Zero-emission Buses

Debate between Ian Paisley and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the introduction of UK-made zero-emission buses.

I thank the Backbench Committee for listing the debate. At the outset, I declare my membership of the all-parliamentary group for the bus and coach industry. The chairman of that group, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), should have moved the debate, but unfortunately, as he is the Chair of a Select Committee, his duties today find him elsewhere in the House. I want to put on the record his commitment and his desire to have been present on behalf of the group.

It is also important to put on the record that I have a major manufacturer of buses operating in my constituency. The UK is blessed with three major manufacturers—Alexander Dennis, Switch Mobility and Wrightbus—and each makes a significant contribution to the UK economy and to local employment around the entirety of the United Kingdom.

The debate is about the introduction of UK-made zero-emission buses. Why do I say “UK-made” and “zero-emission” buses? Across the whole United Kingdom, 40,000 buses are on the road; about 3,000 of those buses are zero-emission, so there is a huge opportunity. Government, obviously and rightly, want to get away from diesel-powered buses and on to zero-emission buses. That is a massive opportunity. That opportunity, however, is under threat.

In 2020, in a very important statement, the Government made a commitment to level up across the country with 4,000 “beautiful, British-built buses” that are

“cleaner, greener, quieter, safer and more frequent.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 712.]

What an ambition! It is an ambition that this House and the parties across this House got behind, and an ambition that I still hold to. I hope that we can deliver on it.

I am afraid, however, that the Department for Transport needs to look at how the policy is implemented, because I do not believe it is resulting in beautiful, British-built buses being purchased with the serious amounts of money that have been set aside for the zero-emission bus regional areas, or ZEBRA, zero-emission scheme. The original ambitions that drove the design of that policy to support UK bus manufacturers have been overlooked in the implementation and roll-out of the policy, resulting in many local authorities and transport authorities buying non-UK-made British buses.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. It is always good to support a colleague when they secure such an important debate. On the issue of UK-made buses—he has repeated “UK-made” several times, quite rightly—does he agree that that is all the more important now when we look at the challenge coming from China and the far east? More and more, a huge challenge is being made to the west and the UK. We have to meet that challenge and rise to it. As he indicated, that is what the Government need to respond to.

[Ian Paisley]

I was going to come on to that point later, but I will come on to it now, because it gets to the nub of the issue. The ZEBRA 1 and 2 schemes promised the United Kingdom £312 million of taxpayers’ money to fund the purchase of 2,270 buses. That is a major impact on the provision of zero-emission buses. I hope that Members are shocked by the next figure, however, because, according to the final purchasing decisions that have been made, 46% of those 2,270 buses will be manufactured outside the UK, principally by China.

On the one side, we have to giggle, because we are making zero-emission, green-energy buses, within our shores, for the home market, and therefore the footprint of the manufacturing of those things should also be green, but 46% of these buses are coming from what is, apart from Australia, the furthest away country in the world, and they are being delivered to us. I am not going to bash the companies that make them in China, but their buses have a shorter life cycle on our roads—almost a third less—and are therefore ultimately less efficient, yet 46% of the ZEBRA money is going overseas. What is that money doing? It is supporting overseas technology—cutting-edge technology. It is supporting overseas jobs. It is supporting cutting-edge, well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs and it is supporting them in other countries, but we are crying out for that money to be spent on high-skill, green-energy, high-tech jobs across the entirety of the United Kingdom. Some 10,000 people are employed in the supply chain for manufacturing buses across the United Kingdom: electronics engineers, hydrogen engineers and manufacturers, engineers, of steel. All that is being undermined by a policy that was put in place to build beautiful, British-made, clean, green, better buses.

I am pleading, not on behalf of the companies, which are big companies, but on behalf of workers across the United Kingdom who are entitled to these jobs and who are entitled to bring stuff home to their wives and families and their husbands and families, to make sure that the jobs stay in British hands. I am not arguing that we buy an inferior product, but British-made buses, whether they are made by Switch, Wrightbus or Alexander Dennis, are the leading cutting-edge buses in the world. That is shown because they are manufactured not just for this country—other countries demand them. But we cannot go in and undercut other bus companies in countries that make buses. The countries that buy buses from us do not make buses, so we are competing in a fair market. Unfortunately, one of the largest countries in the world, the Chinese state, is manufacturing buses, subsidising their manufacture and the technology is coming here and undermining us. We have to take a good, long, hard look at that and ask the question: is that really where we want to be?

