General Election Television Debates

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I emphasise at the outset points that other hon. Members have made. We brought this debate forward not because we have some selfish party political interest, but because we believe that if there are to be debates about the shape of future government, and the input that parties will have, or potentially have, into future government, including in Northern Ireland, then the public should have the widest possible information about who will be involved and the ideas that will be put forward.

We recognise that even in a hung Parliament our role may be quite marginal, so we would have been quite happy for the parties that are most likely to form the Government of the United Kingdom to have their leaders debating the issues before the general public. We are not as arrogant as the BBC or some of the other broadcasters. We do not believe that we have some God-given right to be included just because we happen to have Members in the House of Commons or are putting people forward to be Members. However, once the rules were manipulated, changed, twisted and warped to include some smaller parties, but not all, we had a right to make the demands that we have made to the BBC and the other broadcasters that are included in this motion.

I do not believe that the debate about the debates has done politics any good at all. Despite what has been said, I do not see this as a problem that was made by politicians, although some people would happily point the finger at the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. The problem was primarily caused by the broadcasters. We probably all have our own interpretations of what their motives were. Was it simply that they believed that they could imperiously wave their fingers at the politicians of this country and tell them, “We will give you broadcasting time. Here are the conditions on which you will have it, and if you do not obey the rules that we have set down, we will punish you”? Another interpretation is that they simply wanted to sex up the broadcasts, and saw that perhaps a good head-to-head row between the Prime Minister and the leader of UKIP would do the job. Alternatively, given the left-wing bias of the BBC—I have sympathy with the views of some Government Members on this—perhaps it mainly wanted someone present who would take on the Prime Minister. I have a great belief in the left-wing bias of the BBC. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, were you to give me time—I know that you will not, because I would be diverging from the motion—I could wax eloquent on that matter for a long time, but I will not do so.

[Ian Paisley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the left-leaning bias of the BBC with regard to these broadcasts again opens up the debate that should properly take place about whether we should be paying licence fees for such an organisation to exist?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will desist from getting into a discussion about licence fees, the payment of licence fees, the non-payment of licence fees, the compulsory payment of licence fees, or whatever. That is another favourite topic of mine, but it is not quite relevant to the motion before us.

Whatever the reason for it, we now have an unbecoming shambles that is not doing politics any good. Despite what is said about how rubbishy people think politicians are, I think there is a general desire among the public to hear debates on the issues. However, those debates have to be in a fair and properly structured format. The unbecoming shambles that we now have brings politics in this country further into disrepute.

We have put forward an unassailable case. We would prefer a much tighter arrangement for the debate, but if it is to be opened up—I add the qualifications put forward by Members from the Alliance party and the SDLP, and ourselves—there are absolutely no grounds for saying that the fourth largest party in this House, which stands only in a regional capacity but is no different in that regard from Plaid Cymru or the SNP, and has more members than many of the smaller parties that will be included, and could have the same influence as all those parties, should be excluded. That is especially the case because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, it is not as though we operate in some kind of bubble in Northern Ireland and will not be competing against some of the parties that are represented on these Benches and that will be participating in the debates.

I will have a UKIP opponent and perhaps even have a Conservative opponent and, by proxy, I will have opposition from Labour in the form of the SDLP and from the Liberal Democrats in the form of the Alliance party. When I say “opposition” from competitors I mean it in the loosest possible sense of the word, because such opponents will be somewhere down at the bottom of the pile when it comes to counting the votes. I will also have an opponent from the Greens, but given the fact that the Greens in Northern Ireland want to prevent the good constituents of East Antrim from eating bacon butties on a Monday in order to save the planet or from seeing adverts for flying to the Mediterranean because they will put too much CO₂ into the air—

JTI Gallaher

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On 7 October, my constituency received the devastating news that a 150-year-old manufacturing industry was to be brought to an end.

JTI Gallaher employs 900 people in Ballymena. It has existed in Northern Ireland since its foundation 150 years ago in the city of Londonderry, and it has been a mainstay of employment in Northern Ireland. It has stood along with key industries such as linen-making, textiles, rope-making and shipbuilding, and it has itself been part of one of the key industries in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, it alone employs those 900 people. It is regarded as one of the largest employers in the constituency, and, indeed, in Northern Ireland as a whole.

Let me put this into a local perspective. In a country of 1.8 million people, that employer’s wage input into my local economy is £60 million, and it puts a further £100 million into the entire Northern Ireland economy through transport, packaging and other associated industries.

