Covid-19: Hospitality Industry

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on her excellent speech introducing this important matter, which affects all our constituencies and our economy.

I think we are all looking forward to the unlocking of hospitality. Personally, I am looking forward to attending a three times postponed Van the Man concert at the Europa Hotel in Belfast in June, and then—the following weekend—attending the wedding of my best friend Stuart and his beloved Rachel; that’s me getting invited to it now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As many Members have already mentioned, the wedding industry has been under immense pressure and it is important that it is supported by the Government in a very practical way. The hospitality sector is a key economic driver across the entirety of the UK. Indeed, my constituency regularly attracts over 1 million out-of-state visitors to the Giant’s Causeway and the North Antrim coast annually. That is a significant driver for our economy. Hotels from Ballycastle to Ballymena, restaurants and all sorts of other facilities are a key part of that employment cycle, and they all need support. Hospitality is Northern Ireland’s fourth largest private sector employer. It has a £2 billion turnover and purchases a third of all Northern Ireland’s agrifood productivity, so it is essential in driving the cycle of our economy. Two thirds of our entire tourism spend comes from hospitality. In the past 12 months, 70 million drinks and 60 million meals have gone unserved as a result of the lockdown. Debts of over £1 million a day are stacking up; £1.4 billion is the loss so far—and counting—to the income of those businesses.

We need four things. First, we urgently need a fixed date for the opening of our sector. We do not have one at all in Northern Ireland, and that needs to be flagged up immediately. I understand that Scotland and England at least have a date. Secondly, we need flexibility on furlough. Thirdly, debt is a massive issue; the Government must back a loan scheme that allows for the consolidation of the debts accrued and a flexible payback system. Fourthly, local government needs flexibility over how it spends money. Tourism Northern Ireland actually handed back to Westminster £5 million in the last few months because we do not have the flexibility to reallocate that money to the areas for which the bid was originally made. The Secretary of State is prepared to put his nose into all sorts of matters in Northern Ireland. Put your nose into that matter, Minister, and fix that. Let us have the flexibility over those moneys and let us fix this sector.

Hospitality Industry: Government Support

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. You are a very hospitable person, but it is so cold in here—I have stood in warmer graveyards—that it is not so hospitable in terms of temperature. I hope that it will not be a political graveyard for anyone here, but it would founder ye, as we would say in Northern Ireland.

I wholly agree with the way in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) moved the motion. I think that everyone can say a hearty “Hear, hear” to what she put on the agenda. It was a comprehensive piece of work, and I agree that all the regions of the United Kingdom need to swing behind the point she made. She made sound, good points.

To put a little perspective on the case, in Northern Ireland there are 60,000 direct jobs in the hospitality sector. In other words, one in 20 people in Northern Ireland works in the sector. We are a small economy. Before covid, I had 1 million out-of-state visitors to my constituency—principally visiting the Giant’s Causeway, a world-renowned geological site. For a place with a population of 1.7 million, getting 1 million visitors dramatically changes the local economy. We have 45,000 jobs directly in food and drink. We contribute about £88 million to the Chancellor’s purse each year in direct taxation, and we contribute about £1.1 billion to our entire economic picture; that is, for an economy of £13 billion, a sizeable piece that the hospitality sector provides.

The impact of covid has therefore been staggering and massive, but we must look forward. In the last 52 weeks the hospitality sector has probably traded for only about 13 weeks, so it has not had the benefit of the VAT cut the Government gave it. That must be extended, and I hope that the Minister will relate that to the Chancellor. We need a kick-start plan to open up businesses—to help them to open up when they start back again, probably at some time in March. Loans under the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme need to be repaid, but it should be done softly, and they should be extended if possible.

I want to make an appeal in particular for the music sector, which entertains people when they come to Northern Ireland. I think of great singers such as Sir Van Morrison and others. He coined the words:

“We are not in this together.”

I hope that we get back to being in it together, and that we will be able to get benefit for our hospitality sector.

The Future of the High Street

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Ballymena in my constituency has for years traded under the strapline of the best shopping town in the country. I have the pleasure of sitting on the town centre committee with many retailers from the town centre, and I cannot help but be enthused by their undiminishable spirit and desire to make sure that, no matter what crisis is thrown at them, they will rise above it. They have demonstrated that throughout the crisis period faced by the retailers on our high streets. We have to salute them for that spirit of optimism and for keeping going on, no matter what.

Those retailers tell me very clearly, however, that there is a huge crisis; we have already heard from other Members about footfall being down considerably. I am told by 80% of the businesses in the town centre in my constituency that takings are down by over 70% during this period. Put simply, traders cannot afford to continue if that trend is allowed to continue. Our town centre has turned very quickly into a place where we have empty shop units, which look like missing teeth from a sad face. Whenever we see that, it shows there is a huge crisis in the town centre.

We also see the Government spending money on gimmicks. I drove up a street in Belfast the other day. Huge roadworks were going on, with a road sign saying, “New road layout in operation for social distancing traffic”. I kid you not. I have retailers in my constituency saying, “Spend the money, but spend it sensibly. Don’t put it into rubbish like that.” Let us see this money being invested properly in our high street.

