Fisheries Bill

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Ian Paisley

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman represents his constituents in the way he wishes, and does so valiantly. He is of course entitled to do that and to have a different opinion on this matter, but we do have to leave the EU.

I want to address the issue of how the Irish Republic currently treats its neighbour, Northern Ireland. We have the voisinage agreement, which has not been raised today. It disgusts me that the Republic of Ireland keeps talking about not wanting a hard border in Northern Ireland and says that that would be a disgrace, yet has created what is effectively a hard border for County Down fishermen by breaking the voisinage agreement time and again. How is the Irish Republic going to treat Spanish fishermen when they are not allowed to fish in British seas after we leave the EU? How is it going to treat people from other member states? If it treats them in the way it has treated the people of Northern Ireland, those fishermen will feel a hard border within Europe also.

[Kate Hoey]

The Prime Minister talks about taking back control of our fishing, yet for the last two years, the Republic of Ireland has reneged on that agreement. We could have taken back at least that bit of control by saying, “Sorry, we’re not going to let your fishermen come into our area,” but the Government have not done so.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. We all know why the Republic of Ireland has decided to have this debate about the hard border: it has taken away from its having to address the important, hard questions that it should have been considering, such as what sort of trade relationship it should have with its biggest trading partner, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It did not want to address that matter; it wanted to hide behind the issue of the hard border to confuse things and camouflage the real, important issue.

I raise that matter because according to the European Union’s most recent report on fishing and agriculture, if the Republic of Ireland does not get a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, it will lose a staggering €5.5 billion from its agri-food and fishing industry. It has been reported that the study

“prepared for the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development lays bare the full potential impact of a hard Brexit and singles out the Ireland as one of the most badly hit member states.”

Yet what has that member state done? Has it tried to help in this? Has it tried to make the voisinage agreement work? No, it has done everything to penalise Ulster fishermen and Ulster farmers, and it should be ashamed of how it has behaved.

I hope that that sends the message to the Spanish and the French that that is how the Republic of Ireland is going to treat them, and about what sort of hard border it will have when it suits it. Little wonder that we have had so many problems with the Republic of Ireland over the past two years during this negotiating period.

The Fisheries Bill should lead to a revival of our coastal towns, as we have heard from across the Chamber today, and I hope that it really does. There is one way in which we could achieve that, and I appeal to the Secretary of State and the Minister to do this. During the transition period, will they use every effort possible, and every investment opportunity available, to invest in our coastal towns and put them in a state of preparedness by increasing their production ability and improving their harbours? I hope that we can do the same for Scotland as well. It is critical that we have harbours across our nation that are able to land the catches that will be available to us and that we have processing industries in place from Argyll and Bute in Scotland to Portavogie and Kilkeel. All those things should be put in place, and we can do that only during the transition period. If we are not ready then, we will not be ready when we leave the transition period. I hope that we actually do this.

There is a fear that the withdrawal agreement, the Fisheries Bill and the transition period, when they are taken together, all mean different things to different folk at different times. As the right hon. Member for Witham said, we need clarity in this debate. We have heard something of that today from the Secretary of State, but we need to hear more. We also need to ensure that all these things dovetail properly so that our fishermen receive the clarity of language and meaning that they are entitled to. We have already heard some discussion about whether article 6(2) actually means what it says. Will it, for example, penalise our fishermen if a backstop is brought into place? I believe that it will, although the Minister assures me that it will not. We need more certainty on that point. If the Secretary of State were a lawyer, he would not be recommending article 6(2) to a client, and if it will penalise our fishermen, we should not be accepting it for one of our key industries in Northern Ireland.

The Bill fails to account for crew shortages. The immigration White Paper is not yet ready, and we will be able to make sense of this matter only when we get that White Paper. I hope that we will hear words today that will address that issue and that we will know sooner rather than later what the immigration White Paper will say about addressing the key matter of crew shortages. In addition, Northern Ireland demands fairness in how it is treated in the sharing out of quotas between Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. It is essential that we get that fairness; otherwise, it could be catastrophic for how we behave internally as a nation.

I also regret that the Bill does not refer to an advisory council to help with management. Such bodies have proved most beneficial in Norway and Australia. There is also the key issue of our Crown dependencies. The European Union is able to take fish freely from the seas around our Crown dependencies, and we need to ensure that we have some sort of an agreement with Crown dependencies such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Finally, I pay tribute to the Minister as he prepares for his penultimate or final December Fisheries Council meeting. I wish him all the very best as he wishes bon voyage to Europe.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Ian Paisley

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

I have been clear since the day that I came into this House that I wanted us to get out of the European Union, and I am just delighted that I have lived long enough to see it happen.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady has been totally consistent year after year in opposing EU encroachment on British laws. However, there has been not a chirp recently from some of the Members who supported amendment 7. They oppose European encroachment on our sovereignty, but they were very happy to raise some feigned hope about parliamentary sovereignty.

