United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Ian Paisley and William Cash

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I of course want to leave the European Union, but the problem with the withdrawal agreement is that it does not, I assert, represent Brexit, in terms of repealing the 1972 Act. As I was saying, that is an Act of Parliament not only of Great Britain but of Northern Ireland. The constitutional status of Northern Ireland is therefore at stake, with respect to the question of the Northern Ireland backstop. There is no doubt about that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it not the case that the withdrawal agreement would cause irreversible and lasting damage to Northern Ireland and our precious Union?

[Sir William Cash]

I heard the Prime Minister repeatedly mention our precious Union. The Northern Ireland backstop drives a coach and horses through the precious Union––that is the problem. As I understand it, that is precisely why the Democratic Unionist party will vote against the withdrawal agreement today—because it puts the Union at risk.

Exiting the EU and Transport

Debate between Ian Paisley and William Cash

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My constituency voted overwhelmingly—62.2%—to leave the EU, despite the fact that with its large agricultural hinterland it receives huge European farm subsidies, and with its manufacturing base it benefits from the opportunity to manufacture and export to the EU. It also has a huge travel base. It is a tourism mecca, and tourists need travel infrastructure. So it is engaged in manufacturing, travel, tourism and transport goods, but despite all that, it voted to leave the EU, and we must ask ourselves why.

Why would so many people in that set of circumstances vote to leave? It is because the EU is seen to be failing them. When we look specifically at transport issues, we can see why. Before we even discuss the EU, there are many things that we could do domestically to assist companies in the transport sector in our country. For example, in my constituency we manufacture buses. The Wrights Group manufactures a considerable number of the buses for this great city and for Scotland—indeed, it recently enjoyed a very beneficial order from Scotland, for which we say thank you to our Scottish cousins. It also manufactures for Singapore and a number of other Asian countries, and employs hundreds of people in Singapore in the assembly of those buses and, importantly, in the maintenance of those buses. It is a significant local employer and a world employer.

The company can benefit more from domestic decisions taken here than it can from EU decisions taken in Brussels. For example, the Government’s Bus Services Bill currently going through Parliament will have a dramatic impact on transport orders for my constituency if it goes the right way. We also have—I say this very gently to those on the Labour Front Bench—a new Mayor of London. I appeal to him through his Front Bench colleagues to come to Northern Ireland as soon as possible to visit that bus company, which transports his citizens around his city, and see the great work that it could do to expand the bus offer in London. I understand that between now and 2021 London will require another 1,000 buses. I hope that that transport infrastructure will benefit from buses manufactured in my constituency. I wanted to put that on the record before I turn to the substance of the debate.

When the Secretary of State opened the debate, he was full of confidence and optimism. I share that optimism. We should approach the issue of transport and Brexit with some optimism because there are opportunities that can be beneficial to us.

There is one issue that could have been addressed in the Chancellor’s statement today. I hope that the Transport Secretary will continue to whisper “airport passenger duty” in his ear between now and the Budget in April. I hope he will keep pushing that little issue. We should not be paying a pernicious, dirty little tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to transport ourselves from one part of the UK to another. It is wrong. It is not the sort of tax that our Government should be levying, and it should be removed soon. I hope that the Chancellor will hear that not just from me but from the Transport Secretary between now and the Budget.

Many people, including our neighbours in the EU, complain about Brexit. We hear it every day and read about it in the newspapers, but those of us who voted to leave the EU did so with a good intention—to bring about good for our country, not bad. I have noticed that those on the remain campaign and those opposed to the action that the United Kingdom is about to take are talking up crisis after crisis—whether a transport crisis or a crisis to do with transport problems with our border in Northern Ireland.

I commend the singular actions of the Secretary of State over the recess. When a crisis emerged in Northern Ireland relating to our one transatlantic fleet operator, United Airlines, it was largely because the Secretary of State got on the telephone to the United States and spoke to the head of the airline and others, pressing them to keep the flights operating in Northern Ireland, that the service was saved.

As a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s conversation with United Airlines and an emergency aid package put in place by the Northern Ireland Executive, involving multiples of millions of pounds, the service was indeed saved—until two weeks ago. Someone in the EU then complained that the actions of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive amounted to state aid and were therefore wrong. They objected so much that Europe has now told United that it must reject the multi-million pound aid package. As a result, the airline is now closing its service; the last flights from Belfast to Newark in the United States of America will take place in January next year. That shameful action needs to go on the record.

[Sir William Cash]

In the ports sector, as in many others, there are hidden subsidies. Ports over the whole of Europe are publicly owned. Given the money pumped into them, they also represent the lack of a level playing field. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said and what the Secretary of State tried to achieve.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree; the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the issue extends not only to airports but to seaports as well.

Last week in the House, I pressed the Secretary of State about the United Airlines issue. He kindly said that the decision was “deeply unwelcome” and that a fair amount of effort had been done by his Department, working alongside the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Executive, in trying to make sure that this air route was sustained. He went on to say:

“The loss of the route because of EU action is deeply unwelcome and precisely the kind of unnecessary decision from Brussels that led this country to vote to leave the European Union.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 377.]

