of where we are. This Government believe in the Union, but we also respect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, and that includes devolution. I implore him to make the Union work.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, the important thing in the Belfast agreement was that the status of Northern Ireland is guaranteed, and that no change would be made to Northern Ireland’s status unless it is decided by the people in Northern Ireland. The people in Northern Ireland did not agree to this change of status, which makes it a vassal state of the European Union.

I do not want to labour the point—I understand that you are being very good in allowing me to emphasise this point, Madam Deputy Speaker—but if the Government wish to see Northern Ireland politicians make decisions on this, they have to respect that there is a Unionist tradition and a nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland. They cannot ignore the Unionist community’s concerns, worries, fears and opposition to the arrangements that are currently in place. Far, far worse, they cannot expect Unionists to co-operate in facilitating the implementation of those arrangements.

On the budget, the Minister has accepted that there is pressure on public services and spending in Northern Ireland. Nearly everyone who has spoken has said that it would be much better for politicians in Northern Ireland to make these decisions. The truth of the matter is that, even if the Assembly were up and running, it could not deliver the basic services that are expected in Northern Ireland and that are funded in the rest of the United Kingdom, because the Government have done two things.

First, since 1922—and the Fiscal Council has made this clear—expenditure on public services in the rest of the United Kingdom has been based on need, but the Government have ignored their own criteria and the basis on which they decide spending in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Holtham formula has not been applied in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Fiscal Council has estimated that, as a result of need not being considered, we probably have about £322 million less expenditure available than we would have had if we had been treated on the same basis as England, Scotland and Wales.

I do not believe the Assembly’s decisions have always been good, and I do not believe there has always been the wisest use of money, but the problem has not primarily been caused by the Assembly. The Government’s decision not to base this budget on need is causing some of the issues.

Let me give an example. Education spending has gone up by 6% in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it has fallen in Northern Ireland. The overall budget for Northern Ireland this year has fallen by 3.2% in real terms, whereas the budgets for the rest of the United Kingdom went up by 1.7% in real terms. That is partly a result of the fact that the formula used for the rest of the United Kingdom, which is based on need, has not been applied in Northern Ireland. Of course, the situation has been exacerbated by the Government’s decision to claw back the overspend by the Assembly in the last year in which it was sitting, which amounts to about £287 million. So the pressure on public services, which the Minister has lamented, is partly caused by the decisions that have been made here; they will affect the amount of money we have to spend in Northern Ireland.

I could go through the consequences for each Department, but I am not going to do so at this time of the evening. However, in education we have a real-terms cut, and in policing we are already about 1,000 officers below what the New Decade, New Approach and the Patten arrangements said we should have. That situation is going to get worse. Of course, we also now face the expenditure that is going to be necessary because of the problems in schools and the massive expenditure that will result from the data breach in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. So far, no clear indication has been given that the payment for those things will come from anything other than this overstretched budget. It would be useful for the Minister to indicate to us at the end of the debate whether the money that has to be spent on making schools good as a result of the problems with the concrete that was used, and the massive spending that there will be on fines from the Information Commissioner, the relocation of officers and the mitigation measures that have to be taken to protect officers, will still come from the overstretched budget or whether there will be an in-year consequence for that. Alternatively, will it be treated simply the same as the Barnett consequentials? Will the future Barnett consequentials be treated and ignored?

I hope that the Minister fully understands our position. We are not being truculent. We are not piqued because we have not got our way. We are simply making it clear that the ask that is being made, on the political compromises on the Union and on the financial difficulties that this budget would cause, makes it impossible for the Assembly to be up and running again.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading
Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

There is no question of admitting any kind of fallacy. What I was saying with the quote the hon. Gentleman referred to was really a reflection of the DUP’s position. In a sense, I am grateful for his party’s clarity about what it requires to go back into government. From my engagement with its voters in Northern Ireland, I think they know that a price is being paid by not having the Executive up. It would be churlish of me not to admit that those voters—it was a small section—wanted to pay that price, but others will be devastated by the consequences of not having the Executive up. It is only fair that I, as a Government Minister, reflect the full spectrum of opinion, and people in Northern Ireland very much want the Executive back and dealing with the issues before it.

