Leaving the EU: Funding for Northern Ireland

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I have mentioned the work of the east border region, of which South Down and its constituency council are part. Like other cross-border bodies, such as the Irish Central Border Area Network, those bodies bring people from north and south to work together effectively according to the issues that unite them rather than those that divide them. EU funding has been vital to that work.

I will make a little progress. I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who is sitting beside me, is anxious to intervene, but I will let him do so by and by. PEACE funding has helped support 6,000 victims and survivors through the Victims and Survivors Service. It has helped involve 350 schools in integrating education, meaning that 144,000 students and 2,100 teachers have participated in classrooms that mix children from nationalist and Unionist backgrounds. It helps fund work essential to building a truly shared society in Northern Ireland.

As an MP for a primarily rural constituency, I cannot fail to mention the £283 million a year that the EU has provided to our agricultural sector, which the Ulster Farmers Union has described as essential. Within Northern Ireland, EU rural development programmes have allocated €194 million to agri-environment-climate measures and €79 million to support areas facing natural constraints. All that has been put at risk by Brexit and those who supported it.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim)(DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady confirm for the House that she fully understands that all the largesse being spoken about—I welcome that investment in Northern Ireland—is UK taxpayer money anyway?

[Ms Ritchie]

I do not necessarily agree. Money is pooled. It is about the pooling of sovereignty and moneys in the European Union, so it involves money from other European Union countries. I caution Members that there is absolutely no guarantee that we will get equivalent funding from the Treasury post-2020. Unfortunately, the Chancellor’s assurance that all EU funding will be guaranteed during the Brexit process is of little reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland.

First, we must remember that that assurance is merely political and could be reversed with a simple press release from No. 10. Nor would it be the first financial promise broken in the wake of Brexit. We all remember those red buses that said “£350 million for the NHS”, which disappeared like snow off the ditches before the final votes were even tallied. The fundamental issue for Northern Ireland is that the promise to match EU funding is grounded in the premise that we can break away from our important trading partners without hurting our already fragile economy.

EU Referendum Rules

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Monday 5th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley]

I love it. The analogy is brilliant because for the past 40 years we have been walking in the wilderness of the EU and at last we see the promised land. We are getting there. We are not even four months in and I think that the promised land—the horizon—is more than there.

I agree with something that was said by an earlier contributor [Interruption.] No, I will not give way again because it is unfair on the remaining five speakers. It would be a real slap in the face if we did what some people want us to do—have the vote again. That would say to the people, “You voted, but damn you. We’re going to make you vote again until we get the right result.” People have mentioned urban elites, metropolitan elites and all the rest of it, and that approach would just be arrogant. We are here as servants of the people and, as servants, we must do what the people have asked us to do. We seldom trouble the people with referendums.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Paisley]

No, I will not give way again. I have said clearly that it would be unfair on the other five people who want to speak.

It would be unfair for us to trouble the people—to say, “Give us your view” and then, “Damn you. We’re going to ignore you.” That would be immoral and absolutely wrong.

Another point I agree with is that we must be careful what we ask for. If we say that there will be huge thresholds in the future, what if, at some time in the future—and we all know this would be madness—someone crazy decided to pursue the crazy notion that we should have a referendum on, say, Scotland leaving the Union? If the result was wrong because we decided that the wrong result emerged or if there were not enough votes for that wrong result and we said, “Let’s have it again until you give us the result we want”, I would feel insulted for the Scottish people as I feel insulted now when some people tell me, “You voted leave, but it is not the right result and we’ve got to have that vote again.” That is immoral, wrong and anti-democratic. It is about time we listened to the people and put in place what the people want even if some of us find it distasteful and if it is not what we want to do.

Turning briefly to the petition, I have been told by some who have emailed me—those keyboard warlords in my constituency—that I had better turn up to this debate, vote in a particular way and have a rerun of the referendum because thousands of them have signed the petition. Of course, I looked closely at the petition and I have heard some of the arguments, but only 2,479 people from my constituency signed or emailed that petition. Frankly, I get larger petitions for rural potholes in my constituency. That is not a joke.

I had a petition with thousands more signatories for caravan legislation in the previous Parliament. As parliamentarians, we must remember to avoid the view that we are ruled by the tap of a keyboard and that just because someone taps “send” on a keyboard, we had better crack to that and jump to that particular order. We take our judgment seriously and we are here, as Burke said, to give our judgment and to give of our industry. We are not here to be told, at the click of a keyboard, “That’s the way you should vote in the future.” We should all, as parliamentarians, take that responsibility very seriously indeed because that is our role and our job.