In philanthropic terms, the company supports—and indeed is the lifeblood support of—key charities, including Age UK, the Harryville partnership in Ballymena and the Ulster orchestra. We are hearing much locally about the future of the Ulster orchestra. Let us be absolutely clear about this: without JTI Gallaher there would be no Ulster orchestra.

I want to put the 900 jobs into a UK-wide perspective. If those jobs were lost here on the mainland of the United Kingdom, it would be the equivalent of 32,000 people being told that their jobs are over. I welcome the fact that we have a Minister at the Dispatch Box, but I have been totally underwhelmed by the response of this Government to that blow to our economy. There has been no statement from that Dispatch Box about it. The Secretary of State has not come to that Dispatch Box. To say the sense of betrayal in my constituency is palpable would be an understatement.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have surrendered to the lobby from those who oppose smoking? They have put people out of jobs and yet their very objective will not be achieved, because all that will happen is that people will move over to an illegal market, with far more dangerous tobacco products and the financing of criminal gangs?

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

There are three reasons why this factory is going to be closed. The first of the two main reasons is over-regulation. I am the first to say that smoking needs to be regulated—I do not smoke, I do not want my children to smoke, and the product is harmful so it has to be regulated—but to over-regulate it to such a degree that we close the industry down without stopping people smoking is just foolishness.

The second key issue is the illicit trade. As a result of over-regulation—my hon. Friend pointed to this—one in four cigarettes smoked across the whole of the United Kingdom is an illicit cigarette that has been smuggled in. That damages not only the economy and the country, but these jobs.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I wanted to come on to that point, so I will jump to it now. The risk is, of course, fairly minimal in any case. First, it has already been covered and, secondly, I heard the Minister say that this cannot be passed on through additional premiums on employers’ liability insurance. No Minister can guarantee that when insurance premiums go up, some of the marginal increase is not to enable the additional costs to be recouped by the insurance industry. I do not know what kind of scrutiny of employers’ liability insurance premiums the Minister intends to introduce to ensure that the costs are not passed on, but in any case, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has pointed out, the insurance companies will already have made provision for this Bill.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. He is absolutely right about how the insurance companies will operate in this field. They not only insure the initial risk, but sell it on. We can be assured that they are definitely covered, and I believe that the Minister should take cognisance of that in making his decision.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Let me deal with the two amendments that deal with whether the compensation level is acceptable. For 28 years, I represented east Belfast—the inner part within the shadow of the shipyard—on Belfast city council, and I saw and represented, at disability living allowance tribunals and so forth, many people who had suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos in the shipyard. I have seen the suffering that they went through. I have gone into their houses and seen people who could hardly walk across a 12-foot wide living room, who could not climb the stairs and who knew that they were in for a horrible and painful death. Those are the sort of people we are talking about, and that is the outcome of the exposure to which they have been subjected. That is what we are dealing with.

I must say that I find it grossly offensive that people who qualify for 75% compensation under this scheme will have 100% of their benefits taken from them, yet that will be paid back to the insurance companies to try to “relieve the burden” on companies that already have the money to cover the costs. We should bear that in mind when we look at amendments 1 and 4, which provide for increasing the level of compensation.

Tobacco Products (Plain Packaging)

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Government face a choice: to make policy on the basis of emotion—indeed, of emotional blackmail—or to make it on the basis of evidence. I welcome the recent statement by the Government that they will look at and assess the evidence, then take a decision on that basis. That is an eminently sensible way to approach making policy.

Other Members do themselves a disservice if they take a particular position on the sale, manufacture and distribution of tobacco, saying that those activities are somehow aligned with those of child killers, cancer pushers and drug dealers. That is the import of what is being said today about people who wish to defend an industry that employs 66,000 people in this country. If we put it out of business, it will not reduce the consumption or sale of cigarettes by one; they will simply be manufactured in other countries and imported here, and they will continue to be smoked here.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the statistics that have been given here today, and despite all the health warnings and pictures on cigarettes, 200,000 people are still recruited into the cigarette industry every year? It is evident that the packaging—the shape and colour, and what is on it—does not deter people from smoking.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I shall deal with the evidence on three issues. First, the Republic of Ireland has the tightest, harshest laws on public smoking. When it introduced those laws 10 years ago—it set the trend on this—smoking stood at 30% of the public. After 10 years of enforcement, enforcement, enforcement, today the number of people who smoke in the Republic of Ireland is 30%. There has not been one single change to consumption, yet we are told that this drive is all about reducing consumption. It does not actually work.

