Zero-emission Buses and Air Quality in Sheffield

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Briefly, Mr Paisley.

[Ian Paisley]

Sheffield does have a lot of hills, and the answer is not batteries but hydrogen, which is a much better way of fuelling buses on hills. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at that, and I urge the Government to take resource away from diesel buses and to give councils and transport companies the opportunity to buy hydrogen or hydroelectric buses.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) will make some observations about hydrogen, which I think has enormous potential.

The Government’s study is clear that retrofit will not be a suitable way of mitigating the emissions from buses, so alternative solutions will be required. The point of today’s debate is that we need alternative solutions, including replacement buses—not refits—and electric buses, and exploring the potential of hydrogen. I will focus on electric.

Currently, about 75% of our bus fleet is not performing at the required Euro 6 standard, and a further 25% has had no change. Under direction from the Government, we were required to implement our clean air policy in the shortest possible time, but the failure of their retrofit strategy is putting our compliance at risk. That echoes the point that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made about the lack of coherence in the clean air strategy.

The Government need to commit to clean air solutions fast. I hope that, as a first step, the Minister will welcome the bid that the council is submitting, in conjunction with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, to ZEBRA 2. Further flexibility in the use of our funding from the clean air fund, including drawdown of stretch funding and the potential for additional funding to support electric vehicle roll-out, must also be considered. However, we understand the pressures on the relatively small funding—it is a problem that it is so small, with £129 million available for the ZEBRA 2 programme—and we know that there are other priorities.

We recognise that with all ZEBRA bids, the funding provides only a proportion of the cost of vehicles, so co-operation with operators is key. Therefore, I want to reassure the Minister about the close dialogue that is happening with both major operators in Sheffield—First and Stagecoach—and about the relationship that they have with the council. Stagecoach’s managing director was in touch with me before this debate and stressed that Stagecoach is looking at the opportunities provided by ZEBRA 2 to lever in its own investment to provide 65 new electric vehicles on key routes in Sheffield. I know that First is looking at key routes that operate through both Sheffield and Rotherham.

In summary, reducing bus emissions in Sheffield is key to achieving the legal levels of nitrogen that we want and that the Government require of us as a city. Bus retrofit technology, recommended to us by the Government, has been found to be underperforming; 75% of our fleet, which has had it, is non-compliant, and the other 25% has not been treated at all. We do not have a timescale for when the Government will confirm the findings of their in-depth review of bus retrofit performance, but action is needed urgently.

Sheffield City Council has delivered all its clean air plan mitigations in the shortest possible time, which I know the Government have welcomed. However, we need Government support for our ZEBRA 2 submission. Further flexibility in the use of funding from the CAF, including the drawdown of stretch funding, will also help. We hope that a wider review of the potential for wider grant funding to upgrade buses in South Yorkshire will also be considered, with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Ian Paisley

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

All through the Brexit debates and the referendum campaign, we were constantly reminded that we should do nothing at all to damage Northern Ireland, and particularly the economy in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with that advice, but as soon as the Government try to do something to protect Northern Ireland and the economy of Northern Ireland, we are told that we are wrong.

It has been interesting to listen to the speeches tonight. Members have quite rightly warned that we should not implement the Bill’s provisions before it is absolutely necessary. The logic of that argument is that they accept that it might, under certain circumstances, be necessary. Indeed, if one reads beyond the headlines of what was said by David Cameron, who has been quoted tonight, he goes on to say that these provisions should only be used as a last resort, therefore accepting that they may have to be used. I entirely agree with that—they should only be used as a last resort, and the Prime Minister was clear that that would be the case.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He was a wonderful Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and he actually gets the situation in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that what really perturbs us about the opposition to the Bill tonight is people saying that it will somehow attack peace when what it does is remove the impediments to economic progress? It is through economic progress that we have created more jobs in Northern Ireland and helped to create peace in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend is wrong—or perhaps premature; I am not quite sure—to elevate me to the Privy Council, but he makes a very good point and leads me on to my next point.