Tens of thousands of people who signed the petition did so fraudulently. I am not dismissing the millions who genuinely signed the petition, but 77,000 signatures have been wiped out. I looked through the petition today, and someone signed it from the Solomon Islands. Tens of thousands of people have signed it from France. Frankly, one of the reasons why we voted to leave the EU was because we want to take decisions about ourselves and about our own country without jumping to the will of people outside this country. We should therefore not allow ourselves to be bullied by petitions; we should do what the people have told us to do and implement the result properly.

Finally, I agree with the argument that the debate was not good enough and was flawed on all sides. I think we can all share that view. Many a time during the leave campaign when I tried to raise agricultural issues and the importance of ensuring that we have an agriculture deal post-Brexit, I was told, “Oh, no, this is not about that detail. This is about sovereignty. Get on to that. That is what you must talk about.” When I got on to sovereignty, the same people on the remain side were saying, “But what about the farmers? What will they do? What will they do for their single-farm payment?” That is the nature of the maelstrom we are in. In politics we have to make those arguments. It is upon us if we fail to make those arguments, but it is also upon the media at times for not allowing a proper debate on many of these issues. The media were not interested in pursuing the details of what we were saying. Our campaign produced a detailed 100-page document on many of the key issues about future trade negotiations, and it got a tiny line in the newspaper before the newspaper went off on something else altogether. If there is a future referendum on any other subject, the media bears some responsibility for a proper and full debate.

Of course, we now have the madness that says that any bad news is all because of Brexit and that any good news is because there has not been a Brexit yet. We cannot have that nonsense. We are moving to Brexit, and the faster we get there the better for clarity, for all our country and for all our people’s sake. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber introduced the motion, and he is a great lad from bonny Scotland. I get on very well with him, and he is my namesake, but this sort of thing sounds a bit like being a bad loser. We have to pull together and get the best deal for the entire United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I rise to support the amendment tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell).

Subsection 6(c) of the motion refers to

“the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown”.

This seriously undermines the principle of parliamentary democracy and throws into question the role of the Cabinet, the Executive and Parliament. In proposing this, the Government are seeking to subjugate the role of Parliament in making decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has said, this instrument has been used incredibly rarely, and we must ask why the Government have decided to use it on this occasion. What secret deals took place in the meeting between the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 6 November? Perhaps this is unsurprising, given the rushed nature of this process. If we cast our minds back to Wednesday of last week in the Northern Ireland Assembly, we remember that the legislative consent motion was discussed, and that the draft Bill—all of whose stages we will debate tonight—and the Order in Council were published during that debate. Members across the Assembly therefore had little time to consider those matters.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Lady explain why, when her party was given every opportunity to put the boot into Sinn Féin for its mishandling of these matters and its U-turn, it is turning on the Government and everyone else instead?

[Ms Ritchie]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a debate on the allocation of time motion. This action has been taken by the Government with the acquiescence of the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

Yes, they should cheer up. We should all cheer up.

I welcome the fact that Westminster is legislating on this matter. This is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and if the Assembly is incapable or dysfunctional, this place should threaten to take those powers from it—and it should take them. Thankfully, some people, having made threats, saw the light. In that regard, we have seen an important change in the political regime. For years, when Sinn Féin threatened, Sinn Féin got. Mr Blair was quick to bend over for their every wish because they made threats. So I must salute the Government, because when Sinn Féin threatened, Tough Theresa stood up to them. When they threatened, Tough Theresa said no, and I think we should salute her for it. That was no roll-over Unionism from the Government, and we welcome it. We welcome the change of regime and the fact that Sinn Féin cannot go on making threats or suggesting ominously that things could come to a sore and sad end if it does not get its way.

I welcome the fact that that is no longer the case under this regime, but let us look at some of the U-turns that have been performed in the last year and a half, because they are amazing. In an Assembly debate, Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First Minister, made the most derogatory comments about the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the Northern Ireland Minister at the time. He said that the Minister had entered into this debate

“in a very clumsy way”

and that he had

“ventured into areas of responsibility for the Assembly and the Executive—areas that he had no right to venture into.”

Last week, Mr McGuinness voted for this Minister to have a direct say in those affairs. He said one day, “You can’t go into that area,” and the next day he voted for this Minister to take these powers and make the decisions for him.

Mr McGuinness is well and truly on record as threatening Tough Theresa, going so far as to say on 5 September this year that

“Any move by the British government to impose…welfare”

reform on Northern Ireland

“would be a huge mistake”

that would seriously undermine devolution. Of course, it was Mr McGuinness—Mad Martin—who made the huge mistake of making a threat and then not being able to follow up on it.

[Ms Ritchie]

In the hon. Gentleman’s elaboration of his debating point, perhaps he could provide some elucidation of why Sinn Féin somersaulted. What happened in that meeting with the Prime Minister on 6 November to precipitate that somersault?

