Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

What estimate he has made of the costs incurred by businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker.

The protocol is explicit in its respect for the UK’s territorial integrity, and the Government are committed to delivering it with as little impact on businesses and day-to-day lives as possible. The Government have set up the free-to-use trader support service to support businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a cost of £270 million and have made full use of provisions within the protocol to ensure that no tariffs are charged on internal UK trade.

[Ian Paisley]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Does the Minister accept that the protocol actually discriminates against British businesses trading between GB and Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and GB? It undermines trade, damages consumer opportunities and rights, and increases costs to both consumers and businesses on both sides of the channel. What action will the Government take, and indeed encourage others to take, to save British businesses and the economy from this economic discrimination? How long will businesses have to wait for a solution and what compensation has the Treasury calculated to cover the loss in trade, which, at present, is running at hundreds of millions of pounds?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. Of course, this follows a wide concern that he has put in front of the House on many previous occasions. I do not accept the characterisation that he has given of the situation in Northern Ireland, but I absolutely agree with him that the Government need to continue to press for the Northern Ireland protocol to be implemented in a proportionate and pragmatic way. That is an important goal of the Government. He talks about the schemes in place. Let me remind him that, so far, the trader support service has processed something like, I think, 700,000 consignments, 59,000 traders have been registered, there is the Brexit support fund and there is the new movement assistance scheme, as he will know, for food and agriculture trade. We retain a focus on making those systems, rules and support work as effectively and as widely as possible.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 2MC.]

0.7% Official Development Assistance Target

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson).

The overseas aid budget is very, very important, so this debate is incredibly welcome, as it will allow Parliament —not Government—to have its say about the importance of this issue. Unfortunately, the Government’s stance has managed to offend every single church group and charity group that I know of in my constituency. They are appalled by the fact that the Government have sought to undermine the aid budget in this way and to break a solemn promise that they made to the electorate. In fact, it is a promise that they appear to have made on behalf of the whole House, not just their own party.

UK charities have been impacted on unfairly by this decision. The Government need to look at that particular. When charities go out there, make their stand, lobby, and say that they are going to achieve things, their credibility goes on the line. In this case, it has been snatched away from them, not by something that they have done but by something that the Government have done.

I am sure that the Government did not think that, tonight, they would be able to unite the Labour party, members of their own party, the SNP, the Democratic Unionist party and the Liberal Democrats, but they have succeeded in doing so, ensuring that the opposition to what they are planning to do with the aid budget is voiced.

Her Majesty’s Government are breaking their promise made not just on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of everyone in the UK. People voted at the last election with an expectation that this would be done. All the parties were committed to this. It became the law, and now that promise will be breached by the Government. In doing that, they damage the reputation of this Parliament, and they damage the reputation of all parties here. This is a solemn breach, and they must mend it.

The overseas aid budget is our soft diplomacy around the world. We have heard many speak about that and about how other countries engage in much harsher and harder diplomacy—currency-led diplomacy. This is a soft diplomacy that shows that we care, that we are a passionate people. Removing and reducing it says more about who we are as a nation than it does about anyone else. I implore the Government to reconsider this matter urgently.

The Government have set out all their excuses from the Front Bench, but none of them add up economically, morally, or politically. I therefore say to them that they need to revisit this and revisit it fast. If they try to repair the damage, it will just cost them more money. They should just reverse the decision and put it right—just fix it. This is something that we as a nation can afford and that we want to pay for. This is taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers say that they want this to be done. We recognise that the UK economy is in a better place than we had expected, and so it can afford this. Let us keep our word as a Parliament. Let us keep our word as a nation. I implore the Government to keep their word and to deliver on their promise.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words, and I agree with him. This is the task that this Government will meet head-on, and it is right that it needs to be an ambitious goal that we set ourselves to meet. Like him, I share an eagerness to get on with it and keep going—and he will know, like me, that we are already doing it. Indeed, we are making the most of our new-found Brexit freedoms to launch freeports, for example, creating jobs and growth in innovative new industries in places such as Teesside, which both he and I know very well.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

I must now make some progress, because I am running out of time.