Although north-south trade is extremely important to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the Republic, east-west trade is far more important for both Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is not to say that the other is not important, of course. We should therefore do nothing to damage that trade.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to the Act of Union. He did not have time to go into detail, but article sixth of the Act of Union 1800—the very Act that created this United Kingdom—states that

“in all treaties”

made by “his Majesty” as it was then, his heirs and successors,

“with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subjects.”

It goes on to refer to manufacturing, trade and navigation. That Act should not be breached. It may or may not have the legal status—whatever that is—of a treaty, but surely it is an international Act of Parliament, which brought two sovereign nations together. That should be respected.

Article 184 of the 2019 withdrawal agreement should be respected when it talks about the need for both sides to operate

“in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders”.

In other words, the United Kingdom’s legal order should be respected. Clause 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 asserts that

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”

It is wrong for people to say that Ministers will run off with powers and act illegally—they would be given the powers by this Parliament if we pass the Bill. Ministers are therefore not running off and acting illegally at all. It is important that we deliver the Brexit that people voted for. I do not want a spat with the European Union and I have no reason to believe that it will behave so unreasonably as to deny all EU manufacturers and businesses—the people who send more than £90 billion of exports to this country, which is more than we send to them—trading opportunities.

I want a free trade agreement with the European Union because that would benefit businesses and people on the continent and in this country. It would also remove all the arguments that we are having tonight about the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, so I really do hope that we can make progress. That is the way forward. If there is bad faith, and if we are put to the test of deciding whether we support the United Kingdom or the European Union, then I remember the oaths that I have given on seven separate occasions in this House, and my loyalty will be to the United Kingdom.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Ian Paisley

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 37, which is in my name and those of my right hon and hon. Friends. I will press the new clause at the appropriate time. It would make it

“unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.”

The purpose is simple: it is to secure the future of the United Kingdom. I speak as a proud Unionist and a friend of Northern Ireland. I have had the honour of working closely with people across Northern Ireland, having been Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for seven years and, before that, a shadow Northern Ireland Minister for five years. Interestingly, I also co-chaired the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly for some five years. We have a lot to fight for in Northern Ireland.

This new clause would provide a guarantee that shows we value the Union and recognise the importance of strengthening it, but also acknowledge the importance and the value of our most important trading arrangement, the UK internal market. Above all, it would contribute to upholding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and safeguard the Union for the future.

New clause 37 reinforces a view that I am confident is shared on both sides of the House, which is that we cannot accept a deal that would allow Northern Ireland to be considered a separate customs territory from Great Britain. I recognise that this is the view the Prime Minister has put at the forefront of our negotiations.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate the point that new clause 37 simply underlines and reaffirms what the Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on four separate occasions? The hon. Gentleman is right to seek to nail this into the Bill because we might not always have the luxury of having a Unionist Prime Minister.

[Mr Robertson]

Of course I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I hope we always do have a Unionist Prime Minister. Many of us will be working towards that end for many, many years.

The Prime Minister said in December

“the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will leave the EU customs union and the EU single market. Nothing in the agreement I have reached alters that fundamental fact.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 27.]

If nothing has changed, I am confident—and I understand it is the case—that the Government will support this amendment.

During the past two years, we have had many polarising debates on our withdrawal from the European Union, but this amendment is straightforward and should be supported by anyone who values and believes in the Union. This is not a matter of leave or remain; it is about protecting the Union and ensuring that any deal we secure with the European Union upholds the constitutional integrity of the UK.

As well as protecting Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the UK, new clause 37 is also about protecting the economy of Northern Ireland by securing our most important single market, the UK itself. There are no absolute figures, but estimates from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency suggest that external sales of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK were worth £14 billion in 2016, which represents approximately 58% of Northern Ireland’s total external sales. To jeopardise that by subjecting Northern Ireland to extra border arrangements, effectively down the Irish sea, would be foolish.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister rightly rejected the European Commission’s proposed version of the backstop, which would have treated Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister has said a number of times, no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it. I understand that is still the Government’s view.