There is absolutely no doubt that covid has had many unintended consequences. Unfortunately, it has, in many ways, turbo-charged the potential demise of the high street. People have moved on to the virtual high street and are spending their money there. We want to make sure that our high streets get back their café culture: that culture of being able to shop there, of allowing charities to collect money, and of being a real part of the community and having that social interaction.

I therefore ask the Minister to put in place a strategy, a plan that puts: banks behind the eight ball and makes them wish to help retailers; addresses the issue of rate relief long term; encourages and champions the development of our high street; promotes people living in our town centres, as has already been said; and sees their growth once again. We stood and said, “Let’s save the NHS.” Retailers want to hear the Government now saying, “Let’s save our high streets.”

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions not just here and now, but in the earlier stages of this Bill, which allowed for that important lock. The taxation Bill and this Bill work in lockstep as well, and I can confirm his interpretation. I will come on to that in a second regarding the statement earlier today.

After the transition period ends, Northern Ireland will and must remain fully integrated with the UK’s internal market. There should be nothing controversial about that. The protocol expressly recognises that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK’s customs territory and qualifying Northern Ireland goods will enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. We will never accept additional burdens or barriers on goods moving from Birmingham to London, and neither should we accept those on goods moving from Belfast to Liverpool. Moreover, clause 46 would codify in legislation the existing practice where state aid is notified to the European Commission by the Foreign Secretary via the UK mission in Brussels.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the commitment he has made about goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. Can he tell us whether the same assurance will be in place for all goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB?

[Paul Scully]

I can indeed.

Part 5 of the Bill contains vital provisions to ensure that this will always be the case, whatever the outcome of our negotiations within the EU. Since these clauses were originally introduced, the UK and EU have worked constructively together through the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee discussions, which continue to progress, and final decisions are expected in the coming days. I can confirm today that if the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK Government will be prepared to remove clause 44, concerning export declarations, from the Bill. The UK Government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

As I have said before in regard to these clauses, the changes that we set out in a statement earlier today work on the assumption that we have had success in the discussions and that we can solve this elsewhere. We hope that the “notwithstanding” clauses will never have to be used, and we understand the concerns that have been raised. Making regulations of this nature would not be done lightly. That is why, before this clause is commenced, this House, as we have discussed, will be asked specifically to approve a motion to that effect, and the other place will hold a take note debate. Any regulations made under this clause would be subject to the affirmative or made affirmative procedure, meaning that they will be subject to debates requiring a vote in both Houses.

Moreover, as the Prime Minister has made clear, in addition to taking these steps in domestic law, if we had to make it clear that we believed the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, we would seek an arbitration panel and consider safeguards under article 16 of the protocol in parallel. We must ensure that, in any scenario, we are upholding the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, maintaining the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and the gains of the peace process and protecting the delicate balance between communities in Northern Ireland.

These “notwithstanding” clauses are a limited and reasonable step that create a safety net to enable those aims to be met. They ensure that the UK Government can always act as necessary to protect and maintain our UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s integral place in it. That is entirely in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including in public commitments from the Prime Minister, our manifesto commitments and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the Government cannot agree with the Lords amendments, which would remove what was part 5, and why I urge hon. Members to disagree with the Lords amendments and restore the critical provisions in full.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this way. Does he welcome the comments made by the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr Coveney, who said that, essentially, all the commentary for the past three years on erecting borders on the island of Ireland was basically a game of bluff by the Irish Republic? Does he welcome the fact that it has now conceded that point?

[Paul Scully]

I have not heard those words, so I will not comment on them. There has been a lot of commentary, but what is important is the reality. Northern Irish businesses want the certainty offered by this Bill and the unfettered access to the GB market.

I emphasise that the Government has been reasonable, and will continue to be reasonable, in discussions on this Bill. We have made many positive changes to the Bill and they are on the table, but the Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that businesses want and need to invest and create jobs, to maintain high standards and choice for consumers while keeping prices down, to ensure that the Government can continue to continue to level up the whole of the United Kingdom and strengthen our precious Union, and, ultimately, to preserve the UK internal market that has been an engine of growth and prosperity for centuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I think there is a very legitimate anxiety, which I hope the Minister will reflect on. Again, it was expressed in the Lords. Yes, the Government were defeated in the Lords—all Governments get defeated in the Lords at some point—but we are talking about unprecedented margins, because of the depth and breadth of concern among their lordships about the Bill, including on devolution. In a sense, because the Bill went through so quickly here, there was less time for us to discuss the devolution issues, and the focus was more on international law, but there is deep concern about this.

It is the same on state aid. We support a UK-wide state aid regime, but once again there was no mechanism in the Bill to engage with the devolved nations on setting out this regime. Again, the best that can be said is that maybe the Government have blundered in; the worst would be that they simply do not believe in giving power away when it comes to it in practice; they believe in holding it here. We cannot overestimate the seriousness of this collection of devolution issues. I believe deeply in the United Kingdom; the way we uphold it is by upholding the settlements of the last 20 years, and recognising that commitment to shared governance, but that is not what this Bill does.