[Ian Paisley]

Here is what happened: an agreement was made—an agreement that the public can cast their eye on and then support or reject. Of course, the Assembly has already indicated that it will support it. We have had the mild approach by the hon. Lady, but she should be standing up to Sinn Féin tonight, poking them in the eye and telling them that they are the ones who have rolled over. She should be joining us and supporting us in this campaign. I welcome the fact that others have stood up to them.

Mr McGuinness also made very critical comments of what he called “millionaires’ row” in this House. He said that it was because of those millionaires that these terrible welfare reforms were being introduced. As it turns out, he has now asked the same millionaires to implement them because he could not do it.

I can understand why the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) and other Members in this House now look jealously at Northern Ireland. The welfare reform system, with its flexibilities, that we now have in place—and could have had over a year ago if we had been listened to then—is, to quote the Secretary of State, the most generous and best welfare reform system in the world. That is what she said last week. I welcome that fact, and I can understand why other Members are casting envious looks at Ulster at this time. I hope the flexibilities that have been introduced will demonstrate that we were correct to make the effort—both through our Department for Social Development at home and on these Benches—to secure them.

Those flexibilities should be reflected on briefly in this House. We have ensured, for example, that individuals on benefits in Northern Ireland will not be financially worse off as a result of the changes. We are ensuring that the moneys that Northern Ireland will spend will mean that a family on benefits will not be made worse off by the changes that are made—that they will be able to continue to budget on the sort of income that they have now. The frequency of universal payments that we will allow for will enable people to have payments made flexibly over a month, instead of just receiving a one-monthly payment. That is a very important change to help low-income families to manage their incomes wisely.

The split in universal credit will be flexible in Northern Ireland, so that people will not be penalised in the ways that, it is alleged in this House, mainland people in receipt of those payments could be penalised. We have also ensured the direct payment of universal credit to landlords, so that people can avoid getting into rent arrears. That is an important point to make. We have protection for those receiving housing benefit—my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) touched on those changes—and we have ensured that the sanctions for those on benefits will be changed. We will ensure that there will not be waste—that the right benefit goes to the right person at the right time—but that, for example, the strict sanctions with civil penalty provisions in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill will not apply and that the sanction period will be reduced to two years. For those who may face sanctions, it is important to make the point that a more forgiving system will be put in place.

Where both people in a home are on benefits and that home breaks up, we have also ensured that one claimant cannot spite the other claimant by stopping their benefit. There will also be good flexibility for joint claims in homes. There will be changes to the medical reports system in Northern Ireland—changes that I know are jealously looked at by Opposition Members from constituencies on mainland Britain. We have lone parent flexibility, which is not available to the same extent here, and there will be an extension of discretionary housing payments in the social sector.

Those measures and many, many more will help low-paid families in Northern Ireland and people on benefits. That is something that we strive to do because it is those families who have put us on these Benches and given us the privilege to speak for them. We are the voice for those voiceless people. We were prepared to speak up for them and make this welfare change, which was coming down the tracks, more palatable than it would have been otherwise. I am very proud of the stand that my party has taken to ensure that we made those changes and secured those flexibilities.

I welcome the point that the Minister of State made to us about how the Executive will be able to reclaim some of the financial penalties that Northern Ireland has already paid—and could be paying—and which the Treasury has already taken from the block grant. I look forward to the Minister calculating what they are and writing a nice big juicy cheque to give the money back to the Northern Ireland Executive at some time in the future.

As part of the “Fresh Start” agreement, a panel will be formed under one of the best known experts, Professor Eileen Evason, who will look at how the legislation is affecting people and will advise us on it. I do not think anyone who knows Eileen Evason or has followed her career could ever say that she is a patsy for anyone or will pull her punches. She will tell it as it is, and I believe people will listen, because her expertise far surpasses that of many people who deal with these issues in Northern Ireland. I think her advice and guidance will be most welcome.

The hon. Member for South Down made some calculations. It is important to put on record the facts about the amount of money that will be available. The Stormont Castle agreement made available an average of £90 million a year to mitigate the most harmful aspects of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The fresh start initiative will make available £345 million over a four-year period. That is a significant difference, and that money is for the exact same purpose. In addition, the “Fresh Start” agreement is making available a further £240 million over those four years to deal with the proposed reductions in tax credits. Obviously we await the Chancellor’s statement on Wednesday to see how that will be fully calculated.

This is good for Northern Ireland. It could have been an awful lot worse. We could all easily get depressed, with some Members saying, “We just don’t want anything to do with it,” but we have to be engaged in the art of what is possible and practicable, and that is what we are trying to do as constituency Members in this House.