[Kate Hoey]

There is a lot in that.

Michelin Factory: Ballymena

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

That is a very helpful intervention because it allows me to put on the record that the first thing I raised with the employer when the announcement was brought to my attention was, “How are you going to look after the workers that have made you billions of pounds as an international company over the years?” I am pleased that Michelin put into its statement on 3 November a commitment that the support from the factory will include enhanced redundancy payments and a retraining package, as well as the deployment of what is called the Michelin development community fund. I have managed to help to secure an additional £5 million for my constituency, which will allow for the retraining of people and will help them to set up local businesses. That fund has been used over the years to create an additional 400 jobs that are not associated directly with Michelin. I hope that the deployment of that fund over the next 10 years will see job opportunities slowly created for these people, who would otherwise be told that they do not have a job.

It must be stressed that Michelin will make job offers to those who feel able to travel to Dundee or Stoke on the mainland, although those jobs will not be in the manufacturing of large truck tyres, which is what we have done in Ballymena. I imagine that very few people will do that, but at least those job offers will be made.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. If this was happening in any constituency on the mainland, it would be a huge story. Can he explain very simply why Michelin has decided to close the factory and move to two other parts of the United Kingdom, rather than to move out of the United Kingdom?

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend, who shares my passion for the North Antrim constituency, given her roots in County Antrim. She will have been contacted by friends and family who have been affected by the closure. I appreciate the support and encouragement she regularly gives me to continue to fight for the interests of my constituents.

Michelin has identified three key reasons why it has to close the factory, and they are sad reasons. As I have said, I am glad that the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise is here and that the Government see that there is something that they can do for us nationally. The Michelin statement put three key reasons into the public domain.

The first reason was as follows:

“The proposal to run down the truck tyre factory in Ballymena has been made in the light of the significant downturn in demand for truck tyres in Europe since the financial crisis of 2007”.

That is beyond the control of anyone on these Benches. It is a fact of life that there has been an economic downturn. For 20 years, the factory in Ballymena made truck tyres for the north American market. That market was taken from it through an internal decision by Michelin and those truck tyres have since been made elsewhere in the Michelin portfolio. After losing that market, Ballymena was solely making truck tyres for Europe. The downturn then hit us with a vengeance and we are reaping the consequences. The demand for truck tyres has decreased by more than 5 million tyres a year. That has had a catastrophic effect on the business.

The second reason Michelin put into the public domain was

“the huge influx of tyres made in Asia, which have doubled in the last few years, and increased competition.”

Most of those have been made in Korea. The workers in my constituency never feared competition or the need to be competitive. They believed in the quality of their product, which was of award standard. However, when a cheap tyre comes in during an economic downturn, it has a devastating effect on business.

The third reason was that the tyre building machines at Ballymena were not capable of making the new standard of tyres. An investment of at least £50 million was needed to reappoint the factory. The company had to decide whether to make that investment or cut off the Northern Ireland arm and move everything to the mainland. That goes to the heart of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim made. Energy costs are so astoundingly high in Northern Ireland that they forced the hand of the company when making that decision. I will come on to energy costs in a moment.

The Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that if this had happened in any other part of the United Kingdom, there would be huge interest. I welcome the fact that there are 16 Members in the Chamber for this debate. I salute every one of them for being interested enough to turn up. Usually when we come to the Adjournment debate, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), no other MP makes a contribution. I know that, at times, the Minister feels as if she is being stalked by the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to the fact that there is wide interest in this debate, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has visited my constituency, is also here.

Cross-border Crime

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

I am delighted by that, because I am going to reflect that point now and I thank the Minister for encouraging me to do so. The then Treasury Minister said that there was insufficient evidence that the process was a viable commercial option, which I think is the point the Minister has just made: “Yes, you can do this in a lab, but could you really do it in the field?” Well, the report that is now in the Library goes into this, under a section entitled, “Economics of distillation”:

“The capital cost of a distillation plant suitable for laundering out a marker from fuel is low. Cost for off the shelf plant can be as little as…£12k”.

For an initial outlay of £12,000 for a small plant, the criminals could make about £16,000 per day, after they have laundered the product, or 5.8 million quid a year—that is pretty economical in my books; that is pretty cost-effective. I will come to the in-field testing in a minute, so I hope the Minister will brace himself, because it gets even better.