Every constituency in the UK benefits from British-made manufactured products. I do not say that glibly; it is based on fact. I have gone through a register of all the councils and local authorities across the whole United Kingdom that have received money from the ZEBRA zero-emission scheme, and have listed all the constituencies covered by that—it comes to about 180 constituencies, and those 180 constituencies benefit in some way from the manufacture of buses in the United Kingdom. They are getting ZEBRA money, but unfortunately 46% of the money is going outside this country and they are not buying the British product.

I will not do so, Mr Rosindell, but I could read out the name of every single local authority that has received millions of pounds. I have the information here and I am happy to leave it in the Library for hon. Members to study. It goes through every single local authority that has received millions on millions of pounds, yet some of those authorities are not spending that money on British-made products. A couple of examples stand out, and I will bring them to Members’ attention.

Last year in Blackpool, there had to be a complete retender after protests led by the chairman of the APPG, myself and other members of that group. We pushed the Government to retender the Blackpool order because it had gone to a Chinese company. It was an order for 90 buses, or about 30 million quid of manufactured goods. I am glad to say that the tender, which originally went to the Yutong company in China, was won following retender by Alexander Dennis. It was discovered that the social and economic benefit that flowed from the manufacture of those buses in the United Kingdom outweighed a slightly cheaper product being brought in from overseas.

Transport for London announced at the weekend the purchase of over 100 new double-decker electric buses. Unfortunately, that order was made to a Chinese company called BYD, further increasing the reliance on oversea supply chains. I want to deal with this matter of Transport for London. No matter which part of the United Kingdom we come from, no matter our passion about Ulster, Scotland, Wales or the north of England, London is our capital. It is the flagship. What happens in London, the world sees. It is the window into the United Kingdom. When I stand on the Terrace of this House and see bus after bus going over Westminster bridge, I know by the shape of them, “That one was made in Ballymena, and so was that one. That one was made in Scotland, and that one was also made in Ballymena.” I know by the shape of them that those buses are ours, and we are proud. That says to the workers in my constituency, “Look what you’ve done—isn’t that fantastic?” Their work is in the window to the world. People see them or jump on and off them and think, “These are fabulous advertisements of the skillset that is in the United Kingdom”.

I then hear today that a £40 million contract has been handed by TfL to BYD in China to make the next 100 buses for this city. There are thousands of buses in this city. People say, “You’ll hardly notice them”. That is not the point. The point of the matter is that that is where we are spending our money, and that will soon become the flagship. People say, “Well, they’re slightly cheaper.” That is penny wise and pound foolish if that is the way they are making the decision, because the situation is much more disturbing than it just being slightly cheaper.

I take the view that it is not green to buy the buses from so far away whenever we are manufacturing them at home. In 2021, the United Nations working group on business and human rights wrote to BYD, saying that it

“had received information that your company may be involved through your supply chain in alleged forced labour, arbitrary detention and trafficking of… Uighur [Muslims] and other minority workers”.

BYD did not respond to that inquiry from the United Nations. Whenever it was approached by the trade magazines to respond, BYD refused to comment. Our nation has a duty to ensure that if we are buying overseas products, we are not buying them from a country that uses slave labour or abuses its workforce. I will tell hon. Members one thing: our workforce in the United Kingdom is not abused. They are paid good wages, make good products and are proud of what they do. If that abuse is happening, it is a double offence on what we should be looking at and doing with this resource.

Northern Ireland

Debate between Ian Paisley and Gregory Campbell

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) says that a glorified press release is in front of us tonight. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is no longer in his place, said that a love letter to the Democratic Unionist party has been penned. They say that is all it is, yet they still protest. They protest if Unionists get as much as a nod and a wink. They still object to it. It should not have been done, they say. Unionists should get nothing out of this place. That is the import of their comments. Or perhaps the hon. Members for North Down and for Foyle protest too much. Perhaps the real issue is that they do not like anything done that gives Unionism a nod or a wink, an advantage, or recognition of our rights. Their objections are perhaps strongest to the latter.