[Ian Paisley]

I make this point very genuinely. Fidelity to devolution is now being expressed from the Dispatch Box, but Members from Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly ask: where that was six, eight or 12 months ago? The Labour party was prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of abortion, and to impose laws on Northern Ireland that are there forever, even though the Northern Ireland Assembly has a completely different view from this House on those matters. This fidelity to devolution rings very hollow tonight in many houses in Northern Ireland.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other a long time, and if one looks at the record of Labour Members on the devolution settlement, and at everything that has happened over the past 20 years, I think we have absolutely shown fidelity to that devolution settlement in what we have done. [Interruption.] I will conclude because lots of Members wish to speak.

This not just a technical discussion about the Lords amendments; it is about a much deeper set of issues to do with what kind of country we want to be. We must be a country that is confident of our place in the world, and in working with others on the basis of shared democratic principles. We must be a country that stands up for the rule of law, and that recognises that we will be better governed if we share and devolve power, and do not hoard it at Westminster. The Bill achieves none of those things. Indeed, it undermines them. I am afraid that is a mark of cavalier government—cavalier with our international standing, cavalier with the law, and cavalier with the United Kingdom. Labour Members will fight for the values that our country needs, and I hope that as the Bill proceeds back—and, I suspect, forth—from the other place, the Government will listen and work with us in the national interest.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.

I must say at the outset that I agree with the thrust of the points made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) when he said that the Bill was a move in the right direction. I think that in Northern Ireland we can actually agree on that point. This is definitely the right step for the House to take. The Bill is about the internal market of the United Kingdom, so it is important to set the context of what that market means for a place like Northern Ireland.

It is vital that people understand the significance of the United Kingdom internal market for businesses, people and the employed across our beloved Province. Great Britain accounts for 52.7% of Northern Ireland’s external sales, so the majority of things we sell go to the rest of Great Britain. Northern Ireland’s food and drink sales—remember that food production is the single largest employer in Northern Ireland—to Great Britain are valued at over £2.3 billion to our entire local economy. It is the largest market in six out of 10 agri-food sub-sectors. It is absolutely essential that people understand that. Given that the vast majority of our people are involved in food and drink production, the fact that our largest market is our home market means that this market here is vital to understanding how our economy works. It does not look south. It does not look to the north. It looks to our neighbour, the biggest island in this archipelago of islands: it looks to Great Britain. It is essential for people to understand how significant this economy is for Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for business in Northern Ireland, free and unfettered access to Great Britain is absolutely vital for jobs, growth and prosperity, and that any obstacle would be critical for jobs and businesses in both his constituency and mine?

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes a vital point, one that I think is shared by Members across the House who recognise how vital GB is to the Northern Ireland economy, and to helping it grow and flourish.

Let me put more flesh on the bone on how vital the internal market is. We have had an increase in freight and vehicle traffic to and from Great Britain for nine consecutive years. Some 532,000 units move out of Belfast harbour to GB. That is absolutely critical to understanding how our economy works. I understand, Sir Graham, that you will want me to move on to our amendments and their effect, but when 65% of what Northern Ireland purchases is from GB, we get an idea of how big and important the GB economy is. That is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) makes. We make £13.3 billion worth of purchases from GB every year. Consider the size of the Northern Ireland economy, with 1.7 million people. We make almost £14 billion of purchases from GB—not from Europe, not from the south of Ireland, not from the United States of America, not from any other European non-EU country, but from GB. Getting this Bill on the internal market right is therefore vital to us. The amendments will ensure that our country either flourishes or fails.

I believe that Members of this House want to see a flourishing Union. We have different interpretations of what that Union is about, and I have to respect those different interpretations, but I believe that the Members from Northern Ireland plead earnestly to ensure we have a flourishing Union. The amendments that my party is bringing forward are about making sure that our Union flourishes and that the finances within it flourish. In terms of foreign and direct investment, after London, Northern Ireland is the single largest part of the United Kingdom that benefits from foreign and direct investment. Therefore, getting trade deals in place is equally important to us, but the Bill is the foundation stone.

Each of these amendments has an impact on the economy of Northern Ireland, and many would have a good impact, but some less so. We want to ensure that the power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures is implemented fully. We cannot have something that puts Northern Ireland at a disadvantage in terms of its trade and how it operates. In terms of clause 44, on the notification of state aid for the purposes of the Northern Ireland protocol, we want to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. We cannot have a situation where Northern Ireland’s opportunity to flourish from state aid rules from GB would be changed.

Let me give a specific example. The House has been debating for some time the issue of free ports, and there is an attempt to identify the best places for free ports across the whole United Kingdom. I would love some of those free ports to be in Northern Ireland, whether it is up in Londonderry at Foyle, in Belfast harbour, in Larne or in Warrenpoint. I would like to see those areas identified as potential free ports.

Under the protocol, our southern neighbour, who has different economic objectives—set aside its politics—from Northern Ireland, could object in the EU to Northern Ireland having a freeport and stop Northern Ireland having a freeport. Given that the UK Government appear to be looking at free ports as a way to drive the economy forward post Brexit, Northern Ireland could be completely disadvantaged because of the predatory financial interests of a country that wants to look after itself—namely, the south of Ireland, at the behest of the EU. That would be utterly disastrous. Whenever Ministers are considering these issues, I hope they will recognise that we welcome this Bill because it will prevent the attempt to tie Northern Ireland into a protocol and a withdrawal agreement that could damage financial and economic opportunities that would benefit all of us.