The Queen’s Speech gives people the skills they need to get good jobs and progress in their careers. Right now, 11 million adults in this country, nearly a third of our entire workforce, do not have a level 3 qualification. The Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee will change that, giving every adult flexible access to fully-funded, high-quality education throughout their lives, and this will have a transformational impact on people’s lives and livelihoods.

This Government believe that we should value equally every path to a good career, not just a degree, so the Queen’s Speech provides landmark reforms to post-16 education and training. As I have mentioned, we have doubled to £3,000 the incentive payments for employers to hire new apprentices, and we are reshaping the system around the needs of employers so that people can get training in the skills we know the economy will need now and into the future.

This Queen’s Speech delivers two critical pieces of Treasury-sponsored legislation. The National Insurance Contributions Bill will introduce new reliefs to encourage employers to employ veterans, to incentivise regeneration and job creation in freeports, and to provide relief on NHS Test and Trace payments. The public service pensions and judicial offices Bill will make sure that dedicated public servants are fairly rewarded for their service, while making sure that the system is affordable and sustainable into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom. Its people benefit and its economy benefits—they are part of the fifth-largest economy in the world. By contrast, after 100 years of independence and almost 50 years of membership of the European Union, the Republic of Ireland remains the poorest region of the British Isles. It has no national health service, 11% of its employees are in the public sector, and the rest of its economy is essentially a tax haven model, which washes through huge amounts of money for US corporations.

By contrast, Northern Ireland has significantly higher employment levels and a 20% higher standard of living than the Republic of Ireland, and of course we have the benefits of being part of the welfare state. Yes, we have a large public sector, which has cushioned us considerably during the pandemic, and which could not be supported by the Republic of Ireland if there was any move whatsoever towards a united Ireland. Therefore, Northern Ireland’s economic and social future rests surely and squarely with the Union. So, for all the talk of Irish unity, the stubborn fact remains that the Republic of Ireland could not afford Irish unity because the Union offers the people of Northern Ireland so much more.

It is important to say that during this year of our centenary because of the amount of attacks on the very existence of our country. Earlier today we had a question in this House about the state of Israel and Hamas wishing to wipe it off the map. As a member of a small state, I get that—I understand that—because there is clearly an agenda to abuse Northern Ireland by saying it should not really exist. Well, I am proud it exists, and I am proud that this Queen’s Speech will help us continue to grow our economy as part of this Union. It is important to say that.

However, the first and second quarters of this year have created significant challenges for Northern Ireland. One of the issues was dealing with the pandemic, which was well beyond the Government’s control, but the second issue is, of course, the Northern Ireland protocol, which unfortunately has blighted business opportunity for the first two quarters of this year.

I welcome Lord Frost’s comments earlier this week that the protocol is not sustainable, but once again we need more than just words. We have had lots of words. The Prime Minister told businesses they could “bin” the protocol; well, they can’t. The Secretary of State told us it would be light touch; it isn’t. We are now being told it is not sustainable. Well, if that is the case, I and my country would like to see actions over the unsustainable protocol. It needs to be put away, to put businesses out of their misery in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to invoke article 16 and make sure we can move on from the societal and economic hardship that has been caused single-handedly by that protocol. I hope we can do that and do it fast. The people and parties who want to keep the protocol for a political points-scoring exercise while businesses suffer only seek to prove that Northern Ireland is somehow different, without realising that it is that difference that prevents the normalisation of both politics and our economy.

I hope we can build on the promises in this Queen’s Speech, and I hope we can build on the bus building promises. The Government have an awful lot to do to meet the predicted 4,000 buses to be built during this Parliament, so they really need to get a move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) when he is talking about his work on the all-party parliamentary beer group, of which I am a proud member, but less of that for now.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to ban conversion therapy. I hope that that legislation will sail through the House, as long as the Government get it right. I also give a cautious welcome to the draft Online Safety Bill, for which we have been calling for many years. I just hope that the Government avoid their usual failing of caving in to the demands of foreign big tech companies.