Points have been raised this evening about the future of Casement Park. I was not going to mention it, but as it has been put on the agenda, I think I will. Most people listened with consternation this morning to the words of Jarlath Burns, the leader of the Gaelic Athletic Association, who said, “Not a penny more will come from the GAA for Casement Park”—not even on grounds of inflation. It is £15 million or nothing from the GAA. That has to be a significant body blow to the future of Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive may indicate that they will give an inflation-related piece of money—significant money—to that project. The Government of Dublin may indicate that they will give multiples of millions to that project. Yet the GAA will not even give the project an inflation-linked amount. That suggests to me that perhaps the GAA does not want Casement Park to go ahead, and that it is looking for someone or for some group to blame. [Interruption.] I hear the giggles and fits coming from the SNP Benches, but of course it is very easy to spend other people’s money. This project now looks as if it will be short by about £100 million.

Tonight, I have heard that we should really be able to wipe out the “not insignificant”—I think that was the comment—£113 million in Executive funding that has been asked for, yet the big ask is: “We’d better have this money made available for Casement Park,” no matter what the amount is. That is amazing. Not only do we have a demand for this money, but it is almost as if the point being made is, “If you don’t give us that money, there will be a crisis.” That seems to be the way that the comment was framed to the House this evening. Most people will reflect very sombrely on the comments made by Jarlath Burns, and by others inside and outside this House who have made it clear that the money must be made available or else. But things can no longer work that way. Difficult decisions need to be made, and I suspect that the decisions that will be made very soon about Casement Park will be incredibly difficult. The way the parties respond to those difficult decisions will be the measure of those parties.

The Minister was taken down a rabbit hole tonight by the hon. Member for Foyle, who, again, is no longer in his place. Perhaps he has decided to go back to Foyle, given the terrible issue at Seagate and the loss of 300 jobs. I hope that he is working hard to get those jobs back, because they are very significant. Perhaps Mr Kennedy, the envoy, will turn up with a cheque book and the trillions of pounds that he said were available for Northern Ireland—it would be amazing if he did. Perhaps that money from America will arrive and those jobs, which are very important to the area, will be saved.

To return to my point, the Minister was taken down a rabbit hole and was asked to confirm whether, in line with the terms of the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there would be a simple majority vote for the future of Northern Ireland, but of course that is not in the Act. It talks about a majority vote; it does not define what that majority is—if it is a majority of the people, or a majority of the people who vote. In fact, I believe that the definition has been left open purposefully, so that Parliament will have a say on the terms and conditions. The Minister, referring to previous referendums in this country, has already conceded that a small majority is not the way to make major constitutional change in this nation. If he believes that, he will certainly believe that for the outworkings of the Belfast agreement. He shares the position of the late Seamus Mallon, one of the negotiators of the Belfast agreement, who made it clear that there had to be a “clear majority”, in his words, for a change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We should avoid going down these rabbit holes; we need to recognise the importance of what this House is debating tonight, and why we are debating it.

The objective of every Unionist is to undo the damage done by the great betrayal made by the Government of a former Prime Minister when they agreed the protocol on Northern Ireland. That was done against the advice of the Unionists. Unionists on these Benches, myself included, met the then Prime Minister and implored him not to go down the road of a protocol. He said that things would all be sorted out. He came to County Antrim and told farmers not to worry, “because all this can be shredded.” He told them that we can ignore it, and that we can throw the bits of paper in the bin. Of course, as it transpired, the Prime Minister’s betrayal of Northern Ireland has left us still debating this issue two years later. Untold damage has been done to the psychological view of where those in the Union are, as a people. Responsibility for the economic position of the kingdom lies four-square at that Government’s feet, and it is important that they undo that damage.

I agree with the leader of our party that, after much diligence, we have before us a work in progress. Yes, much more must be done. Today’s Humble Address must be seen in the context of more needing to be done, but the fact is that whenever we give a hint that we want more progress and more stability, we cannot even have that. That seems to be the cry from the nationalists. Nationalism has to grow up and recognise that it cannot go on baiting and pushing at Unionism, because that is wrong.

Until the laws promised by this strengthening of the Union are operational in Northern Ireland, problems will remain for Northern Ireland trade. That is why I urge the Government to hurry up, and get on with implementing the changes that they have said are coming; otherwise more divergence is threatened. We must avoid divergence. It remains a threat and an ever-present danger to the Union, which is why the sooner the Government legislate and move on these issues, the better. Unionists have a history that means that we always have to remain vigilant.