Michelin Factory: Ballymena

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

Shorts Bombardier is a case apart because of its scale and the amount of money it has to invest. Michelin, a plc, invested in two huge wind turbines to reduce its energy costs, but although they saved the company between £100,000 and £150,000, that was nowhere near sufficient to cut its electricity costs.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on obtaining this debate on an important subject for his constituency. Can he confirm the nature of the meetings and lobbying that took place between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his Ministers on this subject?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady has read my mind. On 25 November 2013, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) visited the plant at my invitation. She met the plant owners and recognised the huge issue of electricity costs. The suggestion made at that meeting was that because Michelin has plants in Scotland and England, as well as Northern Ireland, a united front was needed from the Scottish Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Business Secretary to ensure that some special pricing code was put in place to assist the company. I put that point in writing to the company, saying that

“we should make a very direct approach at Cabinet level with the help of the Secretary of State and our own Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment along with other Michelin Plants in the United Kingdom for a special case for a high energy user like Michelin to have some sort of special status when it comes to the cost of energy use.”

I am glad to say there was a response from central Government: the Energy Intensive Industries initiative, which the Prime Minister introduced a short while ago. In an answer to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) in Prime Minister’s Question Time just last week, the Prime Minister indicated that EII is something companies such as Michelin should look at. I seized on EII some time ago. I wish the Prime Minister had not used that argument, because Michelin, by its structure, is actually excluded from benefiting from EII. EII is framed so narrowly that one of the single largest energy users is actually excluded from using it.

Michelin has explained to me in some detail that it would have to go away and re-establish itself as a company, and go through a lot of red tape, to have a chance of qualifying for EII. That would be quite difficult. I think the Minister would accept that the legal due diligence alone for a plc would be costly and put it out of remit.

Cross-border Crime

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a technical argument on this issue, displaying a lot of knowledge that is obviously garnered from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry. Is he aware of the level and number of prosecutions resulting from illegal fuel laundering? Is it documented on a year-on-year basis?

[Ian Paisley]

I understand that the level of prosecutions is woeful—zero. That is one of the driving forces that show why we need a marker that actually works, and it explains why some of us are so passionate about this issue. We know the type of villains and individuals who are carrying this out, and it would be valuable if we could get them behind bars or at least stop them in this particular aspect of their criminality. Yes, they will turn to something else, but at least we would have blocked off one section of activity for them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The prosecution level is woefully zero, and it will remain zero because of this defective marker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked why the Government would not support their own world-leading British science company whose fuel markers are the only recommended IMS-proven indelible markers. This is important. The final report on the IMS procedure, which was a tendering process between the Republic of Ireland revenue authorities and our own HMRC, provided two options. One was to implement the Dow marker—it listed what it was—and the other was to introduce two markers: the Dow marker and the British company’s marker, which would provide something with which to confuse the criminals. There would be a choice of markers, allowing consideration of which one went in one month and which one did not go in. That was one of the options provided, but that course of action was not chosen, but it could still be chosen today.

The Government could amend the April Fool’s day legislation. They could introduce another statutory instrument tomorrow, providing for a different marker, and I hope that they will. I hope that, following today’s debate, they will see how foolish they have been in following the line they have followed. Some of us never wanted this debate to take place. We wanted the Government to take action and solve the problem, but unfortunately we have been pushed to this point. I think it will be clear from the anger that has been expressed today by members of several parties that we are all rightly concerned about what is going on.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington asked why, given that the IMS had been a joint United Kingdom-Republic of Ireland process, an IMS for a single launderable dye marker had been awarded when the Government knew that they needed a minimum of two indelible markers. Why—this is another question that was asked today—was technology awarded to Dow when no roadside test was available?

Who has the contract for HMRC fuel marker testing, and did the testing company have anything to do with the evaluation and final recommendation group? That very important question goes to the heart of the IMS procedure. The allegation that something went awry between whoever was carrying out the evaluation of the tests and the company that was awarded the final contract is very serious, and deserves to be answered by Ministers.

We have seen the answers to those questions. We know what has gone on. I actually feel sorry for the Minister, because he has been dropped into this debate without having been properly briefed about what has gone on and how serious the position is.

In 2012, the HMRC director Mike Norgrove gave evidence to the Select Committee. He had been offered the chance to see the new marker being used in Brazil. Why did he turn down that opportunity? I believe that that question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann.

Why would the Government cover up a £1 billion fraud when a British scientific solution already exists?

One of the last questions that were asked was: the Government must be aware that the Dow Chemical Company was fined $1.1 billion in 2013 in a fraudulent bribery case, so why was the company allowed to continue to engage in the IMS tender process?