I am extremely worried about the Government’s proposals to introduce a requirement for photographic voter ID. Let us call it what it is: it is voter suppression. It is straight out of the Trump playbook. It is sinister and authoritarian, and it will be opposed in this House.

[Ian Paisley]

I understand some of the hostility about this, but it was a Labour Government who imposed photographic voter ID on Northern Ireland, and it has actually increased voter turnout and reduced fraud. Let us not scare-tactic people out of their democratic franchise.

[Christian Matheson]

It was introduced in Northern Ireland because there was a specific issue, which the hon. Gentleman obviously knows about, concerning another political party, where there was clear, identified fraud. In the 2019 election, 49 million votes were cast and there was one conviction for fraud. This is not a problem and it does not require a solution.

There is too much left out of this Queen’s Speech. There is nothing on cladding for fire safety victims and those who are trapped in housing that is now worthless. There is very little on leasehold. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), my constituency neighbour, in his place. His leading work on this issue, along with others including the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), has been outstanding, and I pay tribute to him. Instead, we get a planning free-for-all, which Government Members have referred to, that will cause chaos locally and, frankly, line the pockets of big Tory donors. There is nothing on energy-neutral building standards and changes to building regs to make housing built to tougher environmental standards. In fact, as we have heard, apart from rolling over the Environment Bill, there is very little on environmentalism and a green recovery.

There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech for local government, which has been at the forefront of the community pandemic response. The Government have chopped £9 billion off social care and local government has had to pick up that tab. I say to Ministers that they must not use local government to pay off the debts from the pandemic that will need to be paid off. In Cheshire West and Chester, we have lost £337 million in the past decade. Just recently, the Government cut 20% from the money to fix potholes, which is one of the Government’s big schemes.

We know the modus operandi of this Government when it comes to cuts. They cut the budget of the local council or the public authority—police or fire, for example—and then, when the local authority is unable to deliver the services, they criticise the local authority for having to reduce the quality of service. If that public authority has to increase council tax, the police precept or whatever it is as a result, they criticise it for putting up council tax to make good on the cuts the Tory Government have imposed. It is dishonest, and there is a dishonesty that runs through this Government.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box:

“We understand this crucial point: we find flair, imagination, enthusiasm and genius distributed evenly throughout this country, while opportunity is not. We mean to change that, because it is not just a moral and social disgrace, but an economic mistake and a criminal waste of talent.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 18.]

He is absolutely right, but the Conservatives have been in power for 11 years and the Prime Minister has been a member of the Government for most of that time. Since I have been here, they change their leaders every couple of years like some kind of tinpot regime and try to pretend that all of a sudden they are a new Government. But just as a snake will change its skin, slither away and is still the same snake, it is still the same Conservatives in charge trying to deny everything they caused in the first place. It is dishonest. They cannot abrogate their own failings. They should stop blaming everyone else for their own failings.

Finally, let me turn to fire and rehire, which has been a scandal of this pandemic. If employers came to trade unions and said, “We’ve got a problem. The bottom has fallen out of our business. Let’s work together and solve this together,” then trade unions would have gone for that. Instead, we see this awful practice. One of my hon. Friends spoke earlier about British Gas. Loyal and skilled employees with 15 to 20 years of service are being fired and rehired on worse conditions. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech on that. The Minister responsible himself called it “bully boy tactics”, and he is absolutely right, but now is the time in the pandemic when it is becoming so common that legislation must be brought forward to ban this dreadful practice. If I am fortunate enough to win the private Members’ Bill ballot, I will bring forward legislation. I hope the Government will back me.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I did not want to cut her off in mid-flow; she is making a brilliant speech. I hope that, when the Government respond to the points being made tonight, they will take the opportunity—I agree absolutely with what she has just said about Anglesey—to affirm that Northern Ireland will be entitled to a freeport and that it will not be blocked because of the arrangements that we have with the protocol and the EU.