As for a magic wand, I would be the first to admit that government is difficult, whoever is in power. All these decisions are difficult—they are difficult decisions in difficult times—and there is no question of a magic wand. However, everyone in this House is aware of the devolution settlement, and I am sure everyone here would want Northern Ireland Ministers to be taking decisions in an accountable way locally. However, there’s no question of a magic wand, and I would be the first to be realistic about the conditions the hon. Gentleman and his party have set out for going back into the Assembly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I will give to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but then I will try to make a bit of progress on the principles.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am glad the Minister accepts that there is no magic wand, but does he also accept that, given the nature of the Executive, which is a mandatory coalition, we have had a Sinn Féin Finance Minister, and no Sinn Féin Finance Minister has, I think, ever succeeded in presenting a Budget that other parties could support? That is one reason why we face the deficit that we have at the moment. Indeed, the restoration of the Executive would make things difficult, given that some Ministers do not even attempt to reflect the spending wishes of the other parties in the Executive.

[Mr Baker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some legitimate points. The particular point about mandatory coalition is of course an important part of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement strand 1, which we completely respect. We are open to hearing suggestions for institutional reform that will deliver more stable government. Members on the Opposition Benches will know the difficulties in reforming the institutions. The Government are clear that any conversation would need to be led by the political parties of Northern Ireland and would need, in the end, to enjoy cross-community consent to be viable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not want to get into history, but I would point out that in the first year I was Finance Minister, we had a 5% cut in the Budget in the middle of the financial year as a result of decisions made here, and we agreed a Budget. Furthermore, we agreed a Budget not just for one year but for three years, so it is possible for the Assembly to make decisions. All I am saying is that, in its current form and with the current party holding the Department of Finance, that has not been possible. The point I am trying to make is that rather than lay the blame at the feet of the DUP for not operating an Executive—in which its views were excluded anyway—we should lay the blame for this situation at the feet of those who could not make an operable Budget even when the Executive was functioning.

Moving on to my second point, the Minister has made great play today of the fact that Northern Ireland gets treated more generously than the rest of the United Kingdom. I accept that, but so do Scotland and Wales. One of the important things about being part of the Union is that there are fiscal transfers from those parts of the country that have geographical, economic and infrastructure advantages that other parts do not have. I do not believe that it shows a begging-bowl mentality when people in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—or indeed the north of England—say, “Look, there are parts of the country that are richer, but one of the benefits of being part of the Union is that those parts help the areas that are in difficulty.” Indeed, the Government’s own philosophy at the moment is what? To level up, and to accept that there is a responsibility to transfer resources to those areas that, for whatever reason, face disadvantages.

I would point out to the Minister that the increase in the money we have had to receive is partly due to the protocol, which his Government signed up to. There is nearly £500 million a year in the trader support scheme, as well as the resources behind the extra sanitary and phytosanitary checks—the people who have had to be employed, the computers that have had to be installed and the buildings that we now find are going to be built, but not as a result of a decision made by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, because of course there could not be agreement on that.

Ministers at Westminster have now taken over the power to deliver at least a £47 million investment in border posts within our own country. There are questions—not for today, but at some other stage—about who authorised civil servants to start the work on those before Ministers in Westminster took responsibility, even though it was controversial. The Minister has talked about the difficulty of civil servants taking decisions, but it seems that when they want to, they can even make controversial decisions—decisions that split the United Kingdom and put border posts between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Nothing can be more controversial than that, yet civil servants seem to have been able to take those decisions.

The Bill allows Departments to spend until the end of this financial year, and then into the middle—I think it is June—of the next financial year. That is not unusual. Indeed, if the Assembly had been functioning, that power would have to have been given to give the Departments the ability to spend that money on account until the Budget was finally agreed—it usually was agreed, but it was not agreed in some cases—in the Assembly in June of this year.