As this is a work in progress, and as the Government, in previous utterances from the Dispatch Box, have conceded that more legislation is to follow, it would be worth while for them to state that again from the Dispatch Box this evening. They cannot expect one party in Northern Ireland to do all the heavy lifting. Will the Government therefore spell out when further actions will be put on the calendar? When will we see those further actions? In conversations with my party colleagues and party leader, we have already discussed the necessity of implementing what has been promised, and the need to make more progress. It is okay us talking about it, but the Government have to take action.

Our constituents already feel the vice-like pinch of the protocol and the framework on their businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined. I intend to put on the record some examples that really perplex me and should have been resolved by the Government, and which underline the ongoing damage to our UK single market trade—our largest market by far.

My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I have challenged senior civil servants in Northern Ireland over why the frictions continue when this place has spelled out that they ought to have been removed. Northern Ireland businesses are right to be impatient. We demand progress. We cannot live on the promise that a change is coming—the promise of jam tomorrow. We and this House demand actions now.

We urge the Government not to lose the momentum for change, and I therefore ask the following questions. When will the veterinary medicines working group be established, and when will it commence work? That is an urgent priority for our single largest sector. When will the plant working group be established? The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised that urgent matter. When will InterTradeIreland be established? What date is pencilled in and calendared for that important body to start operations?

What instructions have been given to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland to progress the changes for goods flowing from GB to Northern Ireland? I ask because I know of several companies in my constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland that are being held back by these frictions. A constituent with a very small businesses that orders plants from an English wholesaler came to my office this week and said that she has been told, “Go elsewhere. Try somewhere else. Don’t buy from the United Kingdom.” As her MP, I volunteered to bring that stock—those samples and seeds—over in my hand luggage if she so requires, and dear help the official who tries to stop me.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend talks about bringing material over himself. Can he imagine the incredulity of citizens of Northern Ireland who hear about the situation? They will say, “What possible risk could that pose to the EU internal market?”.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes his point well; there is zero risk to the European single market. In the same way, there is zero risk with veterinary medicines—the Secretary of State knows that well, because I have discussed the matter with him—because we are talking about the same medicine as before. Europe does not want the medicines changed—shock, horror. It just wants the label changed, but for that to happen, it is demanding that the pharmaceutical companies rescale and re-examine what is in every product, which would costs millions of pounds, and would not be worth it for the companies. It is the same with biscuits. The leader of my party today met a company that has been required to do certain labelling. The EU is not trying to change the content or recipe of the biscuits; it is trying to change the label, because the single market might be damaged by the wrong label. That is how “bent bananas”, “squared cucumbers”, this argument is. We should have left that behind long ago.

The owner of a haulage business in my constituency has had the number of checks on his consignments go from nine per month in August last year to—wait for it—27 in the last two weeks of this month, and we are still moving towards the last couple of days of February. That is the record for the number of checks he has undergone since the protocol was put in place. Once again, will the Government look at this over-zealous Department, DAERA, which looks like it will not undo what this House said has is to be undone, as was outlined in a previous debate?

I mentioned a constituent who is trying to buy scanners for a service sector industry. He has always bought the scanners from GB, and he has been told that he must have an economic operators registration and identification number. That number means that VAT is paid in the Republic of Ireland, but my constituent does not trade in the Republic of Ireland. He is being denied the ability to buy equipment from GB because some official here is saying, “No, you must have an EROI number, and you must put GB in front of it.” That does not exist, and it is appalling that he has been put in that position.

Fuel Laundering

Debate between Ian Paisley and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We hear much debate about Brexit and the hard border, and how it must be frictionless and customs must be harmonised. Every gangster who is engaged in this operation in Northern Ireland and this level of crime, many of whom are senior Sinn Féin supporters and other senior paramilitaries, believes in a hard border on this one, because they love the fact that there is a customs differential and they want to ensure their ability to transfer vast amounts of laundered fuel in a frictionless manner.