The report goes on:

“Even taking into account the worst case scenario presented above, a 160kW distillation laundering plant would generate huge profits with a payback in just under a fortnight. If this process was refined with heat regeneration and vacuum distillation, it would be quite feasible to double the capacity of this system. A small 1MW industrial unit could operate 6 of these 160kW systems, generating clear profit of approximately £92,000 per day and a payback period of less than 2 weeks. Such a 960kW laundering facility would be capable of generating an annual profit of approximately £33.5 million.”

This is a feasible, cheap alternative for gangsters and criminals. This report, which is in the Library of the House, is by a credible group of scientists and, critically, presented in such a way that if it is wrong, the Dow Chemical Company could sue the pants of these people. But it won’t go near it—it won’t even address the points made.

I understand that in-field testing was carried out on four occasions. The one at Bellingham, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned, was not a small test; it was a test of 30,000 litres of fuel distilled successfully—it was just distilled off. Another test was carried out in Northern Ireland, and another test of a similarly large quantity, carried out by a scientist, Professor J. J. Leahy, in the Republic of Ireland, also proved that this material could be distilled off. Queen’s university also carried out a test, but sadly, after it reported privately to officials last year, the official response to the professor at Queen’s university was this: “You’d better tell us where that illegal plant you’ve just set up is, because we want to put it out of business.” I can take a joke, but I do not think that was a joke—it is almost like they were telling him for daring to undermine what officials were doing. It is hypocrisy.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

As well as congratulating the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the huge amount of personal commitment he has put into this issue. Will he explain why, despite the evidence that the Select Committee saw, the Government, officials and the authorities have been so singularly afraid to go down the route we suggested?

[Ian Paisley]

I think that deserves a more detailed answer than a brief response at this point, so I will come back to the matter. The hon. Lady, my friend, puts her finger on a very important and worrying point. This was a worrying trend that we watched with our own eyes when we tried to deal with this matter.

I asked the Minister earlier whether there was roadside capability in detecting this marker in our fuel, but he did not quite get the right end of the stick. I must deal with this critical issue. The head of the oils fraud section takes the lead in dealing with fuel laundering in Northern Ireland. He is an important official in the department. He gave evidence to our Select Committee in 2013, and he told us that the IMS tendering process for the new fuel marker was incredibly important. Although a specific roadside test was not specifically asked for, his view was—and he is the expert—that it was critical because it was the one measure through which the system could be policed.

One of the companies that tendered brought forward a roadside test capability—a kit that is the size of a laptop. If a drop of fuel was put on to a pad, the kit could detect within two and a half minutes where and when the fuel was bought—both the location and time. That is how sophisticated the marker was, and the roadside test could be done in two and half minutes.

The Dow marker has no roadside capability. In fact, after the April fools’ day legislation comes into place, let me explain what will happen. If an official stops a vehicle and takes a sample from it, he will have to send it away to the Government’s own plant. Three weeks later, the sample will be returned and the result on whether the Dow marker remains or has been removed will be provided. Why should we have to wait three weeks? Unless someone has a very efficient car, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) does, the fuel will be evaporated within days.

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

At the outset, let me thank all Members who have attended and contributed to the debate. My hon. Friends have agreed with most things, but there have been disagreements on some other issues. That, of course, is the mark of a healthy democracy. We appreciate the contributions of all Members to the debate.

On Friday this week, my constituent Bill Carson will lead 190 pensioners up the hill at Stormont into the Senate chamber for the second meeting of the Pensioners’ Parliament. It has been a very important Parliament meeting in Northern Ireland, which represents—across all constituencies and across the entire community—the feelings of pensioners and people in the aged sector who have issues to raise with the Government. They will debate the report published in June this year, which deals with all the matters that affect pensioners in Northern Ireland. It is a detailed report and lying behind it is a series of surveys carried out across all constituencies asking thousands of pensioners what issues affected them most and what key matters drove their lives today.

Consistently throughout this report, the pensioners came back to one thing, and one thing only—keeping warm this winter. Indeed, the response was significant. In the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency 83.6% of respondents said that the only thing and key thing they were worried about—their No. 1 priority—was keeping warm in winter and energy prices. In Belfast, it was the same: keeping warm in winter and energy prices were the main concern. In my own constituency of North Antrim, it was the same, as it was in Armagh, County Londonderry, County Tyrone and County Down. Right across Northern Ireland, the response was the same.

Nowhere is an island in political terms. The reality is that when a message is as consistent as that and comes back like a tsunami, a response must be made. This House has to face the gauntlet that has been thrown down. The Government must answer the question of what they are prepared to do when pensioners from all across the United Kingdom as well as Northern Ireland say that the issue affecting them most is the fact that they want to stay warm this winter. One of the easiest ways for the Government to help them to stay warm and assist them is through the winter fuel allowance.