New clause 37 does not look to tie the Government’s hands. Rather, it will galvanise the Government’s position on this issue and signal to the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be left behind or left out. The Irish border is being used as a red herring by the European Union. As the Prime Minister has agreed on a number of occasions, we cannot know what arrangements, if any, will be needed on the border until we know the details of any deal with the European Union. To think the opposite of that is to put the cart before the horse.

Her Majesty’s Government, the Irish Government and politicians of all colours in Northern Ireland have said that they do not want to see a hard border in Ireland. When we say “hard border,” we are not talking about troops being stationed along the border—that is not going to happen. Nor will whatever arrangements we reach with the EU provoke violence along the border—those years have surely gone.

What will happen, though, is what has been happening for a very long time. The two jurisdictions already have different laws, different currencies, different VAT rates, different levels of corporation tax, different fuel duties, different levels of tourism tax and different levels of air passenger duty, yet trade takes place. People cross the border each day, with some people crossing several times a day. Some checks are carried out at various places in the north and south, which is how it will continue to be, without the disruption to trade and to everyday life that some people predict.

There is, therefore, no need for discussions about the border in Ireland to hold up the wider trade talks with the European Union, nor is there any need to threaten Northern Ireland’s position within the UK or Northern Ireland’s economy during these talks. New clause 37 will ensure that will not be the case.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the backstop proposals for Northern Ireland are something no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom could ever agree to, and this new clause will enshrine that policy in law.

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Ian Paisley

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it goes back to the point I was trying to make earlier: we either accept that we have to work with people we do not like and do not want to work with, or we do not, and if we do not accept that, there is no power sharing. It is as simple as that.

I am afraid it is a very good point that parties on both sides have had to work with people they do not want to work with. There are accusations about certain Members of the Assembly, and if they were in this place and we had to work very closely with them, maybe we would not like that either, but it has had to happen for the sake of devolution and the institutions.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw our attention to some of the terrible crimes that have been committed. The shadow Minister has been questioned on the issue of citing crimes from across the board; I know that he very much condemns crimes wherever they come from.

The Select Committee is concluding its report into Libyan-sponsored IRA activity, and I was rereading the proposed document this morning. I will not go into the details as the Committee has not considered it, but in that draft report are many examples of IRA violence—of the way the IRA has torn lives apart. Rereading some of those things this morning in the car as I came down to Westminster served as a reminder of what has gone on in Northern Ireland and how unacceptable it was.

I do not want to get into the issue of the prosecution of the soldiers at this point as that strays from the central part of our debate, but of course one side in the conflict always referred to it as “the war.” They did so because that excused the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children. So one side had a “war” and the other side was expected to go by the book—or the yellow card, to be precise. That is a very unfair way of looking at this whole situation and the whole legacy issue.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—and I do count him as a friend for the support that he has given to Northern Ireland over many years. Does he accept that the Bill before the House will tip the scales in favour of direct rule? Tonight, people in Ulster will be watching their televisions and learning that it will be this House that is setting their rates. For the past 10 years, that has been done in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that balance is tipped, each piece of legislation that comes forward will make it harder and harder to get back to devolution.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the problem. Yes, this is a slippery slope, but in some ways the Bill offers an opportunity for people to get together and re-form the Executive. It would allow that to happen. However, my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, it would probably not be the whole of this House that decided the rates; that would be done by the Secretary of State. With respect to him, that is the only way he could do this. This goes back to what I said about direct rule earlier. Hon. Members will not get a say on the details, whereas if these decisions were being taken in Northern Ireland, there would be much more involvement by local people. That would be far better.

I really hope that the Secretary of State will somehow be able to get the parties together in Northern Ireland so that we can avoid having Committees upstairs here running Northern Ireland, which would be most unsatisfactory. Whether he succeeds or not, we really need to look at the Belfast agreement and the legislation to see whether they need updating. I do not wish to undermine the principles of power sharing in any way, but we need to make an attempt to make it work. At the moment, it is not working. If it were, we would not be sitting here now and we would not have been in crisis 18 months ago. I do not want everything to be set up again, only to find that we are in crisis again after six or 12 months.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the petition of concern issue earlier. I, too, raised that matter, and I was told at the time that the parties were happy with the situation. That, and an awful lot of other issues, need to be looked at. We need to modernise and update the arrangements so that they can deal with the situation that we find ourselves in now, rather than the one that we were in 20 years ago. Without doubt, a lot of progress has been made in Northern Ireland. We cannot deny that, and we should not want to, but we have to get the political process right as well. If we do not, people will completely lose faith in it, and that would be in nobody’s interests.

Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Ian Paisley

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I just want to make a fairly brief intervention in this debate. Before I do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you will allow me a few seconds to refer and pay tribute to my constituency assistant who died very suddenly a few days ago. His name was Mark Calway, and he worked for me for 14 years and took a particular interest in matters Northern Ireland—and indeed in matters the Republic of Ireland—helping me quite a bit with my work on the Select Committee and as co-chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. His death is a stunning shock, and my heart goes out to his parents, Brian and Maureen. I do hope it is in order for me to pay the greatest tribute to him possible today. All hon. Members know how much we depend on our staff, and when they are personal friends as well, such a loss, at the age of 49, is terrible. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

May I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the work she has done in getting us to this point? I know—or I think I know—how difficult things were back in September when it looked as though the institutions in Northern Ireland might collapse. I know how much work she put in—or I am guessing I know that. Her dedication was total. She was absolutely determined that the institutions would not collapse and that we would in fact find some degree of agreement and a solution that would enable us to move forward. The fact that we are here today demonstrates that she was successful in that, so I really do want to pay tribute to her—and her team—for the very hard work and extraordinarily long hours put into this.

Before I was Select Committee Chairman, I served as shadow Minister for about five years. During some of that time we dealt with an awful lot of legislation—statutory instruments—in Committee upstairs, taking major decisions on behalf of the Province and the people in Northern Ireland. On many of those occasions, at the beginning of my speeches I said how wrong and inappropriate it was to govern the Province in that way, yet we really did face the prospect of going back to the previous situation, and that worried and frightened me. It came about as a result of a couple of tragic murders in Northern Ireland and the linkage between them and people in the Assembly who were allegedly sympathetic to that kind of activity. I am very pleased that this Bill makes it clear that there is no place, either in this place or the Assembly in Northern Ireland, for people who hold those beliefs.

Many years ago we heard the famous and chilling statement that some people would proceed with the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other. Those days are long gone, and anybody who tries to practise that or carry out politics in that way should be in prison, deprived of their liberty. There is no place in the Northern Ireland Assembly for that kind of people. We would not want to work on Committees in this House or anywhere else with people who by day are in the debating Chamber and at night are on the streets causing trouble and wreaking havoc. We would not accept it in this place, and it should not be accepted in Northern Ireland, so I am very pleased that the Bill paves the way for removing that kind of behaviour.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making. Sometimes we do have to stop and pinch ourselves and recognise how far Northern Ireland has come in recent years. The point he is making about Northern Ireland politicians taking decisions about the needs of the people of Northern Ireland is emphasised today, as there have been something like 26 amendments on the Floor of the Northern Ireland Parliament today, being voted and consulted on and considered by Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. That shows that instead of decisions being taken in Committee Rooms here, they are being taken in Northern Ireland by the elected representatives on the Floor of the Assembly, and they are very prosperous and good decisions.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which emphasises far more strongly than I was able to the importance of the Assembly’s functioning. When we sat in Committee taking big decisions, the great problem was that by the nature of the arithmetic of this House, there were very few people on the Committee from Northern Ireland. The decisions were taken by people like me and many others from English constituencies, with very few representatives from Northern Ireland, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point.

The most urgent priority was dealing with the paramilitary aspect, but there were other issues, which are dealt with in the Bill. One was the agreeing of the budgets. I have mentioned before what happens when there is power-sharing rather than the straight democratic system that we have in this House. We all know why we have that power-sharing, and it has brought people together, but there may be times when there has to be compromise in the way the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive do business. There may be times when politicians in the Assembly and the Executive take their stances, make their points and make their objections, but at the end of the day there has to be agreement; if not, and if there is an overuse of the petitions of concern—I accept that both sides have used them to excess—it is not going to be very helpful. If we cannot get agreement on important issues such as the budget, we face the rather dark prospect of the institutions collapsing, as we almost saw, and power being brought back to this House. That is not something I want to see.