How do we address consumption? We do what the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) says: educate young people. In Germany, they have done that and consumption has fallen to 16%. Why? Because they educated the very young and persuaded people that smoking was not the course of action they should take. They educated them away from cigarettes. They also do another thing: they enforce. In other words, an adult cannot go into a shop, buy fags and give them to a 16-year-old. They enforce against adults who do that. Unfortunately, many people in this country go into shops and purchase cigarettes, or purchase illicit trade cigarettes out of the back of someone’s car, and then give them to young people. We should enforce against that.

I also want to deal with the myth about illicit trade. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) should know much better. To suggest that HMRC is on top of the illicit trade in this country is to put one’s head in the sand. Last year, HMRC gave evidence to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs about illicit trade, and tobacco was dealt with. HMRC is fighting a tsunami of counterfeit trade in this country.

In my country, 25% of all cigarettes smoked are illegal. In Scotland, the figure is about 27%. If we are pretending today that the authorities are on top of the issue, we are absolutely, totally and completely wrong. We have to recognise that counterfeiters are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of their job being made easier. They will be able to get a simpler package cover that is standardised across the whole UK and push it out across the UK, getting people to smoke brands that are counterfeit and illicitly brought into the country. Remember that the people doing that are not Sunday school teachers; they are serious organised criminals who are involved in serious criminal endeavours.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is always a joy to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), although it is sometimes a bit frightening as well. On this occasion, I am probably on stronger ground than at other times. It is not hard to knock down any arguments that the Bill is “excellent”, “balanced”, “sensible” or demonstrating “care and thoughtfulness”. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that lobbying is an important part of our democracy, but we must be sure that it is transparent and open to scrutiny. However, the Bill excludes most lobbying activities. As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I know that it would have been daft if any lobbyist’s first port of call had been my office or that of the permanent secretary. They went first to the officials who were writing reports for me. Any Bill that excludes that aspect of lobbying is not excellent, not balanced and not sensible.

Let us look at who the Bill covers. It must cover the main lobbying activity, even though there are many ways of disguising that. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) pointed out, if anyone wants to get round the rules, they need only turn to schedule 1 of the Bill, because the way to get round them is to ensure that they get their man on the inside. The lobbying organisation simply needs to ensure that their lobbyist becomes an official and an employee. The Bill is not balanced, and it certainly does not address some of the issues that we are concerned about.

I tend to agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset—and to disagree with some Opposition Members—about third-party organisations. Of course they should be covered by the legislation, because many of them involve themselves quite openly in political activity. I suspect that many of the organisations that have lobbied me on this issue do not share my views on a whole range of subjects, but they nevertheless play an important part in the debate in our democracy. However, if we are to have rules and regulations covering third-party organisations, there needs to be certainty in that regard. The organisations need to know what the rules are, and what is expected of them.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset said that this part of the Bill was sensible, but let us just look at the hurdles those organisations will have to overcome. Any expenditure that they undertake that is deemed to be controlled expenditure will not be able to be used for “election purposes” or in connection with

“promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for…one or more particular registered parties”.

How is that to be measured? Who will measure it? We carry out assessments within our own parties after elections to determine what worked and what did not, and half the time even we cannot quantify which have been the important elements in the election campaign and which have been irrelevant. We find it difficult to determine what counted, what brought votes in and what did not. And it is even worse than that, because such controlled expenditure will also not be able to be used for

“otherwise enhancing the standing…of any such party or parties”

not only in the next election but in “future relevant elections”.

That being the case, how will a third-party organisation be able to determine whether the expenditure has had an impact and ought therefore to be registered and declared? Of course, it gets worse because there are implications for the parties. The Bill goes on to set out that, if such expenditure has enhanced the standing of an individual or a party, or helped to procure their election, the relevant party will have to declare that. If it does not, it is a criminal offence. Let me ask the Leader of the House a genuine question: how are third-party organisations meant to measure that? How are parties themselves meant to make that assessment? If the Bill is as ambiguous and unclear as that, it is not good legislation; it is not sensible legislation; it is not carefully thought out legislation. That is one reason why we shall vote against it tonight.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I think that the momentum of my hon. Friend’s comments is absolutely spot on, but does he agree with me on this? Whenever lobby groups approach us, we assume that they have already spoken to all of our colleagues and all of our competitors—sometimes, by the way, that might be the same person! The lobbyists, we assume, have already spoken to all of those other people in the round anyway, so there is no big secret about what they are telling us. Is it not just that they are giving us their spin on a particular subject?