Some people put about the idea that this could damage the Belfast agreement. No matter what side we are on in terms of the Belfast agreement of 1998, at the end of the day, we should all be on the side of wanting to ensure that Northern Ireland’s economy flourishes, because it is through jobs and employment that people gain satisfaction and contentment. If we have contented people, we will not have people being dissatisfied, with community tension rising and problems flowing from that. Getting these economic aspects correct will ensure the peace that people cherish and therefore the principles of the Belfast or Good Friday agreement, which Members have enunciated their love for.

I have absolutely no doubt about the sincerity of those who have tabled amendments on how they want to see their part of the United Kingdom operate, but I hope that the Prime Minister is sincere in what he is bringing forward. I hope that Northern Ireland is not going to be used as a pawn in this, and I say that in all sincerity. The Government cannot afford to do that to the emotions of the people of my country. They cannot kick them up and down, turn the volume up and down and not expect a reaction. It is far too fraught with people’s concerns about their economic wellbeing to do that.

If the Government implement this Bill, I appeal to them to implement it with the sincerity with which we are reading through these clauses and agreeing with them. Do not use us as a pawn to extract some other general concession from the EU and then desert Northern Ireland. Once bitten, twice shy. If you fool me once, shame on you, but if you fool me twice, shame on me. There will be no shame on the Ulster Bench in this matter. We are warning the Government: treat us with sincerity, as we are entitled to be treated.

This problem protocol lies behind many of the amendments that have been tabled today. Some Members have objected to the protocol because it is perceived as discrimination against Wales and Scotland, disadvantaging those regions of the United Kingdom compared with Northern Ireland. I would say to my colleagues in the House from those parts of the United Kingdom, that the protocol actually damaged Northern Ireland, and fixing it now is the best way to move forward. We should stop and think about the idea that people can one day support the protocol as if it is the best thing ever, when for the last while we have heard objections to the protocol. The protocol is the problem and it needs to be adjusted and changed, and we need to address that.

The amendments do contain a running theme in that they seek to obtain consent for the devolved institutions, and Members have spoken at length about a perceived power grab. Those are issues that the Government must try to address cogently and they must try to reassure Members on that. It is very difficult for Northern Ireland Members to accept the arguments about making sure that the devolved institutions are entirely in step with all this, because the devolved institutions will never be in step with any of this for this reason: the devolved institution in Northern Ireland cannot make an opinion on this Bill because it cannot agree, it cannot find consensus. It is essentially gridlocked on this matter.

An amendment was drafted—it has not been selected —by the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) that would have required going back to an Executive that cannot agree or make an agreed statement on Brexit, the internal markets or any of those matters. I do not think we should push things to the gridlock in Northern Ireland. That is why we need legislation to come direct from Westminster and help us to make sure that we govern with the consensus of the whole House.

I was disappointed that the Member for Belfast South decided not to speak in this debate earlier and removed herself from the list. We understand the reason—the amendment was not selected—but I would have been interested to hear the points that the SDLP Members would make on why they would want to hand a veto to a deadlocked Executive or Assembly. The Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly need to focus collectively—I think they do focus individually—on businesses, and I hope that they will do that and ensure clarity on how businesses could operate under the Bill.

The one thing I hear every day from constituents—and I am sure it is the same for members of the SDLP, the Alliance party and my own party colleagues—is that they want clarity on how business should be done in Northern Ireland. Businesses from all across Northern Ireland have expressed concerns about the problem protocol and its lack of clarity. Indeed, some of those points have been well made in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, where we have sought answers from the Government on the clarity that is ultimately required. The report that we made to the Government showed where we need clarity. Will there be import declarations? Will there be entry summary declarations? Will there be safety and security certificates? Will there be export health certificates for everything? Will there be phytosanitary certificates and certificates of origin? If there are, who will pay for them? How will they be monitored—through a computer process, a desktop process? Will that be for every single good, or will it be for 2% of the goods that are currently moved? Please give us clarity on all of those matters, or do what the Bill suggests and remove the paperwork, remove the burdensome red tape, take it away altogether and let us trade.

I ask any Member representing an English constituency if they would tolerate having to fill in an export declaration form for goods that were moving from Yorkshire to London. They would not, so why should people and businesses in Northern Ireland have to tolerate filling in, or being threatened with having to fill in, declaration forms for that sort of movement of goods? It is not acceptable and will not be tolerated, and rightly so. The Government should address that.

I would also appeal to those people who have tried to be encouraged by what the US Congress have said about the Bill: that if the protocol is removed, they—the US Congress and the Speaker of the House—would do their best to block trade with the United Kingdom. Considering that the highest levels of foreign direct investment from the United States of America have come to Northern Ireland and benefit constituencies such as Foyle, the Belfast constituencies, my constituency and the Upper Bann constituency, who in their right mind would stand in this House and praise American politicians for trying to stop that trade?