There are aspects of the Budget that are particularly difficult: one, which has already been mentioned in interventions, is the expenditure on education. Once education and health are taken out of the Northern Ireland Budget, we do not have a great deal left, because they account for over 60% of spending between them. However, education has been specifically targeted by Ministers to face a reduction, even though education spending in Northern Ireland is at the lowest level per head in all parts of the United Kingdom. The difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland, for example, is £1,200 per pupil. I know that these things are not always solved by money: although Scotland has the highest level of expenditure per head when it comes to education spending on pupils, its outcomes are actually falling, so let us not imagine that there is a direct correlation all the time between spending money and getting outcomes.

I am sure the Minister will make the point that that is why it is important for Government Departments to make decisions about performance, efficiencies, productivity and so on. Some of the decisions that the Assembly has made have not been helpful in that regard. The Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was passed just before the Assembly collapsed, gives preference to one particular sector of the education system. I think that Act is going to make it much more difficult to rationalise education and, therefore, to ensure that money is better spent. While I do not want to go into the detail of the Act today, that is what the other sectors of education believe as well—that it is going to make that whole process of efficiency and spending in education more difficult than it is at present. Again, that is an example of where just having a devolved Administration, which should know local needs, does not always ensure that the most efficient decisions will be made.

On health, leaving aside the money that is spent directly from Westminster—annually managed expenditure —we are now spending nearly 45% of the total Budget that the Executive has to spend on health, yet outcomes are falling and waiting lists are increasing. I get letters from constituents and angry letters from doctors all the time, saying, “We need to spend more on health. We are under- resourced; we are underfunded.” I do not know how much of the Budget we can continue to take out and give to one particular sector—there are other areas, as Members have mentioned, including policing, infrastructure, education, universities, training, agriculture and industrial promotion. All those things are in competition, and we cannot simply say, “Here is one part of the Budget that we will keep pouring money into.”

Of course, as I mentioned, some money could be released for the trader support service and the other expenditure around the protocol—nearly half a billion pounds every year. As the Government now accept, the reason why that money is spent is that the protocol is such a big disadvantage and a burden on business that they need to help those businesses overcome the bureaucracy, and the barriers and impediments to trade between GB—our biggest market—and Northern Ireland.

The other point I wish to make on the Budget this afternoon is that when it comes to looking at priorities, even in the absence of devolution Ministers could do more to look at where we need to spend the money and direct civil servants. Despite what the Minister has said, civil servants now have the power to have greater flexibility in how money is spent. I know it is difficult for them and that some of those decisions are political, but there have already been political decisions made about the priorities that the previous Executive and the Assembly wanted. Surely those things should be guides to civil servants in making decisions about how money could be more effectively spent. As I have said, they make some controversial decisions in relation to the protocol, so there is no reason why we should not have tweaking of the Budget.

The last point I wish to—

[Mr Steve Baker]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this a couple of times and I mean to come to it as I close the debate. We have to insist that it is Ministers who decide, and officials who advise. He will know that the protocol is the responsibility of the Foreign Office. I am highly confident that Foreign Office Ministers will have taken a decision and taken responsibility for it. Of course, it is not Northern Ireland civil servants who are responsible on the protocol, but the Foreign Office. I want us to respect the fact that the Foreign Office is taking this matter very seriously.

[Sammy Wilson]

The point I was making—the Minister knows this, because we have raised it here on a number of occasions—is that the responsibility did lie with the Northern Ireland Executive. The Foreign Office did not like the decisions that Democratic Unionist party Ministers in the Executive made on the protocol infrastructure and only recently have taken over the responsibility to implement that. Even before that happened, civil servants—I do not know whether they did this at the prompting of officials or Ministers in the Foreign Office—were already making decisions about clearing sites in my constituency to build border posts.

The last point I would—

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker]

Just let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not worry about it; we will talk about it over a cup of tea.

[Sammy Wilson]

I assure the Minister that I am not worried about it, just in case he thought I was. But he must ask why and how did this get changed? Who changed it? Who took the initiative to change the terms of the Bill we now have before us? I have to say that I stand by the points I have made, because I have made them time and again, and Unionists are frustrated with the Northern Ireland Office, whose default position seems to be that if Sinn Féin wants something, it has got to be given, for whatever reason.

