Motorcycling: Government Support

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Can I start with a declaration of sorts? I am a biker. I am proud to ride with YesBikers for Scottish independence and, like almost every other speaker, I am very happy to support many of the campaigns run by the Motorcycle Action Group, which I particularly thank for its help preparing for today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on securing this debate, which is important and not just for those who ride bikes. I agree with much that has been said on parking, theft, safety, dedicated spending on motorcycles and the condition of roads. The economic value of racing has also been mentioned—it is important and not spoken about often enough.

I do not want to concentrate too much on safety, but when I bring my motorbike to England and I see the removal of the hard shoulder on motorways in an attempt to create “smart” motorways, I do worry. If a motorcyclist breaks down—these things do happen—they are not given the protection of a car. The removal of the hard shoulder is something that will have to be very carefully monitored over the next few years in relation to injury and death when motorcyclists break down.

We are in the middle of a climate emergency. The stated policy of many Governments to move to net zero and cap the increase in the temperature of the planet is the right, indeed only, thing to do. Part of the solution will be to reduce carbon emissions from transport, which will include motorcycles. The determination to remove the need for new petrol and diesel vehicles from the 2030s onwards is the right course of action. Motorcycles already contribute significantly to reduced carbon emissions and improved air quality. Their contribution to tackling these issues will increase if innovation and engineering are supported to progress. A few electric motorbikes are available right now, but they are limited in number and actual range and are disproportionately expensive, and there is little or no second-hand market that would make them affordable for most people.

Given that motorcycles already contribute significantly to reduced carbon emissions, surely the Government should be supporting a modal shift from cars to motorcycles. The Leuven report alluded to by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) suggested that a 10% modal shift from cars to motorcycles reduces congestion for all road users by 40%, resulting in a 7.5% reduction in CO₂, a 5.5% reduction in nitrogen oxide, a reduction in exhaust particulate matter and a 16% reduction in non-exhaust particulate matter—mainly brakes and tires.

The recent Oxford Economics report commissioned by ACEM said that

“the average emission factor for a European motorcycle (up to 250cc) is 64g/km of CO2 emissions”.

That is equivalent to around one third the emissions of a car. Given that smaller motorcycles, including mopeds, account for 62% of the 22 million two-wheel vehicles on the whole of Europe’s roads, one can see the potential of even a modest modal shift from cars to motorcycles. Even larger bikes have a weighted CO₂ emission that is markedly lower than both petrol and diesel cars. As part of our carbon reduction strategy, even before the widespread introduction of electric bikes, the UK Government should be encouraging a move from cars to bikes. I ask the Minister, what precisely is being done to support that?

Turning to the support the Government should provide for safety, the Minister will know there is a great deal of commercial research into automated vehicles. It is shocking that it has taken five years to ensure that Euro NCAP testing of those systems will even test the ability to detect and react to motorcycles. More worryingly, one of the problems is that car sensors can fail to detect a motorcycle if it is barely a metre or so off-centre from the sensing vehicle. For the safety of bikers, and for road safety generally, I ask the Government never to introduce autonomous vehicles to roads here until we are certain that motorcycles can and will be detected.

On safety, pedal cyclists are rightly provided with segregated lanes and, as has been said, they are routinely allowed to use bus lanes. Yet there is no routine access for motorbikes to many bus lanes, which has always struck me as illogical. I ask the Government: what possible logic is there in not supporting bikers by allowing them access to bus lanes, particularly when pedal cyclists can routinely use them? If I can go further than what has been said, if we accept, as I believe we and the Government do, that a critical mass of pedal cyclists makes it safer for them because other road users, mainly car drivers, are used to seeing them and adjust their driving accordingly, surely to goodness the same applies for motorcyclists.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it also causes confusion when people move from one area where they can drive in bus lanes to another where they cannot? That confusion is unfair on motorcyclists.

Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

It certainly should in the sense that the sector is important not simply for Aberdeen or for Scotland, but for a supply chain throughout the UK. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) set out, in his question at Prime Minister’s questions, the potential damage should the sector continue to suffer. This Government—indeed, all Governments, but particularly these Ministers, because many of them are believers—should do several things: continue to protect people who want to enter the sector by making sure they are properly trained; continue to support the supply chain in the North sea basin; and, to internationalise, look again at supporting the industry as it cuts its own costs and of course at the overall fiscal framework, which is a substantial cost. Essentially, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said, the Government should look again at all the credits available, whether for exploration or production and whether for geographic areas or specific oil types, to maximise absolutely the longevity, employment and contribution to the economy of a sector that, as he rightly reminds the Government, has raked in more than £300 billion since oil started coming ashore.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman see any inconsistency, in the answer he has just given to his colleague, between looking for ways to increase the output of North sea oil and the Scottish National party’s aim of totally decarbonising energy production in Scotland?

[Stewart Hosie]

No. The decarbonisation of electricity production is sensible for many reasons, which may well include carbon capture and storage. On a number of occasions during the past five years, and very recently under this Government, we have seen the cancellation of a competition to develop an industrial-sized testbed to show the efficacy of a technology which would make us a world leader.