JTI Gallaher

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Ian Paisley

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Government policy should be based on evidence. If there were evidence to show that plain packaging will reduce consumption, the Government would have every right to attempt to implement the policy. But given that it is basically guesswork, and that the trial on the ground in Australia shows that consumption is not decreasing as a result of plain packaging, but that illicit trade is increasing, the Government should take stock immediately.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

I give way to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Mr Robertson]

As a fellow member of the Select Committee, does the hon. Gentleman remember that when we looked into the illicit trade issue and interviewed the head of the relevant department in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, his view was that plain or standard packaging would actually increase counterfeiting and the illicit trade?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. He is clearly demonstrating, through his knowledge of this subject and what HMRC has told him that the Government’s policy is wrong-headed and will not prevent people from smoking. I say again: I want to see a reduction in smoking, but we have to have a policy that works and is proven to work. The evidence is not there to achieve the Government’s policy.

Northern Ireland Economy

Debate between Laurence Robertson and Ian Paisley

Thursday 1st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alan. Usually, you and I jointly chair the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries, so today’s debate is a diversion, but I am sure that it is extremely important, just as our other debates are.

It is a pleasure to open this debate on the Northern Ireland economy on St David’s day, and I am delighted to be doing so. I start by thanking all the members of the Northern Ireland Committee—both past and present—who have worked extremely hard in compiling the reports that we have produced, which I will refer to. I also thank the Committee staff, who work extremely hard.

This is a very important debate, as are all debates on the economy at this time. Just today, we have all seen bad unemployment figures throughout Europe. We hope that our own economy in the UK is starting to recover, but I think we all feel that there is a long way to go and that there will be some very difficult decisions to make, so, as I said, any debate on the economy is important. I am pleased to introduce this debate, which is about rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy.

As well as having the honour of chairing the Northern Ireland Committee, I have the privilege and pleasure of being joint chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I am quite new to that role and I am the British chairman of the assembly. I mention that to demonstrate my friendship with the Republic of Ireland, given that I shall refer to that country in my remarks.

Of course, we are all aware of the difficulties that Northern Ireland has gone through. Most hon. Members would probably agree that those difficulties are due—at least largely and probably entirely—to the terrorism that existed in the Province for many years. There were 30 years of real, hard terrorism when people suffered terribly; lives have been shattered, and many lives were lost. If that was not bad enough, as a result prosperity in the Province has been a lot lower than it would and should have been otherwise. This debate is a contribution to the attempt to start turning that situation around.

When we discuss the economy in Northern Ireland, it is important to recognise that there are a number of bright spots. The unemployment rate is lower than in the rest of the UK and is falling, and there is a higher level of manufacturing production. Research and development investment in Northern Ireland increased by 6% last year, albeit from a low base. Belfast is the second most attractive city in the UK after London for foreign direct investment. For 16 to 18-year-olds in Northern Ireland, there are better educational outcomes than in the rest of the UK, although there is a lower level of qualification among those in the working age population. This year there are increased tourism opportunities, with the Titanic anniversary, and next year there will be celebrations with Londonderry being the city of culture. These are all bright spots, and there are others that I have not mentioned.

However, we would be derelict in our duty if we did not recognise that there are problems, and one of them is the size of the public sector. Let us just consider employment. Of those who are employed, 27.7% work in the public sector, as against an average of 20.6% in the rest of the UK, which makes Northern Ireland’s public sector the biggest of all the UK regions. Of course, that results in higher public spending, £10,706 per person in Northern Ireland as opposed to £8,845 in the rest of the UK—21% higher in Northern Ireland, which is a significant cost. There is no doubt in my mind that that increased cost is largely, if not entirely, due to the 30 years of the troubles.