Opposition Members have asked important and pertinent questions that deserve to be answered. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked me why this was happening. I think that there has been a deliberate turning of a blind eye. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) put his finger on it when he said that a company had operated illegally in his constituency, and that it was based in South Armagh. I have the same problem in my constituency. North Antrim could not be any further from South Armagh, but we have a fuel station that changes its name regularly to avoid tax, and regularly sells illicit fuels to unsuspecting motorists. Sometimes it changes its name to “Taxco”, just for a laugh, to rub the officials’ noses in it. On other occasions, it changes its name to “Taxnoco”. It looks like “Texaco”. The name is spelt like that deliberately to embarrass officialdom, and nothing is ever done about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim spelt out loud and clear the problem of pollution that was associated with this crime—the leaking of waste into our lakes and river courses. With the new Dow marker, that will no longer be a problem, because it is now evaporating from our fuel. In the words of Alan Bennett, the hypocrisy will continue.

I think that we deserve answers to those questions, because we have waited long enough. We have pushed this issue for five years—we have pushed it in the Select Committee—and we have expected answers, but, to date, we have been let down.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

This is not the place to debate all of the Stormont House agreement, but given that we were instrumental in helping to achieve it, we will, of course, be pursuing every line, every jot and every tittle to ensure that we get the best deal for Northern Ireland in all of that arrangement.

Between 2013 and 2014 we had a record year of investment in Northern Ireland. Nearly 11,000 new jobs were promoted and 23 first-time investors were welcomed into Northern Ireland. If we can do that in one year in advance of the corporation tax Bill, what can we not do if we can now go out around the world and start to market Northern Ireland as the place with what I hope will be the lowest level of corporation tax on these islands? If we can do that, we really will have the opportunity to see Northern Ireland attracting even more companies. Our attracting 23 new, high-calibre investors in the past year, in the hard economic climate we have been coming out of, is a signal that things they are a-changing.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as part of lowering the level of corporation tax in Northern Ireland there is a need not only to rebalance the economy, but to ensure that a balanced regional development approach is taken to the location of foreign direct investment and other investment, to ensure that all citizens benefit from this lowering of corporation tax?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—it is key. This tax is not just about investment in Belfast, Londonderry or key cities; it is about investment in the whole of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister recently stated that he wanted to make the United Kingdom the “factory of Europe” and attract more jobs into the UK, and I hope he was speaking for every part of the UK. I hope he wanted to see those investments coming across not just to London and the south, but to all of the UK, because that is what we really need—we need more investment. I know that the hon. Lady wants to see investment in her constituency. My constituency is carrying what is going to be the single largest job loss in Northern Ireland in several years, with the closure of the JTI Gallaher factory in 2017. I want to see those jobs filled. I want to see opportunity created whereby more investment will be happening in my constituency and more factories will be brought there. If the current Government are returned, I hope that they will add meat to the bones of that call to turn the UK into the factory of Europe by bringing jobs, not only to the hon. Lady’s constituency, but to mine and, indeed, to all our constituencies. I hope we see a balance in the investment that is going to be made.

In an earlier intervention, the hon. Lady also called for a reduction in VAT, especially on our tourism trade, and I fully support that. Tourism is one of the key areas where we are trying to grow our economy and attract new business investment, with new hoteliers and new companies. If we can reduce VAT in that sector, we will see it grow. Again, we compete with the Republic of Ireland in that sector, but it has a lower tax rate and that damages us. We really need to try to make progress on that.

Mitochondrial Replacement (Public Safety)

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

Yes, you did. Check Hansard. You said, “You have inflicted this disease on people.”

The debate has got very personal—it has gone into that realm—and people are trying to felon set, to emotionally blackmail, to emotionally charge the debate and to say that people are, to quote another Member, scaring us into opposing this. We must be abundantly clear that such emotional blackmail should be removed from the debate. There should be an honest debate and we should be allowed to discuss the ethics and to put on the table our views, including our moral views.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the complete lack of evidence on the possible outcomes as these children grow up and have their own children, with females passing on their genetic code to children, means that the technique should not be proceeded with at this stage?

[Ian Paisley]

Some of the pre-clinical tests were completed only in June. It is impossible even to read the detail of them, yet we have a mad rush from some people to proceed. I am not standing in the way of that, but saying that we should do so on the basis of solid, sure and grounded evidence, not emotional blackmail and emotionally charged arguments. The evidence therefore becomes critical. We should be allowed to consider it and we should allow the evidence to emerge post-pre-clinical testing and examination.