Let us examine the scale of the crime. In March, Baroness Neville-Rolfe stated in an answer to questions in the other place that the estimated level of illicit fuel sales amounts to “£50 million” in lost revenue for the last year for which figures were available. I believe that is a glossed over view and that, even though it is a staggering amount, it conceals a far greater level of fraud. However, if that was the height of it, that is half a billion in resources lost to the Government over the term of a normal Parliament. The most recent official report of the Organised Crime Task Force—I must declare an interest, as I served as a member of it before I joined this House—details that the tax gap between Government known legitimate sales of oils and fuels, and illicit fuel trading is about £100 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) identified. That has reduced from about £160 million nine years ago, but it is still a staggering amount.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the substantial amounts of money that the Treasury is losing, an issue that is sometimes not highlighted is the danger of the damage done to vehicles? Some of these illicit fuels are poisoned and treated very badly so that these people can maximise profits.

[Ian Paisley]

If we start to go down that line, the costs are in many ways incalculable. We need to bear that in mind.

The Organised Crime Task Force recounts a case study of an organised crime gang that evaded duty of more than £3 million. It had laundering plants in 13 locations, at one of which the police seized approaching £300,000 in cash. They also seized 72,000 litres of illicit fuel that was being sold to unsuspecting motorists, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. Nine people were convicted, and two custodial sentences were handed down amounting to—listen to this—just 16 months in prison. Seriously? A multimillion-pound crime gang and they get 16 months in prison. What sort of disincentive to criminality is that?

The Government will no doubt point to their new fuel marker, which they introduced in conjunction with the revenue and customs people in the Republic. They claim that it is particularly special and

“significantly more resistant to laundering”

than old markers. Given that old markers could be laundered through a sieve, that is not actually a good recommendation. They also boast that there has been a

“reduction in laundering plants discovered”.

That boast is hollow, as it means that the authorities cannot find the laundering plants.

I will tell the House why that is so. Previously, removal of the marker left an environmentally hazardous sludge that ultimately gave away the launderers’ locations and caused a multimillion-pound hazard that the local authorities had to pay hundreds of thousands pounds to clear up. The new so-called more effective marker can be removed via the process of distillation, leaving no environmental waste at all—it simply evaporates—hence the carefully crafted words of the report. If the laundering plants do not leave any trace, they will be much harder to find, so fewer plants will be discovered. On the fact that the new marker can be distilled off the fuel, I leave this thought with the House: many people in Northern Ireland know a lot about distillation. They have been distilling a produce in Northern Ireland for very many years, so it is now so much easier to commit this crime than it was previously.

Let me turn to the substance of my argument; I hope that the Minister will respond to these points. This is not a uniquely Irish problem. Because a blind eye has been turned to stamping it out, organised crime gangs are exporting this crime across the Irish sea. A case study produced by the Government’s Organised Crime Task Force recounts how the

“fuels may move across the EU borders without supervision”.

If ever we were going to get a warning that we need more friction on our border in respect of this issue, this must be it.

In 2016, there were 80 movements of ISO tanks—tank containers built to the standard of the International Organisation for Standardisation—containing 26,000 litres each. The Government estimate that millions of litres of this oil were smuggled before it was identified. The crime amounted to millions of pounds in lost revenue for Her Majesty’s Exchequer—and this is just one operator. Such crimes have a devastating impact on our haulage industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said earlier.

At the weekend, three Secretaries of State visited Northern Ireland and heard at first hand from the haulage industry. The industry took the opportunity to spell out the following, saying that organised crime gangs

“are now exporting laundered diesel to GB on an industrial scale using bulk containers contained inside curtain slide trailers. This is of huge concern to Roll on Roll off operators on the Irish sea as it is hazardous cargo, is not manifested or transported safely”.

A potential disaster looms that would make the Zeebrugge disaster look insignificant. This operation is being used to supply illicit vehicle operations across England. The Government promise that legitimate trade must not be interfered with or delayed, as a result of Brexit, between our islands and on our island. I agree wholeheartedly with that position, but to have confidence, illicit trade must be stamped out. The Government must not sacrifice their principles on ensuring that we have open trade. They must not allow criminals to get away with it. We must deal with the criminal elements, because they are rubbing their hands in glee, looking at the opportunities that Brexit will open up for them.