What we can be sure of is that some of the changes have been made not at the behest of Unionists, not even in compliance with what was agreed during New Decade, New Approach, but because of the whisperings that something that could not be achieved in negotiations should be delivered in another way. That is why I take exception to this, and I am angry at the Minister, because he has had spelled out to him the dangers and the imbalances that lie in the Bill and the way in which it is going to promote not unity or harmony but further division—division that he himself is now accepting and that he might well have to referee and adjudicate on. That is why he has included powers in the Bill that were never originally intended.

[Mr Baker]

I will deal with the things that the right hon. Gentleman is raising when I come to my remarks, but I think it has to be said for the benefit of the Committee and the public that, just as he is accusing us of doing whatever Sinn Féin suggests, we are accused of pandering to the DUP by Sinn Féin. I think everybody should take stock and remember that, as was said earlier, this Bill is an attempt faithfully to implement New Decade, New Approach in good faith, and we are only doing it in this House because the Assembly is not up and running. When I get to my remarks, I hope that I will demonstrate to him the sincerity with which I have engaged with his and others’ passionate pleas on this point, and if he would leave just a little room in his rage for me to respond at the end, I would be grateful.

[Sammy Wilson]

I would be interested to hear how the Minister has pandered to the DUP on this Bill. We have highlighted that what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach is not in it and we have shown him where the imbalances are, and I would like to see where he believes he has balanced towards the point of view that we have expressed in this debate or in the discussions we had with him earlier.

Those are the introductory remarks I want to make. Let me come to some of the amendments and explain why they are necessary. We have asked for an amendment to clause 1, in amendment 27, to ensure that the views of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are taken into account by the commissioners. Why is that necessary? It is necessary for one particular reason: once commissioners are appointed, if there is no accountability and no restraint or rein on those commissioners, they will be able to do what they want without any political accountability. They could recommend and introduce measures that could have huge political consequences and cause massive political division, annoyance and costs. If they are not subject to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, there will be no restraint on them.

One thing the Minister can be absolutely sure of is that he is not going to get anyone applying for these posts who does not feel strongly about these issues. In fact, these posts are going to attract people who are zealots, who believe in what they are being asked to do and who want to promote what they are being asked to promote. If they are left unrestrained, he can be sure that they will be making recommendations, giving guidance and making demands that will cause difficulties to the people who have to adhere to them. And of course they will want to build their impact. That is why it is important that there is some accountability and some political restraint on them. For positions such as these, we cannot allow somebody to be appointed who has no curtailment upon them.

The second amendment I want to address is the one about the powers of the commissioner. It follows from the first amendment that I have spoken about, because not only are we going to have commissioners who will have no political accountability if we do not require them to act in response to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, but when they obtain those positions, there will be an unequal balance in their powers. The Irish language commissioner can issue guidance, look at best practice, listen to complaints about what people want and then make recommendations to which public bodies will have to show due regard. It is not that the public bodies should do so or might do so; they must do so. They must show due regard to the issues that come from the commissioner’s office. In the case of the Ulster Scots commissioner, there are no such powers. The Ulster Scots commissioner can issue guidance, to which public bodies may or may not show due regard. They might decide to act on it, or they might not. If they do not decide to act on it, people can complain. What will the commissioner do? The commissioner will write a report to say that they have not acted on it.

This becomes even more important when one asks who the chief offenders are when it comes to ignoring and abusing the likes of councils or public bodies and discriminating against the views of one side or the other. The leader of my party has already given examples. At Stormont, when we wanted to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee, we could not even plant a rose bush. When we wanted to commemorate the anniversary of Northern Ireland, we could not even put a stone in the ground. That was a result of a decision by a bigoted Sinn Féin Minister who had control of the grounds of Stormont and refused to give any recognition to what Unionists regarded as their heritage and their culture.