There have been two public consultations and I heard one Member dismissing them, saying that all the letters were the same. I can tell the House this: if the letters had all been the same and the majority view had been the other way, the same Member would not have been saying that tonight. He would be saying, “Oh look, the public are with us. The consultation’s there.” The Department of Health consultation is against this proposal and so is the consultation by the HFEA. The ComRes polling moved dramatically between February and August from a wafer-thin majority of 35% of people in favour of the proposal to an overwhelming majority of 55% or so opposed to it. That is a huge landslide.

Honesty should return into the centre of the debate and we should have a full, frank discussion. Let me be clear about my position, as people will ask about the ethical position. I come from a moral stance. I share the psalmist’s view that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. We should stand in awe of that and praise the great creator for it, but that should not preclude us from having a proper debate. Other Members have mentioned colleagues or constituents who have had children brought in front of them and I, too, have a constituent who wheeled a little child in front of me. Her words ring in my ears today. Despite all the hurt, all the heartache and all the pressure, tears and anguish for that family, the words of the mother were very clear, “Ian, I would not change this for one moment.”

Northern Ireland Economy

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Thursday 1st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the rebalancing of the Northern Ireland economy here in Westminster today. The Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has already referred to the report on corporation tax in Northern Ireland and the Government’s response to it. The report, which was fairly far-reaching, set the course on which we should look again at our economy, to rebalance it between the public and private sectors. We fully accept that the public sector forms more than 70% of the Northern Ireland economy, but we also caution, from a party perspective, that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. We are dealing with the legacy of conflict, and we must take all those various issues into account.

It is important to give an overview of the economic situation in Northern Ireland. According to research produced by the Northern bank, the economy’s growth rate will struggle to reach 1.1% this year, compared with the UK average of 1.7%. The Northern bank’s survey, which lowered the chances of falling back into a deeper recession, warned that growth and recovery were still fragile in Northern Ireland.

Seasonally adjusted data for Northern Ireland estimated that 784,000 people aged between 16 and 24 are in employment. That figure has increased by 2.9% in the past year and is now higher than the pre-recession employment level, recorded three years ago.

The research indicates that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is below the UK average and the fourth lowest rate among the twelve UK regions. The seasonally adjusted Northern Ireland unemployment rate showed a quarterly increase of 0.1%. However, the Northern Ireland rate, which is around 7.3%, remained below the UK average and was the fourth lowest of all UK regions. It is interesting to note the high youth unemployment, with some 18% of people aged 18 to 24 not in work. Northern Ireland is experiencing a sevenfold increase in long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds since the recession.

The economic inactivity rate for all people aged 16 to 64 is 2.3% lower than the rate some five years ago, but it remains the highest of all UK regions. A higher proportion of economically inactive persons aged 16 to 64 identify sickness or disability as their main reason for not wanting or not being able to work. Northern Ireland is ranked fourth highest among UK regions in terms of self-employment rates from April to June 2011. The average for the UK was 13.6%.

Those figures characterise and set the scene for the economic situation in Northern Ireland. With that economic backcloth, it is important that we discuss today the need to rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland and that we do so here, notwithstanding the devolution of governmental powers to the north, because many economic levers that can deliver a step change in our local economy remain in the hands of the Treasury in London. For that reason, I am pleased to see the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury here to respond to the debate. He was involved with us in the early days of the corporation tax issue and came to Belfast around the end of last March to launch an important consultation document, for which there was cross-party support and subscription, for want of a better word.

Devolution has given us one significant economic lever: public expenditure, for which the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has ministerial responsibility in Northern Ireland; we have had certain tours de force at certain times in another place with him. We can now determine how to allocate within the block grant ourselves. We therefore have the capacity, even though we may not have properly used it yet, to target more resources at economic priorities.

Naturally, moving resources into priority areas, such as tourism and agri-food, which can yield the best returns for jobs and economic growth, comes at a cost to other areas. We have been cautious and perhaps even—dare I say?—unimaginative to date. I hope that that will change. That is why my party has produced a comprehensive plan, called “Partnership and Economic Recovery”, which sets out in considerable detail how we could target more economic stimulus at priority areas.

We were unique for a political party in Northern Ireland in that we identified where the extra money could be found without looking to the Exchequer. However, while preparing “Partnership and Economic Recovery”, we realised how many economic levers were still in the hands of Westminster. For example, despite being the only part of the UK with a land border with the eurozone, Northern Ireland’s Government are powerless to intervene in the numerous situations that place Northern Ireland at a unique economic disadvantage. One of them—the vastly differential corporation tax regimes north and south of the border, to the advantage of the south and the disadvantage of the north—has clearly caught the attention of London, for which we are grateful.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland deserves some credit for advancing our quest for corporation tax-varying powers—we realise that there are different views about that—albeit at a price. We hope that we are somewhere near a positive end of the journey. The Exchequer Secretary is well aware of the cross-party support for latitude on corporation tax. Perhaps he can provide us with an update on the ministerial working group on the issue and advise us whether he and his group, of which others here are also members, have reached any conclusions. If so, what might they be?