The Economy

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

I do agree. I thought it was telling that when the announcement in relation to onshore wind farms was made in this place to remove any support for those that had not passed every single hurdle, Tory Back Benchers were on their feet making the first attack on the solar sector as well. I agree with the hon. Lady entirely.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the contradiction, however, between some of the comments made by his own party colleagues last week when we were discussing the decline in the steel industry and the high energy prices and his support for renewables? Does he not accept that in Spain, for every one job created in the renewables industry, 2.2 jobs are lost in traditional industries?

[Stewart Hosie]

I have heard that argument before. I am not sure about its efficacy and I am not going to comment on it. On the substantive point, however, there is absolutely no contradiction at all between a general attempt to decarbonise, which is the right thing to do, and a clear recognition of the costs of high energy-using industries that are of strategic importance. There is no contradiction there whatsoever.

There is one final point of failure in the UK Government’s mismanagement of the economy: last week’s announcement of HMRC closures. If the UK Government are serious about clamping down on avoidance, evasion, fraud and even error, if they are serious about reducing the £16.5 billion tax gap from small and medium-sized enterprises, if they are serious about reducing the £14 billion tax gap from income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax, and if they are serious about maximising tax yield for investment, then closing 137 HMRC offices, including almost every single one in Scotland, is a catastrophic mistake.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

I am almost at a loss for words at the suggestion that anyone could imagine that the world will hold its breath waiting on a Liberal Democrat pamphlet! [Interruption.] I do not want to digress, Mr Hoyle, but that is a mind-boggling proposition.

The confusion in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was far from saying that new clause 5 does not make sense; rather, it confirmed why the new clause was necessary. There are so many flaws, omissions and potential avoidance mechanisms in the Liberal Democrats’ proposals—and we had all assumed that they were worked up to some extent when they went into this miserable Government—that it makes perfect sense for the Treasury to investigate them with all their flaws to determine whether they, or another version of them, are even workable. If the hon. Member for Nottingham East chooses to press new clause 5 to a vote, we will be happy to support it.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the common themes that has emerged on the Opposition Benches throughout the debates on the Budget is that the Government can and should do something to stimulate the economy by means of additional capital spending. One way of doing that—and one way of rapidly stimulating the construction industry—is to build houses; and, of course, many other social benefits arise from house building.

The Government have chosen a particular path towards the stimulation of house building, and I am not sure whether they have chosen it simply in order to avoid the registration of additional borrowing as part of Government debt. The means by which they have decided to stimulate the housing market—this is significant, because it is stated in the Red Book—will have no implications for central Government public sector net borrowing; it will have an impact only on the central Government net cash requirement. It seems that the Government may be engaging in the contortions described by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in order to avoid certain Treasury accounting arrangements, rather than considering what policy will prove effective.

That is the first thing that we should consider. The second was alluded to by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). If the sole intention is to stimulate the housing market and the construction industry and it does not really matter who buys the houses or benefits from the policies, the Government ought to make that clear. Such a move would have various side effects, perhaps benefiting people who, in the opinion of many Members, do not need help with housing. If the policy is to provide a general stimulus across the board which is not relevant to the size of people’s incomes, to whether they are first-time or second-time buyers or to whether they are buying to let or buying to live in their houses, that should be made clear to us.

I do not think that the Government should be afraid of new clause 1. One of its two policy schemes, the guarantee scheme, does not involve any expenditure, because it will come into operation only if a house has to be sold at less than the price that was paid for it. There is evidence that such schemes work. In the Irish Republic, the National Asset Management Agency introduced its 80-20 scheme in an attempt to stimulate demand for some of the properties that it had taken over, and I hope that it will introduce the scheme in Northern Ireland as well. It owns property there, and is currently putting it on the market. There is evidence that the guarantee enabled people to secure loans that would not normally have been available to them, because the lenders had been relieved of some of the risk.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) asked whether such schemes would apply throughout the United Kingdom and in all the devolved Administrations. He mentioned the potential for distortion in the housing market, suggesting that people might move from one country in the UK to another in order to take advantage of them. I understand that the guarantee scheme will apply throughout the United Kingdom.

The second scheme involves equity loans. I do not think that the Government should be worried about scrutiny of its likely effectiveness. For some time, Northern Ireland has operated a co-ownership scheme which enables people to rent half a property and buy the other half. We were able to negotiate that with the banks because all the risk was being taken by Co-ownership Housing and the public purse, which would be responsible for the first 50% of any loss. The banks have actually dropped the requirement for a 20% deposit. The good thing is that there has been no cost to the public purse; it has simply been borne by the banks not requiring the deposit, because the risk has been taken out of the house purchase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the next point I want to make—

[Stewart Hosie]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, he is making a number of very serious points about the financial transaction part of housing support, but I hope he agrees that the one downside is that it does not allow that cash—such as it is—to be used for capital spending in any way apart from housing, and that it is being paid for by a real-terms cut in the Revenue departmental expenditure limit over the next two years.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—