[Sammy Wilson]

We have already discussed the importance of lobbying groups in providing the sort of information we require to do our job, but if we are to regulate them, they have to know what they are being regulated for. In closing, let me give a couple of examples.

I can think of many lobbying organisations that, because of the position I previously had in the Northern Ireland Assembly, had to see through many of the expenditure cuts that came as a result of decisions made here. They probably attached a lot of the blame for the consequences to me, and when it comes to the election, I am sure they will make that point. Does that sort of campaigning have to be declared as controlled expenditure, or is it simply what we would generally expect from organisations that have control over welfare changes, capital spending cuts and so forth?

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

Northern Ireland Economy

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Thursday 1st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley]

No—that’s why she’s happy.

[Sammy Wilson]

She is happy because she has such a wonderful public representative.

We should take those figures with some scepticism. If we use the same criteria, we find that the person who is typically happiest is a white male with five children who works only part time, and I am not so sure we want that as a recipe for the work force in Northern Ireland.

However happy people in Northern Ireland might be, there is a need to rebalance the economy. I should, however, make one point to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). He talked about reducing the size of the public sector and increasing the size of the private sector. The truth of the matter is that any economy needs—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady is crying “nonsense”, but she invited people to come to St Patrick’s country. In fact, the only place where St Patrick put his feet was on Slemish mountain, so I welcome her to come to North Antrim any time, and I also welcome those tourists who want to come to North Antrim.

The golf resort that has been mentioned fits in with our Department for Regional Development strategy, our tourism strategy and the various economic strategies that have been put in place. It offers vast potential, but it does so 10 years after that potential was first identified. It offers that potential at a time now with approvals, when the economic climate has changed quite dramatically. But I believe that people are up to meeting the challenge, and I hope that Government will encourage them.

Again, those people who would talk that project down and say, “Oh, it’s not the time for that type of proposal,” or, “It’s destructive of our natural environment,” really have to be put in their place by our national Government, who can say to the likes of those organisations that may be opposed to the project, “Look, do you want Northern Ireland to go forward? Are you on the side of Northern Ireland? Or do you want to be in that bank of people who talk the place down?” I hope that we can get a collective view, and I congratulate the SDLP Minister who was able to get the case over the line, but he addressed, and people must address, the fact that many misnomers have been identified.

Some people said, “Oh, this is being built on the Giant’s Causeway.” It is not. It is closer to Bushmills than to the Giant’s Causeway. A public representative today issued a statement that houses would be dotted all over the causeway. That is rubbish. They are being built in the curtilage of Bushmills village. The previous Environment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), made sure that that was in the proposal.

[Sammy Wilson]

There is a certain irony in the National Trust objecting to a golf course that will attract hundreds of thousands of visitors to the area, when it has no difficulty raising revenue on its own estates by erecting 300-foot wind turbines.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree that someone might identify that as hypocritical. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is calling the National Trust a hypocrite, but it has not yet publicly objected. There could be suggestions of an objection. That would set things back, and we must avoid that at all costs. I welcome the fact that there will be even more holy ground in the golf mecca of North Antrim.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) rightly, and with pride, mentioned Wrightbus in my constituency. When I walk down Whitehall in the morning and I see dozens of bits of Ballymena passing by in bright red, it fills me with pride that that represents 1,000 jobs in Ulster. I hope that the Minister will go to Boris, the Mayor of London, and say, “Increase that order. Get the 200 buses out there. Make sure that those buses continue to roll off the production line in Northern Ireland and generate more jobs.” It fills me with pride.

A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong, where I saw double-decker buses that were made in Northern Ireland. We were not importing from but exporting to Asia, and that is fantastic. That is the way in which we want to get our companies to work.

On the agri-sector, the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) is right. It is the backbone of our economy. No matter which way we cut it, we are part of a £20 billion industry in food production across the United Kingdom. That is not to be sniffed at, but we have huge problems at a national level with regulation that unfortunately comes from Europe. Our Government must stand up to and address such regulation. I welcome some of the steps that are being taken by our Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, but much more must be done to cut the red tape to allow our poultry and red meat industry and our value-added sector in food production to move forward and develop.