There are 5,730 licensed commercial vehicle operators and 22,000 licensed goods vehicles in Northern Ireland. Some 27% of Northern Ireland licences are international hire and reward work compared with an average of 10% here on GB mainland. Therefore, this is big business in Northern Ireland. Some 27,000 people are currently employed in the transport and storage industries in Northern Ireland, and fuel represents about 32% of the operating costs of those industries. It is obvious from those figures that illicit traders can destroy a legitimate business by focusing on the sale of illicit fuel, and put a legitimate operator out of work overnight.

Our duty on fuel is, of course, the highest in Europe and it is unlikely to fall, so the pressure on legitimate trade and the opportunity for the criminal grows. Last month, I met people from the Petrol Retailers Association. They are appalled at how easy laundering has become. They have identified a number of sites across Northern Ireland that are openly run by criminals, and yet nothing has been done about it. I was going to use privilege this evening to read out the names of 12 illicit trade operators across the United Kingdom that have been given to me by the Petrol Retailers Association. I would get a very easy headline, but I will not do that, because I am not here to embarrass the Government. I am not here to try to pull that one on them, but I do make a plea to the Minister that if we know who these people are, and if their names are easily circulated between the police, the association and the operators, surely something must now be done to stamp them out. I hope that the Minister will push that matter back to the authorities and tell them that we want these criminals dealt with, and that we want to see examples set.

I have three pleas to make to the Minister this evening, and I hope that he can respond to them. The first is in the words of the Petrol Retailers Association. Let me quote again from the letter:

“I firmly support you and your colleagues in demanding from Government a fresh look at the real impact of this HMRC marker initiative and a renewed commitment to tackle the heinous problem of illicit fuel which has spread to the mainland.”

Secondly, I want the Government to review the sentencing policy and practice of those caught engaging in this heinous crime. Finally, as Brexit approaches, let us use this as an opportunity to make the United Kingdom have the gold standard fuel marker and to put in place a proper and effective British marker that works and stops this illicit trade. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these matters and offer me the opportunity to meet senior officials to address them.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Gregory Campbell

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I have had the opportunity to make a number of interventions throughout this evening’s debate, so I will make only some short remarks now.

I cast Members’ minds back to the middle of the last couple of decades, when we were going through the negotiation process. At that point, my party made it clear that it was reluctant to go into a particular government until certain demands were met. There were previous times before that when other Unionist parties made similar claims and drew similar red lines. The then Government party and the then Secretary of State, who is now in the other place, made it clear that a certain train was departing a certain station, and that if the Democratic Unionist party and other Unionist parties were not on board, that train would depart without them. Not only would it depart without them, but government would then happen without them and they would be left sitting on their hands. In Lloyd George blackmail mode, that was what was held out to people in Northern Ireland, and it was clearly meant that that was going to happen.

The interesting thing at the moment is that there does not seem to be the belief on Sinn Féin’s side that the Government are actually prepared to follow through with such an offer. If the train is leaving the station, Sinn Féin should be on board and it should play its role. If it is not prepared to be on board, the train should depart without it and we should be allowed to govern without it.

The Government do not want that to be the case; they do not want it to be on the agenda. They want everyone to be singing and on board the same little train going forward. Well, if the members of one party are blocking progress, they cannot be allowed to pull the safety cord on that train, bring things to a halt and say that nothing else happens without them.

It is incumbent on the Government to recognise that if they are not prepared to let the train of devolution go forward without Sinn Féin’s participation on its terms and its terms only, it is about time that they stepped in and allowed devolution without Sinn Féin or had direct rule. Tonight, we are standing at that point. Will it be direct rule, or will it be devolution without Sinn Féin’s active participation? I do not think the Government have the guts to go for the latter choice, and I think they are now timidly being pushed towards direct rule.

I said in one of my interventions that it is essential that we do not have drift in Northern Ireland, because there is a certain type of Irishman who will fill the vacuum. We saw a bit of that yesterday in Omagh, and we have seen a bit of it today in Londonderry. Certain people will try to fill the vacuum with violence, and that is not acceptable.

The Government have to move, and move expeditiously. They cannot allow themselves to be seen to be pussyfooting or taking this issue quietly and slowly. They have to make sure that they take strides with determination to implement this budget measure and then, within a matter of weeks, move to the next phase of direct rule. That will mean preparation and money being spent on preparing the Northern Ireland Office to have new Ministers drawn into it from this place and from the Government side of the House to help govern Northern Ireland.