[Virginia Crosbie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Unfortunately, despite all the good reasons I have for bringing a freeport to Anglesey, the Welsh bidding process has not yet started. The Welsh First Minister has cited concerns about economic displacement, but my biggest concern is the economic displacement that will occur when trade that could have come to Anglesey goes instead to one of the eight English freeports announced in the Chancellor’s Budget. Ports such as Liverpool are already six months ahead of us in this process.

I absolutely support the Finance Bill and the opportunities that it gives the UK now that we are free from the shackles of Europe. I look forward to seeing Anglesey become a freeport, attracting new investment and creating the good, quality jobs that the island so desperately needs and deserves.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Was the Minister as amazed as I was by a complete absence from the rhetoric of the Scottish National party? It has been calling for the same special arrangements for Scotland that Northern Ireland has, but now that we have seen what the protocol actually means, no one actually wants it. May I encourage the Minister and Lord Frost to continue to push back on the protocol and repair the damage that has been done by it?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman has my assurances that we will continue discussions within the framework of the joint agreement. He knows that there is tremendous concern about and focus on those issues. But no, I was not surprised by some of the things that were missing from the Scottish National party’s opening remarks. I was not surprised that there was no offer to help the efforts to resolve these issues for business. Businesses in Scotland want their representatives to do that. They do not want political grandstanding about another referendum. They want the Scottish Government to focus on improving the situation and not to be distracted by scandal.

Vaccine Passports

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and thank you for that warning about time. I hope not to detain the House that long, but I will make a few brief comments.

I welcome the debate because it is an opportunity for the Government vigorously to reinforce the view that they are not going to introduce vaccine passports. I hope that they use this platform to state that they will not do so, because such passports would be a complete and total overreaction, and they are completely and totally unnecessary.

The vaccine roll-out has been positive—a success for the UK. We had a similar response with respect to the flu vaccine, but no one would say that people must have a passport to prove that they have had that particular vaccine, even though flu takes many lives in the United Kingdom each winter. It would be a complete and total overreaction for Members to stand up and demand such a passport for people who had received the flu vaccine. We do not need such passports, which would become supplementary identity cards.

I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about the Republic of Ireland’s kneejerk reaction today to stop rolling out the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. That is more about the failure of the Republic of Ireland to have its own successful vaccine roll-out programme than it is about anything else. I understand that about 17 million people across Europe have received that vaccine, and from those 17 million vaccines, there have been only about 31 adverse effects. That is a remarkable state of affairs, and what we have seen in the Republic of Ireland is more to do with politics than it is to do with science.

Like the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I believe that vaccine passports would lead to a two-tier society and would increase opportunities to discriminate. That would be abundantly wrong. I agree that we cannot legislate for what other countries do. If we want to go to certain countries, we might have to have a vaccine passport, or proof that we have received a vaccine, but that is a matter for those countries. All we can do is implore them to be proportionate and responsible in what they do. We should not pursue vaccine passports domestically, however. If airlines or other countries decide to do this, that is of course a matter for them, but we should implore those countries and organisations to demonstrate proportionality in what they do.

Our civil liberties are something we should cherish, and we should not throw them away so quickly for others to manage for us because they know better. The people know what is best and we should guard our civil liberties with care.