Lifting the Lockdown: Workplace Safety

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for that comment. Clearly, the Government’s first priority in all of this is saving lives, but livelihoods and making sure that businesses and jobs are retained and that we can bounce back is very important. I will certainly take that away. I know that the Treasury has always been keen to look at each step of the situation to ensure that we can come up with economic support as well as the health support that we have been discussing in this urgent question.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

Welcome to North Antrim, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister tell us what guidelines he and the Government will put in place to assist necessary workers and passengers travelling on airlines from Northern Ireland to London? What assistance will he put in place for air operators that are taking and making necessary flights to ensure that there are the necessary guidelines and protections in place for those workers?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Part of giving people the confidence to return to work is giving them the confidence to be able to travel to and from various parts of the UK to work, which is why this process will also look at transport, at opening schools and at those kind of things when the health guidance is appropriate.

Post Office and Horizon Software

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on her effective and efficient introduction to the debate. All parts of the United Kingdom have been affected by this utterly disgraceful scandal. Postmasters up and down the country and across in Northern Ireland have been affected. Whether our constituencies are rural or have large towns, all hon. Members know how important central post office services are to our constituents. Post offices take on an even more significant role when banks withdraw from our constituencies, so the reputation of the people in the post office is so important.

My uncle was a postmaster in Dundonald. Although, thankfully, he was not caught up in this situation, he often talked about how the system caused many people in the post office to work under an atmosphere of fear in case it did not tally and was not right. They saw what was happening to colleagues of sound reputation and how their lives were being destroyed by what was going on. The injustice done to more than 500 postmasters is all the more duplicitous given how central post offices and the standing of the workers in them are to our community.

After the judgment was made in December, my constituent Mr Graham came to me to outline the problems that he has gone through. I will not recite the details, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) has eloquently put on record one specific example, and we have heard other examples of individuals.

I salute the fortitude of the campaigners. One can imagine people putting their heads down and saying, “Let’s just hope this goes away,” but they have stood up and fought, because they have suffered a personal injustice that means that they want the matter to be put right. Their reputations have been ruined and their family’s lives have been completely disrupted, yet they have faced the injustice.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office was given prosecution powers, which meant that the prosecutions it brought did not have to go through the Crown Prosecution Service for review, as normal prosecutions would? It abused those powers, as far as I am concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Member for Telford made it absolutely clear that the Post Office and the authorities should hang their heads in shame about how they acted.

Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked on a campaign with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It was a murder conviction of four individuals called Latimer, Allen, Bell and Hegan. I had to try to find fresh factors or new evidence that would overcome a very high standard to persuade the commission to send that case to the High Court for a retrial. I found that the statements had been wrongly written, which sufficed to get the case back to court. Ultimately, three of those murder convictions were overturned on that basis.

In this case, the Post Office admitted in court that it had got it wrong. A letter from the former Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), states that the Post Office had not only “got things wrong” but “apologised” for its actions to all the postmasters. A statement from the most senior lord justice says that what the Post Office has done

“amounts to the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat”,

and that the Post Office has completely ignored reality.

According to my reading of the Criminal Cases Review Commission process, those statements alone show that there are fresh factors on the table and new evidence that was not available before. Those cases should be expedited and brought to the courts without delay. There should be a fast-track process for those people so that they can get justice at last, have their day in court, have their reputations restored to them, have some semblance of normality and have the right to say, “We were not wrong. We have faced an injustice and it must now be put right.” The earlier that happens, the better, because the fresh factors and new evidence are there and should be raised.

As the Minister knows, there is a double injustice in this case. On the one hand, the postmasters thought that they had won through the mediation process and were handed a secret solution or compensation package. But on the other hand, when it was within a hand’s grasp, like Lady Macbeth, it disappeared in front of them when they went to take it. It was no longer there. It is an atrocious set of circumstances where the lawyers have been allowed to win and the postmasters have faced a double injustice and will not get their compensation.

Some people have said that it is up to the Government to pay, but I leave that to the Government. It is up to the Post Office to pay. The Post Office put that injustice on my constituent—on our constituents. Someone is responsible here. The Government could step in and hold the line until the matter is resolved, but ultimately the Post Office should be made to pay.

[Karl Turner]

The Government should force the Post Office to pay. When we have a situation where lie after lie after lie has been told by Post Office Ltd, it needs to be forced by the Government to cough up and sort this out.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Member and I are on the same page. This has got to be sorted out and a payment has got to be made. Ultimately, the right person and the right corporation have to be held responsible and accountable for their actions. If individuals have done even some of the things that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire recounted to the House on behalf of his constituent—my goodness! Four or five people in the basement of that room should be taken to court and held accountable for their actions. We need to face this issue honestly and openly.

I call on the Government to have some transparency. Let the public be the judge and jury. Let us set out with transparency the amount of money that was supposed to be paid, and who is getting what of that money. If it means shaming certain people for walking away with their pockets stuffed full because they represented a case—they are entitled to their payments, but postmasters get absolutely zilch in some circumstances—that should be exposed. I hope it is exposed. I call on the Minister to ensure that we have that transparency, because of what has now happened.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I call Duncan Baker. Mr Baker, thank you for notifying me of your interests. Will you repeat the information for the record?

Assisted Dying Law

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I should declare that my daughter is an end-of-life nurse at the Marie Curie hospice in Belfast and my wife is a volunteer fundraiser for that organisation.