The decisions my constituents want taken with regard to healthcare, education and infrastructure will require ministerial direction and ministerial determination. It is unacceptable that we have a situation, starting tonight, where, no matter how nice a gentleman he is, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service will be completely unanswerable and unaccountable to anyone in this democracy. That situation is not acceptable, and we cannot let it run for weeks on end. It has to end immediately, and the Secretary of State needs to take determined steps to see that that is the case.

When the Secretary of State spoke tonight, he made it clear that civil servants will act within certain boundaries, but they do not have to do that. If they made a decision the Secretary of State did not like, he would have to take the head of the civil service to court. That situation is unacceptable, and it cannot be allowed to continue or even to get off the ground. We need to make that very clear.

The decisions that are coming up are coming up rapidly. Police pay, police recruitment and police retention are key issues we hear about every day and will require political direction. On other issues, Northern Ireland wants to be an events location. Next year, a major golf tournament is coming to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). The year after that, there is the British open. Decisions will have to be made in January next year to let those events go ahead without any problem.

We will also have our Milk cup, or SuperCup, football tournament, and events to do with the North West 200. All the decisions on the finance of those events, and all the decisions to do with whether we have the Red Bull air races taking place in Northern Ireland, will have to be made in January. That will require political direction and political determination. Those decisions will not be taken by a civil servant; in fact, civil servants will be reluctant to go anywhere near those issues and to start making those decisions, because they might be too controversial for them.

As the independent chairman of the Northern Ireland taskforce on motorsport, I want to know, and I ask each week, what will happen to the needs of motorsport in Northern Ireland. It is a huge industry generating tens of millions of pounds for the local economy in many parts of our country, yet we do not have political decisions being made about how moneys will be allocated to events and events funding in Northern Ireland.

It is perverse in many ways that with tonight’s decision we will be having more British rule in Northern Ireland—and with no more of an Irish dimension. The fact of the matter is that Sinn Féin has brought about a situation where it now appears to be in a worse place, as an ideology, than it was in 1997 and in 1985. While Unionism was on the back foot and being pushed out of its sense of place and sense of nationhood, we now have Sinn Féin putting its community in a very difficult situation.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is supremely ironic that the decisions taken over the past few weeks and months by the party of “Brits out” has resulted tonight in “Brits in”?

[Ian Paisley]

I agree that it is a case of “Brits in”, but of course the British have never left, and could never be bombed out, bullied out, pushed out or got out, because it is our land—our country—and we are staying there, so I never really subscribed to the view that we were “out” in the first place.

The call to have an Irish dimension as part of this process has fallen on deaf ears. There is no role in the new mechanism that we are now in—this “twilight zone”, as it has been called—for the Irish dimension. That has left nationalists and republicans bereft of any sort of foothold in the process going forward. That is entirely their fault. We live in a divided community. We have a society that is split and we have to try to heal it. We can do that only when we have responsible politicians on the side of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and others coming forward and being prepared to lead their community away from the abyss that they have taken it to. It is sad that they have decided to do that, but they have done it and it is their responsibility.

My party is up for devolution. We put an awful lot of effort into it. I know the sacrifice that was made by many people in my party and many people on these Benches. I know the personal sacrifice that was made by my father to get devolution up and running. It saddens me that it is coming to an end, but I shed no tears for it when I see the mess that some people would try to make of it. If people want to squander it and make a mess of it, let us bring it to an end and finish it. Let us have direct rule and get on with governing our people in a sensible way.

National Crime Agency

Debate between Ian Paisley and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point of today’s debate is to say that, while discussions between the Chief Constable and the SDLP continue, there are 140-plus criminal gangs operating through the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and the UK and smuggling not millions, but tens of millions of pounds-worth of illegal drugs. Some of that activity could be prevented by the full operation of the NCA.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The situation goes even further. According to the police today, there has not been one single civil recovery of a crime asset since the NCA took over, because the PSNI does not have the surge capability to do that. We are actually losing our ability to make civil recoveries.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is a damning indictment of those who still hold back from offering support for the full implementation of the NCA. I note from recent reports that, while meetings between the police and the SDLP continue—they do not appear to have come to a satisfactory conclusion—Sinn Fein has not responded to requests from the Department of Justice for a meeting about the issue. That is the scale of the problem we face.