I say a hearty “Hear, hear” to those words. That action was pernicious and should not have taken place. The company should have been allowed to continue to operate in Northern Ireland. Many people in County Antrim who have seen the benefits of Europe have turned against it because of such decisions. I am glad that we as a nation have woken up to that.

We have also had the allegation that the Irish Republic—our well-known neighbour—wants to be supportive of Northern Ireland as it leaves the EU. Indeed, it has written to many of the hauliers in Northern Ireland to invite them to a tea party hosted by the Taoiseach in Dublin. He has called it the all-island civic dialogue, and he wishes to have a conversation about the implications of Brexit for the Republic of Ireland. Now, I am quite happy for the Taoiseach to do that, and for him to understand the conversation that is going on, but if he targets businesses in Northern Ireland with a view to getting them to go to the south of Ireland and to crank up opposition to the UK’s decision, that is where I draw the line. I therefore commend the words of our First Minister in Northern Ireland, who said that the Dublin Government are poaching some of our businesses, and that includes our haulage businesses. It is right that this House understands that, while we welcome the opportunity to work with our southern neighbours, we can also see when someone speaks out of both sides of their mouth—on the one hand saying they are concerned about our relationship, but on the other hand doing everything they can to undermine that relationship and poach businesses from us. I think we should put that on the record.

It is also important that we identify those EU transport regulations that hurt British businesses. In an intervention on the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I mentioned the package travel directive. Expedia is an American company that employs over 2,000 people in call centres and outreach centres in the United Kingdom. It is based in England and Scotland, and it will hopefully soon be based in Northern Ireland. That company employs thousands of people, but it is now faced with the package travel directive. Ordinary business and tourism travellers who use sites such as Expedia or trivago as a one-stop shop for their airline ticket, their hotel, their car rental, the shows they wish to attend or other things they wish to book, such as restaurants, will find that this package travel directive, which comes from the EU to protect huge monopolies, will try to pass on a major charge to the companies—Expedia, trivago or others—or, more than likely, to the customer, because they are using a one-stop shop, when they should apparently be encouraged to use several different operators to place their orders. That package travel directive is wrong, and it should be opposed. That is another reason why many people in the United Kingdom see that, in terms of travel arrangements, we would be better off out of the EU.

[Ian Paisley]

I do not know whether that is the case, so I cannot say whether it would or not. I would certainly be happy to look at that, but we need to encourage our own insurance industry—perhaps we will have a debate about the insurance industry and Brexit—to pick up those issues to determine whether there is a way in which we can address them.

Companies such as Expedia are faced with this package travel directive. We need to be alive to the fact that Europe is not a great benefactor of the travel sector and that it is actually doing an awful lot to hinder it.

[Sir William Cash]

On the general principle that the hon. Gentleman is addressing—the extent to which directives have an adverse effect on certain industries and the national interests of particular countries—is he conscious, as I certainly am, of what is called regulatory collusion? This has been written about by Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim University, who makes it clear that a system is employed in the Council of Ministers and through COREPER whereby decisions are made that benefit certain congregations of countries in a way that is detrimental to others, and that this is not a benign system, but actually the pursuit of national interests in another name.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for making that point. This is about not only helping congregations of countries, but assisting cabals within certain sectors of the industry. For example, the package travel directive helps people who do not use computers to buy their tickets and encourages people to use only shops. I have nothing against travel shops, but they should not be assisted over the heads of people who wish to use the internet to make their bookings. There is a very deliberate attempt to try to destroy that business on the internet.

On road haulage, the Government need to address exporter freight charges. Many of our competitors outside the EU, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and countries in Asia, including India, have opportunities to assist the trade in their manufactured goods by reducing the cost of exporting them around the world. In essence, this is about freight charges, not just internally within their own countries, but externally. Our Government need to decide what assistance that system gives and how, when we eventually leave the EU, our companies can have a similar type of assistance or, more importantly, can be encouraged to get round the advantage that those other countries are given.

Let me give the House a few examples. In Australia, the freight equalisation scheme allows for goods shipped around the world to be subsidised when going to their final destinations. That means that a similar good manufactured in New Zealand, for example, suddenly becomes more expensive because its freight charges are included in its shipping, whereas the Australian good has its freight charge subsidised or, in many instances, wiped out. New Zealand opposed Australia when it introduced that scheme, but it is still in place. India has a freight assistance scheme, as well as an enterprise promotion policy, which is about assisting with freight charges.

If these issues of transport costs are not addressed, when we finally leave the EU and have wider export opportunities, we will find that if we try to get our goods—manufactured goods, foods or drinks—to certain markets, they will be disadvantaged because we do not give them a freight subsidy. I know that the Government do not like the word “subsidy” and that they will have to look at this further, but something should be done to assist with those transport costs. It is important that the Government have that in their mind.

I welcome the debate and the comments by the Secretary of State. It is useful that we continue to prod and examine these issues.

European Union

Debate between Ian Paisley and William Cash

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Yes. This fantasy of a European Union and how it has developed through the existing treaties is the reason we have the crisis in Europe as a whole. That is why we need fundamental change: the existing treaties are the cause of the crisis. It is not just a question of the single markets or, for that matter, the single market—

[Ian Paisley]

rose—