As some people might say colloquially, “It’s a no brainer”—and it really is a no brainer. I hope that the Government are listening. We are not after argy-bargy with the Government—we can do argy-bargy with them and we have done it with them and other Governments in the past—because that is not what this issue is about. I believe that Members in all parts of the House care passionately about the needs of the elderly, so let us do something about that: let us address the issues simply and straightforwardly.

The average cost per household of heating oil and electricity in Northern Ireland this year will be £2,114. It is higher in Northern Ireland because more people there have to use heating oil. There is no way around that. All the other mechanisms—improving home efficiency, housing standards and so forth—are fine and dandy, and we will get there one day, but the fact remains that in rural areas 82% of people today rely on heating oil for their homes. The Government have a responsibility to address those people’s needs, and the winter fuel allowance provides them with the easiest, fairest and most consistent way of doing so.

It should be emphasised that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said in his opening speech, this is a life and death issue. We can skirt around it and play about with it, but actions have consequences, and the actions that will be taken by those on either side of the House tonight will have their own consequences. I put it to Members that if they support the motion to which my right hon. Friend spoke so ably, they will save lives. When we cut out all the baloney and party politics, the bottom line is simple: lives will be saved if we keep this allowance. Whose side are we on? Are we going to save lives, or is there the potential for our actions tonight, and the actions of others in this place, to lead to the loss of more elderly lives?

I want to see energy efficiency in our homes, but, as has been pointed out by John Hills of the interim fuel poverty review group, those on low incomes cannot afford the investment that is required to make their homes energy-efficient. Even when the other available benefits are marshalled, it will take some time for us to get energy-efficient homes. I do not want to get sidetracked into all the other poverty issues, but those on low incomes face a triple whammy: the cut in the payments that we are discussing, the hike in energy costs, and the need for their energy-inefficient homes to be heated. We must address the needs of our elderly people as a matter of urgency.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) suggested an extension in the gas grid in Northern Ireland as a possible solution. We should love to see that happen, but there is not sufficient footfall for it to happen quickly. The rurality of Northern Ireland makes it more difficult to achieve. We will get there, but it will take time. This measure addresses the problem now, deals with the position as it is, and allows us to make progress.

As we were told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North, £60 million of benefit is unclaimed, sometimes as a result of ignorance but sometimes as a result of stubborn pride, and whatever the Government are doing is not enough to encourage people to claim it. We have a solution which is already working, and which gives the Government an opportunity to continue to assist those who are in most need.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) was right to say that the Government would be judged not on the basis of what the previous Government had said and done, but on the basis of what they themselves would say and do. That is the bottom line for the Government tonight. What will they do about this issue? I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and explaining what the last Chancellor did, what he should have done and what he could have done, but it was convenient enough for him to say all that. What he should say is the right thing: that we—the Government and the House of Commons—will maintain the winter fuel allowance at the higher rate to help pensioners in a way that really works, putting money in their pockets and allowing them to fill their heating tanks, keep warm, and spend the rest of their money on food.

[Kate Hoey]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with many other Members, that if this is about a lack of money and about the economic situation—as the Government obviously feel that it is—we should simply say to the European Union, “We will not pay you this extra amount because we would much rather give it to our pensioners, our old people, than send it to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”?

[Ian Paisley]

When I look at some of the Members who are sitting in other parts of the House, I think that this is another issue on which we might unite the House. The hon. Lady is right: where there is a will, there is a way.

The Minister of State spoke of a baseline, which was all about money. Let me extend the musical metaphor and say, “Your baseline was flat, sir, and your ear was not in tune with the needs of the community.” If the House is to be relevant, it must be in tune with the needs of our elderly folk out there. It must ensure that their needs are not only properly addressed, but met. The Minister wanted bells and bouquets for what the Government are doing. I do not mean to be dramatic, but the fact is that the cuts they are proposing will bring wreaths, and the bell will toll for the most vulnerable members of society. It is clear that this cut will not deliver the assistance to pensioners that they claim their other policies and benefits will deliver.

I was disappointed when the Minister told us—a little disingenuously, I think—that he had been in contact with the Social Development Minister in Northern Ireland. I am sure that that is true, but I understand that the conversation took place a matter of days ago. The Minister has been in office for a year and a half, and ours is the coldest part of the United Kingdom. I am not a cynic, but I am tempted to suggest that the conversation with the Social Development Minister may have been prompted by today’s debate. I hope that if it was, the Minister of State will note what has been said, and will deliver for the House and the people.

I do not think that we should be sidetracked into discussing other possibilities, such as what could be achieved through gas pricing and energy efficiency measures. We should deal with the issue that is on the Order Paper, which is straightforward and simple: will the Government maintain the winter fuel allowance as the public expect them to, and will they keep the promises that were made at the last election? I believe that that is what is fair and right.