We will each have experience of a friend or dear loved one facing the end of life. Each of us can recount circumstances, some of which will be peaceful, some less so, some shocking and some sudden. In the midst of life we are in death. We do not continue on here—this is not our permanent resting place—and that is a shock to some people. I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that we should have a national conversation, because people wish to exclude discussion about faith and non-faith in the midst of this. Palliative care should also be part of that discussion.

Ninety per cent. of us who walked into the building today probably did not realise that we walked under a portrait of Moses carrying the ten commandments. The top one says, “Thou shalt not kill”. We are debating at what point we shall kill. The House debates it many times. Should we kill in the womb? Should we kill at the end of life? When should we do it? We have to take those tough, critical decisions, and sometimes the House gets it wrong. We should not get it wrong on this occasion.

We should not set a position on when is the right time to kill someone who is sick. We should be asking the positive, strong question: how much palliative care and support can we give people at the greatest point of need? What question does the House face? It should be about what we do to give hope, not what we do to continue with the heartache. We parliamentarians should be prepared to offer hope to people, not to say, as others have said, “You’re now a burden. It’s time to shuffle off this mortal coil.” We should be giving hope to people.

We should also not be discouraging those involved in palliative care—the doctors and nurses who train so hard to give their all. My father, my brother-in-law and my father-in-law have been in these circumstances, and I have known the people who were around them, caring for them. To be able to work with and talk to those people afterwards gives us emotional support. Therefore, in that conversation—“What is life? Where does it end and when should it end?”—we need those people to take us through that journey and not to give up. We should not be giving up on life. We should not be asking Parliament to create a law that says, “Now is the time to tell people it’s time to get off.” We should be supporting people to the very end, giving them palliative care and putting the money and resources into making that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this important debate and on her excellent contribution, which eloquently summed up the issues on both sides of the argument.

When Parliament voted on this issue in 2015, I was a new MP and was invited to various debates on the subject. A local bishop invited me to a parish church to talk to the congregation about assisted dying. He knew I was in favour of it, as I still am today. We debated the issues and were asked questions about what we proposed. I was surprised, as was the bishop, that the vote at the end showed that 80% of the people there were in favour of assisted dying. There were only about 20 people present, so it is not a representative sample.

That concurs with the public view. According to the Dignity in Dying survey, 84% of the public are in favour of assisted dying. Therefore, it is perhaps surprising that in 2015 some 75% of parliamentarians were against it. We have to be careful when we are that far out of step with the general public, as we have seen before with the Brexit debate. I was one of 22 Members on the Conservative side of the fence who voted in favour of assisted dying, and I think the Minister also voted for it. It is great to see so many new Members speaking today and sitting in the Chamber. I have a feeling that may mean that the balance of opinion may have changed in recent months.

During the election campaign I lost my mother. Her final hours were difficult, particularly when she was having some fluid taken off her lungs. It was difficult for us as relatives and for other people on the ward, as she was on an open ward and she had to have a number of surgical treatments to clear the fluid off her lungs. It was very distressing. I simply do not see why someone should have to go through that in the final hours of their life. I contrast this to the way we treat family dogs, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said in his excellent speech. Our dog, Ben, was put down. He was perfectly healthy apart from a hip problem, but that meant we had to put him down. My wife, four children and I gathered around him as a family, and he had a very peaceful end to his life.

[Ian Paisley]

Would what the hon. Gentleman is describing take place if more resources were put into palliative care? If that happened, precedence would be given to the care, expectation, love and compassion that Members so desperately want to see, not just for themselves but for their loved ones and their families.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a good point. I am not against more resources for palliative care, but I am in favour of choice. I think people should have the choice. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is doing much work in this area, made a brilliant speech in the 2015 debate on assisted dying. In his phrase, we should have “the dominion over” our bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate on such an important and profound topic so early in the new Parliament, and on the sincerity and compassion of her speech, which I know everybody here will have listened to very carefully indeed.

Whatever one’s personal view on this issue, there is no question but that Members on both sides of the argument hold strong and powerful views, which we heard expressed today with great sincerity and compassion. I thank everybody who took part in the debate. I particularly thank the new Members, who spoke with such thoughtfulness and conviction, as well as the more experienced Members, who offered their views as well, which are equally important. The debate has been an example of Parliament at its best, as we weighed up these deep and profound questions—weighing up, on one side of the argument, the sanctity of life, against, on the other side, the principle of personal choice. Few topics are deeper or more profound than those.

It may be worth my laying out the legal background to the question before us, which has not really been touched on; it is probably worth reminding ourselves of the current legal landscape. The current law on assisted suicide in England and Wales is governed by section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, which gives a blanket criminalisation of the offence, including by “encouraging or assisting” suicide. There are no exemptions from that in statute. In Northern Ireland, there are similar statutory provisions. In Scotland, there is no statutory criminalisation of assisted suicide, but it is prosecuted as a culpable homicide, so the effect in Scottish law is, broadly speaking, the same. The law as it currently stands across all parts of the United Kingdom is that assisting or even encouraging somebody to commit suicide is a criminal offence.

The application of the law, and prosecutions for anyone suspected of assisting or encouraging suicide, is subject to prosecution policy—whether the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, or the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland, decide to prosecute. In making a prosecution decision, with this offence as with any other, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions apply two tests. One is an evidential test: is there evidence that the offence has been committed? Secondly, there is a public interest test: does it serve the public interest to pursue a prosecution?