Let us contrast that with what happened when the Gaelic Athletic Association wanted to commemorate its 125th anniversary. I have great reservations about the GAA, especially given the fact that it names clubs after murderers. I was in the same position as Conor Murphy was when the GAA asked to plant a tree in the grounds of Stormont to commemorate its 125th anniversary. I did not agree with the GAA and I had many reservations about the way in which it behaved, but I accepted that it was part of the nationalist tradition and the nationalist sporting culture and without hesitation I gave it the permission to do so.

It is the same across Sinn Féin-dominated councils and nationalist-dominated councils in Northern Ireland—in some cases the SDLP went along with Sinn Féin rather than stand up against it—where money was refused to community groups to celebrate the Queen’s jubilee and the anniversary of Northern Ireland, statues were taken down, windows were removed and emblems were taken out of council chambers. What would the purpose of a commissioner have been in those circumstances, if they had been afforded the same powers as those being afforded to the Irish language commissioner? That commissioner would have had the ability to go to those councils and require them to recognise the Unionist culture and heritage and then require them to behave in a way that gave recognition to it. This Bill does not give the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition the power to do that, but it gives the Irish language commissioner the power to go to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council in my area, for example, and dictate that it must spend money on the Irish language even if that is not wanted by the council or by residents.

Motorcycling: Government Support

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Robertson, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on having secured it. As I listened to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), I was reminded of a magnificent film called “Why We Ride”, which I am sure people will be able to find on the internet. It is about the joy and fulfilment that comes from riding a motorcycle and riding it well—people want to ride their motorcycles well, because it is a question of risk management and responsibility as well as personal freedom. Of course, there are some people who do not ride their motorcycles well, and I lament that, but overall, we motorcyclists know that we have a responsibility and a duty to ride safely and well. It is a real joy to have listened to the hon. Gentleman speak about his passion for motorcycling.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire, I am a member of Motorcycle Action Group. In fact, I have just received their latest excellent edition of The Road magazine, and if it does not contain at least one letter from my father, I will be extremely surprised—it usually does. I am also a member of the British Motorcyclists Federation, but I think I might have let my Trail Riders Fellowship membership lapse since I sold my off-road motorcycle. However, my main bike is downstairs in the car park, and I commute daily, so I am a very keen motorcyclist, as generously highlighted by The Times today. I was shocked to discover that I am now so old that I have been riding for 34 years; it is very hard to credit. I love my bike. Scarcely anything is more important—perhaps family, friends, and so on, although I admit that only reluctantly. Bikes really matter to those of us who ride. I want to frame my remarks around three themes—the three themes of road safety—engineering, enforcement and education.

On engineering, I particularly welcomed the article The Road magazine about saying goodbye to wires, on the beginning of the end for wire rope barriers in Northern Ireland, and the hope that this would be extended to the whole of the UK. I implore the Minister to look at getting rid of wire rope barriers. As a motorcyclist, when I am out there, perhaps on a windy day, riding through the dales, and there is a wire rope barrier to my side, it is not a happy thought. We do have to accept that accidents happen, sometimes as a consequence of other people’s actions, so it is not a happy thing, as a motorcyclist, to see wire rope barriers. I very much hope that they might be removed.

On bus lanes, I really think that they should be open to motorcyclists everywhere. We do not take up much space and, were a motorcycle to need to stop in a bus lane, it could easily be out of the way of any emergency vehicle anywhere. It really is time to open bus lanes anywhere. I also think we should be realistic about filtering. Clearly, motorcyclists have a responsibility to filter safely and considerately, but there is a case for having sufficient lane width to make it possible for motorcyclists to filter at a sensible speed.

On enforcement, I am afraid that I will say something that I do not think motorcyclists will like very much: we really need to ensure that we enforce the law on noisy exhaust pipes, as it stands. I know that many of my fellow motorcyclists like a noisy engine, but it really is not fair on other people, and it does not do any good whatsoever for us motorcyclists when somebody—I will not call them names—goes through with their bike screaming. Barely anything else harms the reputation of motorcycling as much as someone with a noisy exhaust pipe. I would implore motorcyclists to, for goodness’ sake, fit legal pipes.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the hon. Member not accept that the growl of a Harley Davidson, especially going through a tunnel, is something to be experienced?