EU regulations, for example, on the number of fish that someone can land are destroying coastal jobs up and down the south and north Antrim coast of Ulster. That should be addressed at a national level. I hope that we will do more to help the 20,000 farm businesses in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will join me to encourage our DEFRA Ministers to organise a round table discussion in Northern Ireland with all the agricultural stakeholders, so that we can put together a common agricultural policy reform plan that will help move our agri-economy forward.

We look forward to the national remedy that could be identified soon in our Select Committee report on fuel laundering and other forms of smuggling. For example, tobacco smuggling and fuel laundering in Northern Ireland accounts for some £200 million every year. That money could be far better spent by the Treasury in Northern Ireland or other parts of the UK if it was not stolen from the pockets of the people of this kingdom. We have a duty to ensure that those issues are addressed.

I hope that the Government will drop their White Paper suggestion and potential policy for plain paper wrapping on tobacco products, as it could destroy 1,000 jobs in my constituency. That is a national matter—it has to come from here. Such a proposal must be dumped, because it will be disastrous for local jobs. I hope that we can come up with some positive suggestions to address fuel laundering and recoup some of the money that is lost.

This week started badly for my constituency, with the loss of 50 jobs in the construction sector at Patton Homes. Construction and house building is a measure of economic confidence. Whenever it slows down or stops, it shows that confidence is waning. We have to make sure that we encourage our developers, our house builders and the construction industry in the ways that have been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I hope that we can do that.

In conclusion, we should have the ability and the capacity to envision a better future for our economy and our country. We have a responsibility to do that. We should have the ability and the capacity as a country to cope with more than one major development project at a time. Sometimes, there is a view that we can deal with only one thing at a time. We must be able to adapt and show that we can deal with multiple, complex economic opportunities simultaneously.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim ably suggested today, we need to introduce significant reforms to our banking structure. I hope that in our next Select Committee report, after our aviation strategy, we will examine banking sector reform and consider whether the structure disadvantages Northern Ireland. If it does, as many of us believe, I hope that we can try to change it. Our economy has a chance. We are on the verge of writing a new chapter for our economy, but it will happen only if we are prepared to put our hands on the plough and drive it forward. The Democratic Unionist party will not be found wanting in that endeavour.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

That is related to the point that I made about the downward multiplier impact that the proposals will have on the UK economy, and particularly on the Northern Ireland economy. I am always reluctant to plead special cases, but one has to consider where Northern Ireland is in the economic cycle. We lag behind, as we are still in the downward part of the cycle. All the available indices, whether of output, employment, forward orders, investment or whatever else, show that we are still on the downward slide in the cycle. Our concern is about the impact that the attempts to restructure the economy could have, and the fact that while growth might occur in the rest of the United Kingdom, we might find ourselves still stuck in a recession because of the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On the subject of fairness and special cases, the Red Book outlines a special case for Scotland, where there is to be a possible pilot scheme for rural fuel duty. Given that Northern Ireland is the only region of the UK that has a land border with another EU state whose fuel duty is progressively lower than ours, would it not be wise for that possible pilot scheme to be extended to the region that would benefit most from its findings?

[Sammy Wilson]

I would like to see that scheme initiated quickly in Northern Ireland. I suspect that it is one of the proposals that the Liberal Democrats were keen on pushing forward. Given the rural nature of much of Northern Ireland and the particular circumstances that we face, we would welcome it. We will be interested to see the outcome of the pilot scheme and how quickly it is rolled out across the rest of the UK, if at all.

I turn to fairness for individuals, on which there are things to be welcomed in the Budget. I suppose that at the end of the day, it will all be about balance. I am pleased to see that the pledge to restore the link between earnings and pensions has been honoured. For many pensioners who find themselves in difficulty, that will be an important gain. We also have the banking levy, the change to capital gains tax for those paying the top rate of tax and the fact that the pay freeze will not apply to those at the lower end of the public sector pay scale. There has been a genuine attempt to recognise that those who are already on low incomes should not be pushed down further.

On the other hand, there will be concern about the regressive nature of the VAT increase and the freezing of child benefit and tax credits. I am particularly concerned about the backdating of tax credits for one month instead of three, and I hope that the Chancellor will give us an answer about that. I hope that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will improve its performance in dealing with tax credits, otherwise many people will have an unfair result through no fault of their own. They will be powerless against a bureaucracy that seems unable to move on the issue.