[Ian Paisley]

Is it not the case that there are about 150 of those type of cases, but that only three are actually being prosecuted for the sinister motive that could lie behind some of them?

[Chris Philp]

I was about to come on to precisely the figures that the hon. Gentleman refers to. Before I do, it is worth reminding the House of the current prosecution policy. It was set out substantively in February 2010 and revised somewhat in 2014. Clause 43 of those Crown Prosecution Service guidelines sets out a number of conditions that will make it more likely that a prosecution serves the public interest.

However, clause 45 lays out six conditions that will make a prosecution less likely, including: first, that the person who has died reached a voluntary, clear and settled decision; secondly, that the accused was motivated by compassion; thirdly, that the nature of the assistance or encouragement was minor; fourthly, that the accused had tried to dissuade the person dying from pursuing that course of action; and fifthly, that the matter had been properly reported to the police. If those conditions are met, the Director of Public Prosecutions would be less likely to bring a prosecution—not completely unlikely, but less likely. The judgment as to whether a prosecution serves the public interest is an independent question for the Crown Prosecution Service, or the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), whom I thank for his balanced contribution. Like him and many other Members, I am unashamedly a friend of Israel. I believe in it biblically, but I also believe in it politically and socially.

I am pleased to be speaking today. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their significant contributions, which have been made with real sincerity and depth of interest.

Along with other hon. Members, I attended a holocaust event in the House just last week. I met a holocaust survivor there who was sent as a child to a farm on the Drumfad Road in Millisle in my Strangford constituency—she was one of the Kinder children. Many such stories have been told in this House, and it is always good to be reminded of them. She came from Czechoslovakia and is fortunate to be alive, and hers is a true story of what happened to her and how she was saved from death in the German camps.

When she told me about her experience, it had a personal impact. It is so sad that we are losing more and more people with personal stories, and there is a real fear that this will become just another page in a history book, as opposed to an horrific event that exemplifies the fact that evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

It is great to see streaming services such as Netflix providing documentaries like “The Devil Next Door”, showing the testimony of concentration camp victims, which is important in reaching new generations. I commend the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) because no one in this House was not moved by his personal contribution—not that anybody else’s contribution was not moving. There was silence in the House, which encapsulated how we all felt at that moment, as we heard the true story of his family, for which I thank him.

We must continue to ensure that the truth is told and that the ink does not fade on factual cases. We must make sure that history is not rewritten, as is the case with some of Northern Ireland’s troubles. The horrors faced in the holocaust are as important to this generation as they were in 1950.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will know that some 41,000 schoolchildren from across the United Kingdom have availed themselves of the informative “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme, which in the past three years has been extended to Northern Ireland, where hundreds of schoolchildren have been able to get involved. Does he agree it is essential that the new Northern Ireland Executive continue the programme so that future generations can learn about Auschwitz and about combating racism, hatred and antisemitism?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. With a reinvigorated and restored Northern Ireland Assembly, hopefully we can continue to see the benefit of such programmes right across Northern Ireland. Such programmes provide an understanding that men can be unbelievably and despicably evil. We can never forget that beneath a polished smile and a well-presented press release can be the heart of prejudice and hatred.

My son Luke and his friends went to Auschwitz last year on a weekend away. I was rather surprised—not that they should want to go there, but that, as young 24 and 25-year-olds, they felt they needed to do so. They came back with some incredible stories. The Royal British Legion of Ballywalter in my constituency also went, and grown men came back and unashamedly told me that they shed tears for what they had witnessed.

As we mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of those remaining in Auschwitz, I feel sickened and saddened by the images that are conjured. It is important that future generations understand this and feel as we do. The UN Secretary-General said after the “75 Years after Auschwitz” exhibit was unveiled:

“Understanding our history connects us to the essential human values of truth, respect, justice and compassion.”

We should be pleased to be involved in all those things.

Although it is right that we mark the horrors of the holocaust, we should not and cannot pretend that all is well in the world, because quite clearly it is not. Srebrenica, the Rohingya Muslim group in Burma and Rwanda are all examples of man’s inhumanity and brutality to man. This tells us that there are still evil people about who are intent on doing similar things.

The evil events we remember today started more than eight decades ago, but antisemitism is not called the “oldest hatred” for no reason, and neither has it been eradicated. Our Jewish brothers and sisters—we are all clearly referring to them as such, because we are in the Chamber today because although we may not be Jewish, we look upon them as our Jewish brothers and sisters—have been persecuted for millennia. Even in 2020, Britain, Europe and the world have witnessed rising levels of this sickness in society. We are reminded daily that antisemitism is alive and destructive not only across the world, but here in the United Kingdom. In this place, there have been accusations of antisemitism being brushed under the carpet, as opposed to being confronted and dealt with. Let us be clear: antisemitism was at the heart of the Nazi plan. If we, as political leaders in the constituencies we represent, are not brave enough to recognise and call out the cause and effect of the oldest hatred, we will not find a solution. Sadly, that is why I say that far too often in this place, far too many Members have stoked the flames of hatred by unfairly attacking Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.