[Mr Baker]

Of course I will. I will not pretend to the right hon. Member that I have never taken the baffles out of my KTM, with its magnificent V-twin engine, but the point is that I put the baffles back in when I actually went out on the road. I would implore anyone to ensure that they keep the baffles in and keep lawful exhausts on their bikes, however much we might all enjoy that sound.

On that point, I will briefly turn to electric vehicles. On my YouTube channel, there is a test of an Agility Saietta electric motorcycle. It is an amazing bike to ride. In terms of performance and the ability to enjoy motorcycling, we have nothing to fear from electric-powered two wheelers. However, like—I suspect—the right hon. Member for East Antrim, I will really miss, in due course, the sound of petrol being burnt. I must say, that is why I keep an old KTM 950 Supermoto. In the future, when nobody really knows what petrol is, I will certainly seek to ensure that that is the last motorcycle I ever ride, although I do look forward to electric-powered two wheelers.

I also want to pay tribute to the police. Their BikeSafe courses are excellent, and I enjoyed mine enormously. Police officers are extremely pragmatic and sensible in how they train motorcyclists to ride better, and I hope the Minister will feel able to join me in paying tribute to the police, and in encouraging motorcyclists to take part in those courses. It is important, perhaps especially for those riders who do not ride all year round, that they take part in those courses and learn to ride well.

Finally, on education, we need to educate people that motorcycling is a good, responsible, safe, and indeed environmentally friendly way of getting about. Only a small modal shift to motorcycling has been shown to dramatically reduce congestion and therefore air quality, and so on. The more bikes there are on the road, the more that other road users are aware of bikes and adjust their behaviour to ensure that we avoid those SMIDSYs—“Sorry mate, I didn’t see you”.

We can drive up road safety, drive up air quality and drive down congestion through quite small modal shifts to motorcycles. I really implore my hon. Friend the Minister to adopt policies to do just that, because there is joy and fulfilment to be had in motorcycling and, more than that, there is the practice of personal responsibility and risk management—all wonderful, good things that we Conservatives should stand for. Therefore, I commend motorcycling to her.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I think the EU’s willingness to see us leave is increasing by the day as we go through this process. It is important that the House knows that key figures throughout the EU pay close attention to our newspaper headlines, so it is important and incumbent on us all to remain committed, in that spirit of buoyancy and hope, to carrying through the referendum result.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

We have been here before, because the same gloom-laden forecasts were made before the referendum and none of them was anywhere near the mark. Does the Minister agree that these long-term forecasts are as useful for predicting future economic performance as newspaper horoscopes? More importantly, will he assure us that despite the hysteria from the Opposition Benches, the Government will not be distracted from honouring their commitment to deliver the United Kingdom out of the single market and the customs union?

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman’s question reminds me of the great economist Galbraith who said, if I recall correctly, that the only purpose of economic forecasting was to make astrology look respectable. There is a great deal of truth in that.

Climate Change Act

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

All reason and self-critical analysis go out of the window when people address this subject. When I was the Environment Minister in Northern Ireland, I refused to use some of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s scary propaganda and adverts, and I was censured by the Assembly. When I pointed out to the mover of the censure motion that he had driven to the Assembly that morning in a 4x4 that did about 12 miles per gallon; that his mileage claim for the previous year would have taken him twice around the globe; and that his carbon footprint was enormous, he did not seem to see any irony in the fact that I did not believe what he believed about climate change and the man-made contribution to it, or in the fact that he was moving a motion against my position.

That is one of the problems. Even in today’s debate, we have exchanged the science, the figures and the graphs, but people still do not want to believe what they see before their eyes. I do not want to go into all the figures that have been given today, other than to say that, if the Minister talks about trends, is 150 years not a long enough trend? Yet the increase over 150 years is 0.8° C, even though masses of carbon has been put into the air. If we look at short-term trends—when the Climate Change Bill was passing through Parliament, we were told to look at the short term as well—over 10 years we have seen a 0.08° C increase, despite the fact that carbon emissions have gone up.