Economic Update

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Chancellor for his statement. Northern Ireland is facing a double whammy. First, we are coping with the economic consequences of covid, and we thank the Chancellor for the help with that, but at the same time we are also trying to deal with a protocol that is crippling businesses in Northern Ireland. South of the border, the Irish revenue authorities have said that all companies can circumvent customs to deal with this problem, but on our side of the border, HMRC is increasing the red tape. This protocol is an unmitigated disaster. Personal protective equipment can no longer get into Northern Ireland. Foodstuffs cannot get into Northern Ireland. Marks & Spencer has produced a list of 400 goods it will not bring into Northern Ireland. We now must invoke article 16, and I encourage the Chancellor to do that. I am sure that the Scots Nats are delighted they do not have a protocol now.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for registering some of those issues with me. I know that he and other colleagues are speaking to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about individual issues, and I will be sure to follow up with him later today. The hon. Gentleman will know, and I hope it is helpful, that we funded with £200 million a trader support service, which is helping businesses in Northern Ireland to adjust to the new arrangements. I think 25,000 at the last count had signed up, and I know that the response has been pretty good, but there is always more we can do, and I look forward to talking to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster later.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Again, that does not surprise me, because most Members on the Opposition Benches wish, first, that the referendum had never happened; secondly, that the result had not been as it was; and thirdly, that they could find some Machiavellian way to undermine it, as they have been doing for the last number of years. It is unfortunate that we are in the position that we are partly because the EU knows that there are people in this Parliament who will undermine the Government’s negotiating position. That, of course, makes it more difficult for the Government to negotiate. I do not give that as a justification for some of the things that the Government have agreed to in the withdrawal agreement, whether they relate to Northern Ireland or to the impact on the rest of the United Kingdom; to me, the withdrawal agreement is poison that will infect any future trade arrangements that we might get with the EU.

The point that I am making is that protections are needed because the EU has taken the withdrawal agreement. Even where the agreement does give some latitude to allow the internal market of the United Kingdom not to be disrupted and the economy of Northern Ireland not to be undermined, the EU has refused to give that interpretation. In fact, it has done the exact opposite and looked for the most draconian interpretation of the agreement. Only last Friday, the EU insisted that anyone travelling from GB to Northern Ireland would have to have their personal baggage searched to ensure that they were not taking any contraband into Northern Ireland, despite the fact that article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that the “nature and value” of the goods should be considered.

I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) can understand that when she and the Labour party table amendments such as the one she moved today, saying that the withdrawal agreement must be guarded and protected at all costs, she is in effect saying, “We put the value of this piece of paper above the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.” This is putting that piece of paper above the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to have the range of goods that they want and at the best prices, and above the interests of businesses that export from Northern Ireland to GB. In effect, that is what her amendment says.

I am even more amazed that any representative from Northern Ireland dares to put their name to that amendment. I wonder what the consumers and businesses in their constituency think about somebody who values protection of the EU, and an agreement that the EU has with the UK, above the interests of their constituents.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Republic of Ireland’s interests with regards to Northern Ireland are many times predatory in terms of our businesses? They wish to stifle the competition that exists on the island and to stifle the thrifty economy of Northern Ireland. They have done so in many ways and the withdrawal agreement gives them further opportunity to do that.

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes, the worrying thing is that, with the withdrawal agreement in place, Northern Ireland is subject to laws made in Europe—laws into which the Irish Republic will have an input; laws into which, because we have left, the UK will have no input; laws into which Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no input. We are at the mercy of those who wish to engage in this predatory behaviour and use EU legislation to damage Northern Ireland.

That is why the protections are needed. The protections that I would like to see in the Bill—unfortunately, it appears the Government are prepared to withdraw the protections before they have even introduced the Bill—would apply where the EU insists that goods that come into Northern Ireland have tariffs and would have tariffs imposed on them if they were going into the EU. That barrier should not be in place. Northern Irish consumers and businesses which bring in goods that will clearly be sold and consumed in Northern Ireland should not have to pay those taxes. I heard what the Minister said. It appears that, even with the Bill, he is not ruling that out. If I noted him correctly, he said that there would be a waiver where tariffs are incurred that should not have been incurred. He is almost admitting that, in the Bill that he has introduced, there will be provision to repay those tariffs. However, producers in Northern Ireland will find themselves in a situation where they have to pay EU tariffs, prove that the goods on which they paid the tariffs did not go into the EU, and then get the money back.