There is a strong belief that that one lever can bring about a significant step change in the growth of our private sector. However, corporation tax is only the tip of the iceberg, as is passenger duty and the differential application of the EU aggregates levy and its impact on our construction sector. I questioned the hon. Member for East Antrim in another place the other day on that issue, but perhaps the Exchequer Secretary will provide us with an update about the European Commission and where exactly those negotiations are at. That exemption is very important to our local industry and could act as an important stimulus to the construction industry.

We have no powers in Northern Ireland to depart from the overall UK position on all sorts of other matters that adversely affect our economy. We have long suffered the competitive disadvantage of a much more favourable agriculture and food regime south of the border, while we have been tied to a UK policy broadly hostile to the common agricultural policy. I hope that the eventual reform of the common agricultural policy will accommodate the needs of not only the local farming community in Northern Ireland, but the wider agri-food industry.

We have no power to vary indirect taxation or such things as excise duty on fuel, alcohol or tobacco. Excise duty anomalies alone have led to a wave of filling station closures in the north and the resurgent problem of cross-border smuggling. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has already referred to the forthcoming report on fuel smuggling. We look forward to that report. There is no doubt that fuel smuggling is a vexatious issue that needs to be redressed and resolved on behalf of the wider community in Northern Ireland.

We are also tied to UK rates of motor taxation, which is something that stops us from doing more to help ourselves. I have not even mentioned the differential economic impacts of a UK welfare reform programme that is designed around perceived norms in the south-east of England.

It would be right in the context of arriving at the right solution on corporation tax to look at all the areas where the rigidity of the overall UK position prevents Northern Ireland from helping itself in its own economic development. We are not afraid of further devolution or further devolution of tax-varying powers, but we acknowledge that that could have implications for the block grant. Other hon. Members present today have already referred to that. We would like to know the consequences, although we accept the point that the Office for Budget Responsibility will have an overall remit to undertake such calculations.

Of course rebalancing the economy goes beyond the vital task of growing the private sector. As the Chair of the Select Committee has already mentioned, we also need to right-size the public sector and make it perform better. For decades, public sector workers maintained normality in Northern Ireland, and we owe those unsung heroes a debt of enormous gratitude. However, with peace, there is an opportunity to redesign a public sector aligned to the precise services that citizens now need. We are prepared to be radical on public sector reform. The Northern Ireland Executive can do much more good for themselves, but they will need the co-operation of Westminster in that reforming endeavour.

In that context, I should like to pay tribute to the Environment Minister in the north—his work has already been referred to by the Chair of the Select Committee—because he has responsibility for planning and local government reform. He has blazed a trail in prioritising timely decisions for major planning applications. For example, the decision on the golf course announced last week, which was mentioned by the Chair of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), will have a significant economic and job creation impact.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Lady unite the House and call on the National Trust to support that magnificent project for Northern Ireland, because it will lead to more tourists in an area where it has an economic interest?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am in no doubt that the planning application just approved, which took some 10 years to come to fruition, will have an economic impact on that part of North Antrim. I encourage my colleague the Environment Minister, who sits in another place, to try, subject to challenges and difficulties, to make similar decisions. It is important that all organisations act in the public interest for the people of Northern Ireland, so that there can be a sea change in terms of stimulants and economic development. There is no doubt that planning is playing its part as an improved public service that facilitates investment and growth. The tourist board can also make a contribution, as can Tourism Ireland.

Rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy is a necessary and worthwhile endeavour, but it will require a collective effort by not only the devolved Administration, but London, too. We need to develop an economic agenda that will empower rather than alienate our work force. Some of us might have different views about the degree to which corporation tax should be lowered to attract foreign direct investment. No doubt, the Scottish agenda and the English regional agenda will play their part in bringing influences to bear upon on the Treasury.

Small indigenous businesses must be encouraged as well to provide opportunities for all. Perhaps the Government should consider the establishment of another working group with the Northern Ireland Executive to examine other areas where Northern Ireland could profitably be released from the UK system to further rebalance the economy.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the high priority that I attach to tourism development in the overall task of rebalancing our economy and stimulating job creation. Two out of our five signature tourism projects in Northern Ireland—the Mournes and St Patrick’s—are centred in my constituency. Our open invitation to come to Downpatrick and walk in the footsteps of St Patrick is particularly relevant to both Britain and north America. In fact, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), will do just that next Friday. We very much welcome his visitation on that occasion.