I do not want to get into the premise behind the issue; I want to get into the cost behind the policy. I started looking at the Treasury’s Budget 2013. The costs were never hidden; at least we were always told that there would be costs—£18 billion a year. Let us first look at the cost to industry. If we look through the Budget book, there are a number of costs. First, there is the carbon reduction commitment, which affects service and manufacturing industries. It costs more than £1 billion a year and rising. There is the carbon price floor, which wipes out—in fact, by more than double—the impact of the reduction in corporation tax this year. Over the life of this Parliament, it will take £4.4 billion away from industry. The climate change levy will cost £1.5 million this year. Put together, miscellaneous environmental levies will cost £6.7 billion this year, and that is only the cost to industry.

[Steve Baker]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with speaking about such figures in these hallowed halls is that we have forgotten that £1.5 million is quite a lot of money?

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes.

Let us put the cost in terms of jobs in the steel mills that have left Scunthorpe, the aluminium works that have left Anglesey and the brickworks and chemical factories that have closed down. The European Union has warned that there will be—I love this euphemism—carbon leakage. That leakage amounts to millions of jobs in the chemical, fertiliser and other industries. That is the cost that we have to consider when we look at the 2008 Act. There is uncertainty behind it, yet there are real pressures on our economy.

Energy Prices

Debate between Steve Baker and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am sure that all Members are here today for the same reason: our constituents are struggling with the excruciating price of fuel. I will explore three practical points that might help, if the Government will allow me. The first relates to supply and the other two to upward price distortions that I believe could be removed or alleviated.

Shale gas has been mentioned and I will not go over the same ground. It seems that we have vast, abundant and cheap sources of gas in this country. We should be going through a shale gas revolution. I was glad that the Secretary of State spoke relatively warmly of the resource earlier, but I noticed that he moved quickly on to carbon capture and storage. I would like to bring to the House’s attention an article in The Wall Street Journal today entitled, “EU Weighs Pullback on Cutting Emissions”, which has the subtitle, “Commission’s Energy Department Urges EU to Reconsider Energy Transition Absent a Broader Emissions Deal”. I hope that the Secretary of State will not crucify the British people upon a cross of carbon, because if we can have a shale gas revolution I certainly hope we will. The imperative to produce cheap energy is clear, and many Members have set out the case with great talent and passion.

[Sammy Wilson]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Secretary of State talked about the capital cost that carbon capture and storage would add to a power station that had to use it. He talked about a figure of £1 billion plus the running costs afterwards, which would add significantly to the costs of producing energy from gas.

[Steve Baker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It seems that these days we throw billions around casually, but those are enormous sums of money.

I turn, then, to more billions that are being thrown around. I have learned from Matthew Sinclair’s “Let Them Eat Carbon” that the EU emissions trading scheme is costing European consumers €15.5 billion a year and British consumers €2.2 billion a year. It seems to me that if we are truly concerned about what the poor and the strivers are paying for energy, we should look extremely carefully at such distortions to market prices. I note that because the carbon price collapsed under the EU ETS, we are now looking at a carbon floor price of £30 a tonne. Having tried to introduce a particular market-based mechanism and found that it does not work, we are now introducing a particular piece of price fixing. I am not at all convinced that that is a good idea.

Traditionally, Governments have interfered to pick winners, but it seems that at the moment they might be interfering to pick losers. I note that under feed-in tariffs, onshore wind receives £45 per megawatt-hour, whereas solar panels receive £400 per megawatt-hour. I am not sure those prices are a good use of taxpayers’ money, or of the system of feed-in tariffs, in the context of the shale gas resources that exist. I might go so far as to say that we seem to be entering some kind of Hegelian dialectic, in which on one hand we agonise over the price of energy and on the other hand we implement Government policies that seem deliberately to elevate energy prices, in the hope that some synthesis will emerge.