Like the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, I stand here to support Israel and to be its friend, just as I did in a previous job in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have spoken in every one of these debates since I have been in the House. We also have to recall the Gaza border debate that took place in this House on 15 May 2018, when Member after Member stood up to denounce the state of Israel for killing innocent people. We found out a day later, of course, that 53 of the 62 killed at the Gaza border on 14 May were members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad—terrorists trying to breach the border fence to kill innocent Jewish people. We must keep in perspective the fact that hatred towards the Jewish people is clear. Nine innocent people were also killed, having been used as human shields and cannon fodder by the terrorists. Furthermore, those who denounced Israel on 15 May 2018 did nothing to alter the Hansard record of their contributions. No apologies were issued and there were no retractions; their comments stand in Hansard, despite the factual information that followed contradicting much of what was said. Such loss of life is devastating but, as in many cases in Northern Ireland, if people are killed in the midst of terrorism, they are not victims but perpetrators. I offer deep sympathies, even at this stage, to those who lost innocent loved ones at that dreadful time.

Hansard still contains the vitriol used that day, and we have to learn that careless words can cost lives and breed hatred, so there is an important responsibility on all of us. We are entitled to criticise when criticism is merited. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said that we can be a critical friend—so we can—but that is verbal criticism given in a decent way to bring about change. We should all be constructive, but we are not entitled to hold Israel to a different set of standards from those that we hold other nations to, including our own. There must also be opportunity to record an apology when we get something wrong.

Antisemitism is bred in many places, with the middle east being one of them. It is in our media—on TV and radio—every day. Antisemitism is a powder keg and inevitably, without peace, there will be many more times over the course of this Parliament when we will debate the issues. Let us not fall into the trap of encouraging division and hatred, and let us commit over this parliamentary term to listen to both sides of the debate. As the chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I feel it is so important that we speak up for those of a Christian faith, those of other faiths and those of no faith. I know that all Members subscribe to that same commitment. I believe that in this House we have a duty, on Holocaust Memorial Day, to do just that. We must pledge to listen to organisations such as the Israel-Britain Alliance, which sends briefings to MPs every month that offer a sober, honest and realistic assessment of the challenges faced by tiny Israel. Let us in this House commit to offer a commentary that takes the gun and the bullet, as well as assertions, institutional racism and bigotry, out of the dialogue. How better to remember the price paid by ignoring the signs and signals of antisemitism and to set a better example for people to follow so that there is never a repetition in this generation and in any other to come?

Holocaust Memorial Day

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The opening speech by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) in this important debate was powerful, moving and appropriate. He is not only a colleague in this place but a friend, and he really did set the tone for all the speeches that followed. This has been an important and beneficial debate, as I hope will be recognised by people outside viewing it.

I, too, believe that it is fitting that the UK have a national memorial here in the Borough of Westminster, and I hope it comes to fruition soon. I have had the privilege of visiting the national Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. This moving and poignant memorial gives immense hope in reminding us of the strength of character amidst the hellish loss that people suffered. I hope that our national memorial will be similarly powerful.

As we have heard, the Holocaust is to be commemorated all over the UK. I am pleased that this evening in Belfast’s city hall politicians and community leaders from Northern Ireland will come together to mark this moment. Northern Ireland is an exceptional community with a very strong connection to the Jewish community. To name just one, Chaim Herzog, the sixth President of Israel, was born in Belfast to the Chief Rabbi of Ireland. As many will know who follow Israeli politics, he played an amazing role. His son, who now works for the Jewish Agency for Israel, was a political leader in his own right, and recently his entire family came to Belfast and celebrated Chaim’s contribution to the state of Israel and his connection to our city. It was hugely inspiring. We love to see that connection brought alive.

In last year’s debate, I suggested that No. 10 honour the Holocaust Educational Trust’s young ambassadors by inviting them to a reception at No. 10. The Minister responded very positively on the day, and I am delighted this week to have received a letter from the Prime Minister that reads:

“A reception is absolutely one option we are considering, but we are also looking at other ways in which we can support the work in the coming months”.

Those young people will be inspired and encouraged by the fact that their work is marked by the Prime Minister of our nation. Those young ambassadors do an amazing job, and I encourage the Holocaust Educational Trust, led unwaveringly by Ms Pollock, to continue with the work that it is doing.

Northern Ireland was the last part of the kingdom to benefit from the Holocaust Educational Trust work, not because there was any lack on our part, but, sad to say, because of political disagreement. I am delighted that that was righted in 2016 when the two Government Departments came together, led by Ministers from my own party, and put in place the funding to allow for the trust’s “Lessons learned” programme to be extended to Northern Ireland. It is sad that some misguided people think that that is some sort of front for something else and do not recognise how significantly important it is to put that programme in place for our young people.

I am delighted that the Government are extending that programme to our universities. I note once again on the letter that I received from the Prime Minister that a further £6 million of continued funding will go into the “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme, which will be extended to university students. I would love it to be extended to Queen’s University and the University of Ulster. The first time that many young people in Northern Ireland come together in our divided community is, sad to say, when they get to university. I hope that the programme will be extended there to encourage our young people at university. We need that programme; I am encouraged by it and I welcome this debate.