Northern Ireland

Debate between Ian Paisley and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will adhere to that time. It is a pleasure to serve under your deputy speakership.

The debate has been telling and important. As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is being held on the 20th anniversary of the Shankill road massacre. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) outlined in very emotional yet diplomatic terms what happened on that day. October 1993 was an horrendous month. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have outlined, we had not only the Shankill massacre, which resulted in nine murders, but the Greysteel massacre a few days later in my constituency, which resulted in eight murders. They are to be condemned equally. Without equivocation or hesitation, we utterly and totally condemn all those murders. In fact, 28 people died in October 1993, such was the nature of the violence that year.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend will vividly recall that on that morning we were sitting in a meeting of party officers in a hotel in Dungannon when we got the news of the atrocity at Shankill. Many of us raced to the Shankill road and saw for ourselves the horrid vista of violence that was visited on the people of Northern Ireland. When we witness such things with our own eyes, it drives home how atrocious terrorism in Northern Ireland has been, and how grateful we should be that we can start to move on.

[Mr Campbell]

We all recollect exactly where we were and our reactions at that time.

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new position. He indicated that he has been in place for only 14 days, and yet he is rapidly getting to grips. He understands that his position is a challenging profile. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)—the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—said that the future had to be better than the past. All hon. Members concur with that. My hon. Friends the Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), and other colleagues, elaborated on double standards.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made a reasonably positive contribution, although I do not get what connection the Planning Bill, which was debated yesterday in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has with dealing with the past. I will leave that to one side. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) spoke at some length about the need to reconcile the distinctive and profound differences, which all hon. Members understand.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that honesty was required, and I shall speak in the remaining moments I have on the theme of honesty. There is a distinction in Northern Ireland, but it is not between Unionism/loyalism and nationalism/republicanism. There is a distinct difference in how we look at the past. The vast majority of people, be they Unionists or nationalists, look at the past and see that there were those who carried out evil, heinous atrocities. There were then those in the RUC, the UDR and the Army who had to respond and try to deal with the problem that had been created by the paramilitaries. The vast majority of people on both sides know that that distinction is absolutely clear. The security forces endeavoured to contain the paramilitaries that carried out so many atrocities, whether they were republican or loyalist organisations. Unfortunately, that containment was for many years restricted by political considerations. We always knew that the decoded message was, “Do not rock the boat. We’re trying to include republicans in the political process. Please do not rock the boat.”

Ovarian Cancer

Debate between Ian Paisley and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this important debate, which I hope will be a springboard for increasing awareness and for encouraging the Department to pick up the gauntlet set before it today.

In the next 12 months, between 11 and 15 women in my constituency will die because of ovarian cancer. That is not a high or low figure; it is the average across the United Kingdom. We must wake up to the reality and that figure must be checked. We must embark seriously on a national campaign that will achieve better survival results, as has happened with major cancers such as breast and lung cancer.

I want to put four important and sobering statistics before the House. Most of the women who are diagnosed—75%—have late-stage disease, when survival rates are very poor. That is a very high figure. Also, 30% of women are diagnosed following admission to their local accident and emergency ward, not by their GP. Women with ovarian cancer are five times more likely to die within a month of diagnosis than women with breast cancer, and the UK’s late diagnosis is thought to be the key driver for those survival rates. Only 4% of women are confident that they can spot the symptoms of ovarian cancer.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, why, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) said, is there not yet any Department of Health-led activity to improve awareness of symptoms? That is the key to addressing the issue. Secondly, I take the view that what is not measured is not done, so why is there no national measurement for ovarian cancer?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that greater awareness and early detection were the key to the significant progress made with other cancers? Many charities became involved with departmental officials to ensure that those things became the driver, which led to reductions in numbers. That is the key for ovarian cancer as well.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point incredibly well. We have all come to realise that there is a lack of awareness because of lobby groups, patients in our constituencies and the families who come to see us saying, “Why did we not know? If we had known, we would have done something else and gone to the GP earlier.”

As I have said, a gauntlet has been thrown down to the Department. Let us have better national measurement of outcomes established and followed up—year in, year out—so that the disease, which has been described as a silent killer, can be properly tackled and we can achieve the same successes as we have with breast, lung and bowel cancer survival rates.