If we look at the number of employed people, 67.9% of the working-age population in Northern Ireland are employed as opposed to 70.3% in the rest of the UK. That is another statistic that is not favourable for Northern Ireland. Productivity per job is only 85.3% of the UK average. If we look at gross value added, Northern Ireland, with GVA of £15,651, is again lower than the rest of the UK, which has GVA of £20,476. Indeed, Northern Ireland is the lowest region of the UK in terms of GVA, apart from Wales. The fall in GVA since the pre-recession peak has been more pronounced in Northern Ireland, and growth in Northern Ireland is projected to be slower than in the rest of the UK in the coming year.

There are a number of other problems. There will be a reduced rate of assistance from Europe from 2013, and there are also higher fuel and energy costs. Recently, the Select Committee visited the Coolkeeragh gas plant, which is just outside Londonderry. People at the plant highlighted a big problem that I hope the Minister will take on board; I have raised it in the Commons already. That problem is the carbon floor price. When it is added to the taxes and everything else coming from the EU, it could make Northern Ireland very uncompetitive in terms of energy production. I hope that the Treasury will take that point on board and consider what can be done to avoid penalising companies in Northern Ireland that are only doing the right things.

What do we need to do now? Obviously we must try to increase the prosperity of people in Northern Ireland, so that they are less dependent on taxpayers in the rest of the UK, and we need to do that not only to improve prosperity but to cement the peace that so many people have worked so hard to achieve. I am not for one moment suggesting that poverty is an excuse for violence or law-breaking of any kind—it certainly is not; but we must recognise that when people are unemployed, with time on their hands and nothing better to do, they are more likely to turn to activities that are not to be approved of. That is not an excuse, but we should recognise the fact that it is a likely outcome for some people. Increasing prosperity in the Province and giving people opportunities to work or to receive education and training will surely divert people who might just turn the wrong way. That is very important and it is one of the things that we have stressed in our reports.

What changes are needed to increase prosperity in Northern Ireland? I have a list of suggestions. We probably all accept that we need to reduce the size of the public sector and increase the size of the private sector. Again, that raises the question of how we do that. One of the things that the Select Committee has looked at is trying to make Northern Ireland more competitive, so as to attract more inward investment. I shall turn to the corporation tax proposals shortly, but there are a number of other issues that I want to discuss briefly.

A short while ago, the Select Committee carried out an inquiry, and produced a report on air passenger duty. One of our concerns at the time was that Continental Airlines, the one and only carrier from Belfast to New York, was in serious danger of pulling out and stopping those flights. That really was a threat to the economy in Northern Ireland. We conducted a short inquiry and came up with the proposal that the APD for long-haul flights should be reduced, and the Government responded by reducing it to £12 per flight, which is the APD for local flights. Before that it was £60. For a family of four flying to New York from Belfast, that was £240 in tax before they had even got on the plane. The airline was carrying that cost, which made it extremely uncompetitive, and was threatening to pull out. It was a serious threat, and we lobbied hard for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and indeed the Treasury to try to do something about it urgently. I congratulate Ministers and the Government on responding so quickly and reducing the tax. We hope that we can move forward in that respect.

We also suggested that the policy for setting the rate of air passenger duty for long-haul flights be devolved to the Assembly. I am pleased that that is now the Government’s policy and it will be enacted through the Finance Bill. I welcome that move, which is a step in the right direction.

We need to improve the planning situation in Northern Ireland. Again, that is a devolved issue, so I will not dwell on it too long. Everyone would accept that planning has to become more efficient. We have just heard of the new golf course near the Giant’s Causeway finally being given planning permission, but it took 10 years to get to that point. It is hardly an incentive for new businesses to try to do anything good when they face that type of planning process, although I am aware that there were several objections to the planning application.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The golf course is an important investment opportunity for Northern Ireland, and it does indeed turn the page for a part of the economy that has seen very dark days. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should encourage everyone in the public and private sectors, particularly the National Trust, which is a key stakeholder in the area, to get behind that tourism project in this year of tourism initiatives, and support a key investment in our locality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a very active member of the Select Committee. I entirely agree that the golf course is extremely important. It is a great investment and a great opportunity. I hope that Northern Ireland goes on to attract the Open Championship—not necessarily to that course, but to a course in Northern Ireland. It is important to move in that direction. I urge the Government to get behind the project. I know that it is a devolved matter, but there is great frustration with regard to the planning situation, as there probably is in most local authorities. There certainly is in mine, but it is particularly the case in Northern Ireland.