That presents a number of problems. First, the trade itself is not free. Secondly, the business that has to pay the tax has a cash-flow issue. Thirdly, there are additional administrative costs involved in proving that some of the goods on which it paid tax did not leave Northern Ireland. If there is anything that will put a chill on trade between GB and Northern Ireland, it is that. I am concerned—perhaps the Minister in his response will be able to give me some comfort—that the Bill, even though it will carry some protections, still does not give that absolute protection for businesses in Northern Ireland because of the terms of the protocol. I could provide many other examples of the EU’s draconian interpretation of the Bill. Someone who takes their pets from GB to Northern Ireland would be affected, or someone going on holiday there. Someone taking their pet from Northern Ireland to a dog show in Scotland will now have to have a pet passport, a rabies vaccination, and all the documentation surrounding that—probably about £400 a trip, yet we are part of the United Kingdom.

That is why protections are needed. I implore the Minister—I know what has been said in the statement today—not to remove the notwithstanding clauses in the Bill until it is sure that the issues that are likely to arise have been dealt with properly, because we have not even seen the detail of the particular things that have been agreed.

In conclusion, it is a pity that we do not have the detail of this Bill today. It is a pity that we do not have the assurances. I note what the Minister said about the VAT regime, which is that Northern Ireland businesses will remain under the UK VAT regime. That is true, but what he failed to say was that, as a result of the Bill, they will not also remain under the EU VAT regime. Article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it clear that we will and that has all kinds of implications. We have to have two different VAT systems. We have to have different means of VAT recording. Will we be subject to the EU conditions when it comes to VAT exemptions, or the various tiers of VAT rates? Will the EU exemptions for small businesses apply to Northern Ireland—the €85,000 or whatever it is—so that small businesses find themselves caught in a net that they would not have found themselves caught in had we been truly under the UK VAT system? It is not enough to say that we will remain under the UK VAT system. The important thing is: will we be exempt from article 8 of the protocol as a result of the measures in the Bill?

Those are the kind of issues that people in Northern Ireland are looking for. Traders in Northern Ireland—people who sell used cars, for example—will now be subject to EU rules. It used to be that they incurred only the marginal VAT rate, on the profit made on the car. Now the VAT rate will apply to the whole price of the car, putting up the price of second-hand cars for people in Northern Ireland. They will be paying above what they would pay if they lived in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Perhaps in his summing up, the Minister can let us know whether the Government are addressing any of those issues, because those are the issues that concern my constituents and those are the issues that stem from this protocol. That is why this protocol is poisonous to the internal market of the United Kingdom.

Economic Update

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we provide as many opportunities for young people as possible. One thing we want to improve and build on is the involvement of the private sector. I hope that this becomes a galvanising cry to businesses, small and large, up and down the country to take on a kick-starter to help play their part in the recovery, and I know that this is an area in which he has strong experience from his time in London. I appreciate the advice and suggestions that he has given me about how to encourage and incentivise businesses to create jobs and opportunity.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I take the opportunity to say thank you, Chancellor? I am already receiving text messages from my constituents— from the business community and from ordinary men and women—saying thank you to the Chancellor for some of the measures that have been announced today. So, thank you, Sir. It is a very important statement that you have made and it will benefit many of my constituents. Last week, the Prime Minister told us from the Dispatch Box that the Government were going to invest massively in hydrogen power. The Chancellor had me on tenterhooks. I was waiting for the statement. I was waiting for him to tell me that the new hydrogen strategy is about to be announced. It has not come, so he still has me on tenterhooks. Will he now commit solidly, on behalf of the Government and of the Treasury, to unlock that strategy that will unlock £1.5 billion of investment money in the whole of the United Kingdom. Invest billions of pounds into this new strategy and that will allow us to commit, as a nation, to this new, clean, green technology? Will the Chancellor meet me and colleagues—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Paisley—

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you.

[Mr Speaker]

No, not thank you. You are going to stay on those tenterhooks. You will be on them for a long time if you do that again. [Laughter.]