That is why we were right to press for relief on the air transport duty issue. I note that that will be subject to provisions in the Finance Bill. We acknowledge that there will be reference to transatlantic flights and the Continental Airlines flight between Belfast International and Newark, New Jersey. What about flights that deal with the domestic market between Belfast City and Belfast International to airports in Britain?

To return to my original point about tourism development, I have often said that St Patrick was probably our greatest ever import and has the potential to be our greatest ever export. Our unique heritage can even help to rebalance our economy. May I say in the month of St Patrick’s festival that our invitation—and my invitation to all hon. Members—to visit St Patrick’s country remains open to all?

In conclusion, we very much welcome our participation in the debate today about rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. We in the Social Democratic and Labour party want to play our part, along with the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, to help to rebalance the economy. It is vital that we provide the necessary stimulus, seek to rebalance the economy and provide hope and expectation for this generation and future generations in Northern Ireland.

Fuel Duty (Northern Ireland)

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I am pleased to have secured this important debate and I look forward to contributing under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am also pleased that the Minister is present, and I look forward to her response.

In the run-up to the Budget, it is more important than ever to bring into sharp focus the record high price of vehicle fuel, which has now reached a critical level. The increased cost of fuel, together with the correspondingly steep rise in inflation in the past year, has put individuals, families and businesses under increasing pressure. There is clearly an over-reliance on importing fossil fuels. Until that is cut, we will always be tethered to external forces. I note with great interest that the incoming Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change placed an emphasis on energy production that is clean and green. I welcome him to the role, especially if he follows through with that commitment. My own party is committed to a green new deal in Northern Ireland providing jobs, investment and energy security. However, I recognise that that is a long-term goal and we must tackle directly the problems facing consumers and businesses now.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and say that that is the one green deal that my party would support alongside her party. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, “The only green deal”, but it is a worthwhile point.

The hon. Lady will be aware that since we became Members of Parliament two years ago, the one issue we have debated most is fuel duty and the implications of its constantly rising cost. I am sure that, like me, she understands that the little piece of water between the mainland and Northern Ireland—those 17 miles—is the most expensive stretch of water in these islands, as it inflates prices of fuel disproportionately. For our rural constituencies, the smack is double, because rural areas suffer more. The luxury of car transport is a necessity to get kids to school, and people to work and into employment.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Will hon. Members please ensure that interventions are brief?

Coastguard Service

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is indeed correct.

The Northern Ireland coastguard service at Bangor provides a vital service to the fisheries and tourism sectors right from Lough Foyle to Carlingford lough. Axing such a service will put at risk not only livelihoods, but lives. The Government must not take for granted the courage of those who devote time to rescue efforts on our shores. Funding must be protected.

We must remember that the coastguard protects not only the coast, but, as the hon. Member for North Down has said, Lough Neagh, Lough Erne, inland fisheries and inland lakes. It also provides an inland mountain rescue service for the Mornes and the Sperrins, and it is the point of contact for all helicopter operations in Northern Ireland.

The current proposals will leave Northern Ireland without a full-time coastguard station. This front-line emergency service has saved countless lives since its establishment. In the past year alone, the Northern Ireland team has dealt with more than 700 incidents. For me, my constituents and all my colleagues in Northern Ireland, saving lives is paramount.

The document that has gone out to consultation proposes that the Belfast Lough station, which is based at Bangor, might become a part-time station or that it might close, in which case our nearest coastguard would be the part-time station in Liverpool. The nearest full-time station would be at Aberdeen, on the east coast of Scotland. Co-operation is certainly important. Our co-ordination with Scotland and the south of Ireland has been invaluable in saving lives in previous rescue missions. I support north-south co-operation.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Ms Ritchie]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. We do not want a long debate about co-operation.

[Ian Paisley]

What an opportune time to get an intervention. In 1989, I was involved in an attempt to rescue two drowning children off the coast of Northern Ireland. They had been holidaying there, but, unfortunately, one of them died. However, if it had not been for the co-ordination that the hon. Lady has mentioned, there would have been a double tragedy. It is essential that people recognise and get to grips with the fact that Northern Ireland will be naked to the ravages of the sea if we do not properly protect our coastguard.

[Ms Ritchie]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Co-ordination and co-operation are vital, particularly on the island of Ireland. Closing the coastguard station in Northern Ireland is foolhardy, because there is a need for both coastguard services on the island of Ireland to work together and to co-operate.

The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Sir Alan Massey, has indicated that the closures can be offset by the introduction of new technologies, such as Google Earth. Although I support the introduction of such measures, which can help to save lives, they must supplement, rather than replace, existing provisions. Nothing can replace local knowledge of the waterways or, in the case of Northern Ireland, the mountainous regions. That knowledge has been built up by generations of people living in the local communities.