In about two weeks’ time, we shall publish our report on our inquiry into the smuggling of tobacco, alcohol and diesel. Obviously, I cannot go into detail at the moment, but I can reveal a couple of figures. Fuel fraud costs Northern Ireland £70 million and tobacco fraud costs £42 million, making a total of £112 million, which could be in the pockets of the health service or the education service. Indeed, it could help to reduce taxes in Northern Ireland. That is something that we are looking at. I cannot go into too much detail at the moment, but it is a real issue. Not only does smuggling cost the economy a lot of money, but it provides opportunities for paramilitaries, ex-paramilitaries and people who are up to no good to engage in activities that do the economy, Northern Ireland and the UK no good at all.

On creating a genuinely shared future and reducing the cost of division, we have made huge progress—let us not forget that—but we need to do more. Yesterday, I read a report on the BBC website that claimed that when the agreement was signed, there were 22 peace walls, but there are now 48. Segregation of housing and education is not only divisive in an area that needs to end division; it is costly as well. We need to find an affordable way of dealing effectively with the past. I do not want to get into a debate about what the Secretary of State calls costly and open-ended inquiries. This is not the time or the place, but we have to find a way of dealing with the past effectively and more affordably.

I turn to the corporation tax report that we produced. We spent a lot of time looking at corporation tax in Northern Ireland. To be fair to everybody concerned, I note that not every member of the Committee agreed with the proposals that were made. However, many members did agree.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps one reason why there was not unanimity was because there was a cloud of judgment over exactly what the Treasury is asking for in terms of costs? It is essential that we get absolute top-desk clarity from the Treasury on what the measure is going to cost; we need to be clear about how it is going to make that calculation. It is important that it takes on board the fact that Northern Ireland will have increased income tax and increased national insurance contributions so as to make the cost less for us as an Executive.

[Mr Robertson]

Indeed, that was one of the points that we made in our report. We were astounded that the Treasury did not have a figure that we could use to assess the cost. I will explain the background. Because of the Azores judgment in Europe, it appears that if corporation tax is reduced for one area of a jurisdiction—not for all the jurisdiction—that part has to take the hit in terms of the outcome. In other words, if the tax take drops by, say, £100 million, it cannot be made up by Westminster. It has to be part of the block grant. We were astounded to find that the Treasury did not have that figure. Our report urges the Treasury to put a mechanism in place that will tell the Assembly—not so much us—what it will cost.

Corporation tax across the United Kingdom is on its way down. At the moment, it is 26%. In the Republic of Ireland, it is 12.5%. It is important to note that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land border with another European Union state—the Republic, where there is a massive tax difference. The location of Northern Ireland is also important. It is an island off an island; it is peripheral. In my view, it certainly needs something that it can wave and advertise to attract inward investment, otherwise it may be easier to invest in other mainland areas or countries with lower tax rates. It is not immediately obvious why one should come to Northern Ireland, but it is easy to see why people go to the Republic of Ireland. It is possible that Google, Facebook and Twitter were attracted to Dublin because of the very low rate of corporation tax. Of course, inward investment is extremely important, but if a company is making a profit and paying a percentage of that in taxation, it has less money to actually spend on reinvestment.

As I said, not all Committee members agreed, but interestingly the Irish Government agree. The present Taoiseach has said publicly that he would approve of Northern Ireland reducing its corporation tax to 12.5%. That is an amazing situation to find ourselves in. We are competing with the Republic and we want to compete even more strongly, and they are in favour of that. Perhaps it is a mark of the progress that has been made in the incredibly good relations that exist between the Republic of Ireland and this country. It is certainly to be welcomed.