Draft Northern Ireland Banknote (Designation of Authorised Bank) Regulations 2020

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 General Committees

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

When the Minister introduced the statutory instrument, he suggested that there was a real cultural advantage for Scotland and Northern Ireland in having these different notes. Of course there is a cultural advantage, but there is also—let us face reality—a commercial issue, too, and a commercial advantage for the banks. They have the privilege of printing their own advertising on notes and currency, and I wonder whether the Government have considered reviewing the entire process, to consider whether it is fair for the banks to have that commercial advantage. For many people, the jury will be out on this issue; many other people may not have considered it. However, it is an issue that should ultimately be reviewed.

All the main banks in Northern Ireland and Scotland are able to issue bank notes; that is a long-standing arrangement, enabled by legislation, which I think was most recently reviewed in 2009. Now, more than 10 years later, there is an opportunity to review it again.

Banks have traditionally used the notes to showcase Northern Ireland. I have brought some samples with me today; I will not distribute them around the room, for fear that I will not get them back. I cannot complain about that showcasing. The Bank of Ireland has on some of its notes the Old Bushmills distillery, which happens to be in my constituency of North Antrim. On another note, it has the Giant’s Causeway, which also happens to be in my constituency. It is a fine tradition to have these places showcased on our notes. Danske Bank has a picture of John Dunlop, the inventor of the pneumatic tyre, on some of its notes, and other banks have on their notes a picture of Harry Ferguson, the inventor of the Ferguson tractor, who also hailed from Ulster.

Bank notes provide a really good opportunity to showcase the various attributes of Ulster, but I wonder whether the Government have any say whatsoever over what banks choose to put on bank notes. Will the regulations enable the Ulster Bank to change the artwork on its new notes? If so, will the Government have a say in that, and will they decide whether this process should be open to competition? What is the process if the bank chooses to change what is represented on its notes?

Covid highlighted a concern for banks in Northern Ireland. A key focus of local government’s covid-19 planning was to consider whether there was a risk of interruption to the availability of cash in Northern Ireland. Members will know that in the very early stages of lockdown, many constituents used cash more often than before; there was high demand for cash. That situation brought with it a security issue for Northern Ireland: any movement of large amounts of Bank of England notes into the banks in Northern Ireland would pose a security risk. The changes brought about by the regulations therefore impact on security; we must make sure that we are safe from an interruption in the supply of bank notes, including by criminal elements. This mitigates the risk of the Bank of England having to hold very large stocks of bank notes in Northern Ireland, or having to transport large stocks of bank notes to Northern Ireland at short notice.

The Committee should note the commercial benefit of bank notes to banks. The Bank of England’s base rate is 0.1%. Any interest income is more than offset by the cost of producing the bank notes and supplying them to the Bank of Ireland, and to ATMs and bank branches across Northern Ireland. There is a cost to all that. Will the Minister ensure that it continues to be picked up by the banks, and not by us, the consumers, or by people who need access to cash? It is becoming much harder to find ATMs. Making sure that our constituents have ready access to cash is important, and they should not be charged extra for the privilege of having very nice advertising for Northern Ireland on their notes.

The final issue is the level of inconvenience. As you hail from Scotland, Mr Mundell, you will know about this, though no taxi driver would dare refuse a Bank of Scotland note from you. If a taxi driver in London tells me that the currency I have in my pocket is not acceptable, I tell them that the Chancellor takes it from me every month in sizeable amounts, so he will certainly accept it. However, some of my countrymen are a bit more shy and not so bold, and they sometimes feel that it is inconvenient to have such notes when they travel to our mainland. When they go to spend them in shops, sometimes they are refused; that can be a problem. If we do not want people to stop carrying these notes, would it not be appropriate for banks that want the privilege of their own notes to ensure that those notes are widely advertised in shops and commercial premises, so that people in Great Britain feel comfortable accepting Northern Ireland notes, as they do Bank of England and Bank of Scotland notes? Those are my thoughts.